Mr. Eisenberg. Compared with the test cartridge case?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; this is the photograph, showing the test cartridge case from Exhibit 557 on the right and the cartridge case 543 on the left.
Mr. Eisenberg. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman?
Representative Boggs. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 559 and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, that is marked on the left C-14, and on the right, C-6.
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. And the left-hand photograph is a photograph of what?
Mr. Frazier. Of the cartridge case 543.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is the actual fired case?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; it shows just a portion of the primer, and a very small portion of the firing-pin impression.
Mr. Eisenberg. And the right-hand side of that photograph, marked C-6?
Mr. Frazier. It is a test cartridge case, fired in the rifle Exhibit 139.
Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Approximately 100 diameters.
Mr. Eisenberg. And is that magnification equal on both sides of the picture?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you make your identification of Exhibit 543, that is the identification of that exhibit as having been fired in the rifle 139, on the basis of your examination under the microscope, or on the basis of the photograph?
Mr. Frazier. Under the microscope. The photograph has no relationship whatsoever to the examination.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain that?
Mr. Frazier. The examination is made microscopically through the use of your eyes, and your eyes will record depths and shapes to a much greater extent than can be shown in a photograph. So that the examination and comparison is made of these irregular surfaces mentally, rather than mechanically by any means. The photograph is taken primarily to illustrate the types of marks found and their location, relatively, on the specimen.
Representative Boggs. We will have to adjourn and come back at 2.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
The President's Commission reconvened at 2:10 p.m.
Mr. McCloy. You are still under oath, you know.
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. I would like to begin by clearing up a few items which have been covered or left open during the morning session.
First, you were going to supply us with certain figures concerning the times which were taken by two of the Agents to fire three shots in the first series of tests which were made for determining the accuracy of the firing under rapid-fire conditions.
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; that was at two targets. The first one I gave you—Killion fired in 9 seconds. The other was a target marked Cunningham and Frazier. Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target, assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those calculations now?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may or may not be exactly accurate.
But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the intended spot on the target. At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or 6.1 inches.
I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop in the amount of lead.
And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the bullet.
Mr. Eisenberg. And did you convert those lead distances into the amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head, above the point of the target?
Mr. Frazier. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4 feet.
Mr. Eisenberg. And that table also shows leads at other car speeds?
Mr. Frazier. This table—I could calculate them—it only shows miles per hour translated into feet per second.
Mr. Eisenberg. I mean, does it show various miles per hour?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; it shows miles per hour in feet per second.
Mr. Eisenberg. Without going into detail at this time, may I have permission to introduce this table into evidence?
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. This will be Commission Exhibit 560.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 560 was received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Frazier, in the construction of this table and also in your last tests for rapid fire for this rifle, you used a five-and-a-half second figure as a factor in your calculations, and in your attempt at rapid fire accuracy placements. Can you give us the source of that figure?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. You were the source of it, based on examination, as I understood it, of a movie taken at the scene, and measurements taken at the scene. However, I have no knowledge of the actual time.
Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, I just wanted to establish that this is a source that was supplied by the Commission and which is tentative, and it is not to imply any final conclusion on the part of the FBI; is that correct?
Mr. Frazier. I hope it is taken that way, because we don't know what the time actually was.
Mr. Eisenberg. Another point then, which should have been covered this morning, Mr. Frazier, in your qualifications: have you testified before in court?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; I have.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you estimate the number of times?
Mr. Frazier. Approximately 400 times.
Mr. Eisenberg. Finally, we had discussed briefly your examination of consecutively manufactured bolt faces to see whether any two such consecutively manufactured bolt faces were identical in their microscopic characteristics. How many such examinations have you performed.
Mr. Frazier. I would say about four examinations of pairs of bolt faces which have been consecutively manufactured.
Mr. Eisenberg. And in each case the result was what?
Mr. Frazier. The marks on one bolt face in no way resembled the marks on the other bolt face.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a microscope, and that is also known as C-6 and C-14, is that right?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the markings which you have seen under the microscope and on the basis of which you made your identification?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the 139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission Exhibit 543 on the right side.
The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature, that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on the two specimens themselves.
Mr. Eisenberg. Referring for a second to this mental, visual, comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms training—firearms-identification training—be able to look under a microscope and make a determination for himself concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a given weapon?
Mr. Frazier. In that connection that person could look through the microscope. He may or may not see these individual characteristics which are present, because he does not know what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your mind going back and forth between one area and the other until you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.
If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a layman could make?
Mr. Frazier. I would say so; yes. I don't think a layman would recognize some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown in the photographs as actually being significant or not significant, because there will be things present which have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case in the gun.
There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and there are no marks registered at that point as a result of the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the absence of similar marks.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you, which is 559——
Mr. Frazier. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?
Mr. Frazier. No.
Mr. Eisenberg. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not identical to explain why you would get such a result?
Mr. Frazier. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle 4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the photograph.
On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which runs through there, having an entirely different appearance from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other cartridge case.
In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the marks that are present.
Mr. Eisenberg. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Back on the record.
Mr. Frazier, could you discuss or characterize those points which you have circled on Commission Exhibit 559, starting from the top?
Mr. Frazier. Number 1 circle is drawn around a depression in the metal of irregular shape. I might say that number 1 shows on the right side of the photograph, and only half of it shows on the left side because of the relative position of the two cartridge cases in the photograph.
Number 2 is a circle drawn around a long line which extends obliquely across each cartridge case from the upper left to the lower right. The long line itself is a means of orienting the cartridge cases one with the other, but the circle is drawn around a break in that line in the form of a very small hump or an absence of metal which shows up as an actual break in the long line.
Number 3 again is a depression between two grooves, which is rather similar in shape. I cannot tell you how deep it is because the photograph only shows two dimensions. But on the cartridge cases it has a very characteristic depth to it, which is readily apparent.
It is formed by two parallel lines extending from the upper left to the lower, towards the lower right, with the depression in between, and again one side of the depression is formed by a small raised area in the primer metal which is seen in each photograph as a conical, almost a conical-shaped bump or raised area.
Number 4 is another raised portion on the photograph. In connection with 4, I would like to point out that a portion of this bump has been erased from the test cartridge case on the left-hand side of the photograph, the erasure caused by the turning of the bolt of the weapon while being pressed against the primer, which has smoothed off some of the protruding rough areas on the primer.
Number 5 is a horizontal ridge which has two depressions, one on the top and one on the bottom, shown on both sides of the photograph, and number 6 is a wishbone type of ridge, a wide ridge which divides into two smaller ridges on the left-hand edge, and in the middle of the dividing lines, the forked lines, is a small dent or raised portion. Those six which I have marked are only portions of those shown in the photograph, and of course the photograph does not show the entire surface of the primer.
Mr. Eisenberg. Were you able to find identifying marks on the brass as well as the primer on this cartridge case?
Mr. Frazier. No; I did not notice any marks on the brass portions outside of the primer.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is that typical of cartridge-case identification?
Mr. Frazier. Generally that is true, unless there is a great pressure, unless the brass of the cartridge case is soft, or unless the marks are very sharp on the breech face; then they will be impressed into the brass.
Mr. Eisenberg. This picture represents only a portion of the primer. You examined the entire primer to make your identification?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. And found?
Mr. Frazier. It would not have been necessary to examine the entire primer necessarily, but of course we do examine the entire primer, pick out all of the marks on the left and the right, and rotate the cartridge cases and look at them from various angles, before arriving at a conclusion.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you amplify the meaning of the statement that it would not be necessary to examine the entire primer?
Mr. Frazier. There are sufficient marks shown in this photograph upon which to base an identification. In other words, it would not be necessary to have the rest of the primer if it had been mutilated or destroyed or something of that nature.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you also examine the firing-pin impression in the cartridge?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take a picture of that examination?
Mr. Frazier. Yes. Here is the photograph of the firing-pin impression, again on the left the rifle, and on the right the cartridge case, Commission's 543.
Mr. Eisenberg. That bears the number C-14 and C-6, corresponding to the numbers on Commission Exhibit 559?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; it does.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take this photograph or have it taken under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr. Frazier. 90 diameters.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is it equal on both sides?
Mr. Frazier. Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 561.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 561 was received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you proceed with the discussion of the circled marks on this photograph, number 561?
Mr. Frazier. In the case of firing-pin impressions which are shown on Exhibit 561, the marks result from two related sources; excuse me, not sources, but from two related causes, one being the force given to the firing pin driving it into the primer to set off the cartridge, and the second being the force of the powder charge inside the cartridge being driven back—driving the primer back against the firing pin at the same time, so that the metal of the primer is caused to flow or be stamped by the firing pin and pressed against by the gases, so that any irregularities in the firing pin will be impressed into the primer of the cartridge case.
Number 1 consists of a double horizontal line, one a fairly wide coarse line at the top. Immediately under that approximately one-eighth of an inch is a fairly fine horizontal line.
Circled and marked number 2 is a very coarse, wide ridge, very short in length, approximately one-half an inch, and an eighth to a quarter of an inch in height. This ridge is formed by two grooves, a straight groove across the top, and a curved or crescent-shaped groove across the bottom.
Number 3 is a circle drawn around two small raised areas in the primer metal separated by a depression.
Number 4 is a section from a large ridge across the metal of the primer, which has a break in its surface in the lower portion of the circle, and immediately above the break is a groove, and immediately above that again is another ridge which is at a little steeper angle upwards to the left.
Number 5 is a depression, is a portion of a depression appearing at the bottom of the circle with a very short ridge running horizontally across the circle.
Mr. Eisenberg. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of dissimilarities?
Mr. Frazier. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces.
Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear, whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures are the same or not.
So I don't think we can say that it is an absence of dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.
Mr. Eisenberg. Any further questions on this cartridge case?
Mr. McCloy. No.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, you have testified also that you identified the cartridge case which is Exhibit 544 as having been fired from this rifle, in this rifle, to the exclusion of all others. Did you take a photograph of the comparison that you made under the microscope of number 544?
Mr. Frazier. Yes. I again took two photographs, one of the breech-face or bolt-face marks, and one of the firing-pin marks.
Mr. Eisenberg. This exhibit which I am holding is a picture of the breech-face marks?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. And was that taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. Eisenberg. And the magnification here is what?
Mr. Frazier. 90 diameters.
Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. That will be number 562, Mr. Reporter.
(The item described as Commission Exhibit No. 562 was received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you discuss the markings on this picture, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. In Commission Exhibit 562, there is again the vertical dividing line which is the top of the prism in the microscope which divides your view. On the left hand side is a portion of the primer and a portion of the head of the test cartridge case from Exhibit 139. On the right side of the photograph is a portion of the surface of the primer and a portion of the firing-pin impression of the cartridge case, Commission Exhibit 544.
To assist in pointing out on the photograph some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are present, I have had circles drawn, circling at the top, number 1, an oval-shaped depression in the metal, having an irregularly shaped or wavy ridge across the bottom of the circle. Immediately below that is another ridge which has a flat top, and is more or less of a diamond shape.
Number 3 circle is over a very coarse, wide ridge separated by two fairly deep grooves on each side.
Number 4 circle is over a conical-shaped raised portion on the primer which represents a dent in the metal of the bolt face, and number 5 again is a raised area on the primer which is a portion of a ridge. In this instance this is more or less of a compound ridge which runs horizontally with a small break in it pointing down toward the lower left.
Mr. McCloy. Is that same break apparent in the left hand photograph?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; it is. Looking very closely and right at the hairline, you can see the break in the ridge where it forms more or less of a Y. The actual connecting point is not present, but you can see the portion of the ridge as it heads towards the horizontal ridge. The hairline has separated that portion of it.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would you call these marks strongly characteristic marks, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Oh, yes; very characteristic. They are primarily characteristic because of their irregular shape. If they had been regular in shape, it wouldn't have meant nearly as much as it does to have the irregular rough surfaces and contours of the marks.
Mr. Eisenberg. I think you have identified the next picture I am holding as having been taken by you?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; it was. That is a 70-diameter magnification photograph of Exhibit 544 on the right, and the test from the rifle on the left.
Mr. Eisenberg. And this bears the numbers C-14 and C-7, and is a firing-pin photograph?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. May this firing-pin mark photograph be admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is 563.
(The item was numbered 563, and was received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you review that photograph, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. In Exhibit 563 the test cartridge case representing the rifle is on the left side of the photograph, and shows most of the firing-pin impression in that cartridge case. Five circles have been drawn over towards the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression, and five similarly located circles have been drawn over the area at the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression of Exhibit 544.
Mr. Eisenberg. Which is actually the left-hand side of the right-hand part of the picture?
Mr. Frazier. It would be—that is right; at the dividing line, the circles on 544 are drawn close to the dividing line, which shows only a very small portion of the firing pin of that cartridge case.
Beginning with number 1, it has a gently sloping ridge running from upper left toward lower right in each instance, with a break in the ridge contour at the middle in the form of an extension upwards toward the top of the photograph.
In number 2 there is a circle drawn around the end of a very long line in the left-hand side of the photograph. The circle is drawn to show a Y-shaped break in this line located on both cartridge cases.
Number 3 is a photograph of an irregular-shaped raised portion on the firing-pin impression, which is very difficult to describe in words.
Number 4 is a groove extending from upper right to lower left which has a break in its lower side to allow a horizontal groove to come in towards the main groove. The lower portion of that groove coming in from the lower side is in the form of a crescent-shaped ridge, which starts horizontally from the left and then falls off towards the lower right-hand side of the photograph.
The circle, number 5, is again a Y-shaped or wishbone-shaped ridge, with a horizontal bar on the right, and then extending ridges upward toward the left and downward to the left.
Mr. Eisenberg. Again, are these firing-pin marks what you would call strongly characteristic?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; I would say so.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does the firing pin give any evidence of having been altered subsequent to the original manufacture?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; only in an accidental sort of way, that is, very fine scratches which may have been caused by firing or dirt on a cartridge or something which may have scratched the firing pin.
Mr. Eisenberg. Are firing-pin marks usually as characteristic of a given cartridge case as the primer marks?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; I would say they are as characteristic. However, they may not always be as evident, they may not be seen as readily. However, they are just as characteristic.
Mr. McCloy. Just to repeat again, what is this side of this picture? What does this represent?
Mr. Frazier. That represents the rifle cartridge.
Mr. McCloy. The rifle cartridge itself?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCloy. And this on the right?
Mr. Frazier. This is one of the three cartridge cases recovered from the building, Exhibit 544.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, you fired two test cartridges in the rifle, is that correct?
Mr. Frazier. We fired several test cartridge cases. These two are the ones that were used in the comparisons.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you fire several for possible comparison purposes, or only two for possible comparison purposes?
Mr. Frazier. Those we fired were in the time-fire test and we retained some of those for possible use in comparing, but it was not necessary to use them, actually.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you use both of these test cartridge cases in the photographs, or only one of them?
Mr. Frazier. I could not tell by these photographs. We did not make any distinction when we were comparing tests with the evidence as to which test cartridge case we were using.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you made your selection among cartridge cases to select the items which would be used as test cases for comparison purposes, were the items you rejected much different from those you selected?
Mr. Frazier. No. The marks were generally the same on all of them. Those we used in this comparison were two tests which we fired on November 23d and used them in our tests—made our examination, our identification.
Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of the other tests that were made.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you just as easily have used other of the items from your original November twenty——
Mr. Frazier. Oh, yes; yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Getting to the last cartridge case, Exhibit 545, did you take a photograph of the exhibit together with the test case under the microscope after making your identification?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; I did. This photograph shows that cartridge case 545 on the right, and the test cartridge case from the rifle, 139, on the left.
Mr. Eisenberg. This is marked on the right C-38 and on the left C-14?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Again this is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. And that is of the primer?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; it is.
Mr. Eisenberg. And you have a second photograph here also, marked C-14 and C-38, also taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. And this is of the markings of the firing pin?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; it is.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you give us the magnification first of the primer-markings photograph?
Mr. Frazier. That is 100 diameters enlargement on the primer, and on the firing-pin it is 80 diameters.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now in all the cases of the photographs you have given us, the magnifications are equal on both sides, are they?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; they are.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted into evidence?
Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. They will be 564 and 565.
(The items, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 564 and 565, were received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you discuss the photograph, Exhibit 564 please, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Exhibit 564 is again, a portion of the primer of the cartridge case fired by me in the rifle number 139 appearing on the left side of the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, and on the right side a portion of the surface of the cartridge case, Exhibit 545, showing its primer and the marks on it.
In the photograph four circles, or portions of circles, have been drawn, circling some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are found which permitted identifying the two cartridge cases as having been fired in the same weapon.
In the upper circle are again two ridges separated by a groove, the lower right-hand end of which is blocked by a raised portion in the metal of the primer.
Circle number 2 is again a depression bounded on the top by a long sloping groove, sloping from the upper left subsequently to the lower right.
In circle number 3 there is a series of ridges running horizontally across the photograph. The lowest of these three ridges is a rather wide round-topped ridge.
Circle number 4 shows the left-hand side of a figure which you could roughly call a Z in the primer, which consists of a horizontal or nearly horizontal line running from left to right which meets a second line running from right down to the left, which again meets a third line which runs from the left to the right. This is shown in both photographs as the three lines which form the shape of a Z on the primer.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, on this photograph there is shown a mark at approximately 3 o'clock on the left-hand side of the picture, and 9 o'clock on the right-hand side, and the marks seem to be different in the two pictures, being broader on the left-hand, C-14, than on the right, C-38. Could you explain the genesis of the difference? It seems to extend further down.
Mr. Frazier. Approximately in the center of the photograph where the two images meet, there is a scraped area which is the result of the surface of the metal of the bolt scraping the surface of the primer as the bolt was turned in opening the bolt to extract the cartridge.
On the test cartridge case, this area is much broader and coarser because the bolt was pressing more tightly against the primer when it was turned. On the evidence cartridge case, the marks are relatively fine, separated, and even show portions of the surface of the primer in between the circular marks left by the rotating bolt. The reason is that this primer was not being pressed as tightly against the bolt at the time it was turned.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would that be due to differences in the construction of the cartridge—the two cartridges?
Mr. Frazier. It could be differences in the cartridge, but primarily it would be a difference in the amount of setback of the cartridge against the bolt at the time it was fired.
If a cartridge is slightly away from the bolt when it is fired, the primer is blown back out of the cartridge. As the pressure builds up, the cartridge then moves back and reseats the primer in the primer pocket. The manner in which that movement of the primer out and back in is accomplished determines how tightly the primer will bear against the face of the breach after the cartridge has been fired.
It could be that, and it could be just a slight difference in the hardness of the metal of the primer which caused this one to flow back more and be marked more.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you discuss Exhibit No. 565?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; in Commission Exhibit No. 565 is shown the firing-pin impressions of the test cartridge case from the 139 rifle on the left and the cartridge case, 545, on the right, with a dividing line through the middle separating the primer of one cartridge case from the primer of the other.
No circles have been drawn around this photograph because the marks shown are marks of an abraded area on the firing pin, and are more or less parallel and formed parallel patterns, so that the eye can follow from one line across to the opposite side of the photograph.
In this area shown of the firing pin of the weapon, there was a small scraped area which left these microscopic ridges and grooves shown on the left photograph, and also reproduced in the 545 primer or firing-pin impression on the right side of the photograph.
Mr. McCloy. State for me again what is on the left side? What is this C-14?
Mr. Frazier. This is the rifle cartridge case, the test cartridge case.
Mr. McCloy. The test rifle?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; the cartridge case which I fired in 139.
Mr. McCloy. In 139. And the one on the right?
Mr. Frazier. This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545.
Mr. McCloy. Which was found in the building?
Mr. Frazier. Found in the building.
Mr. McCloy. On all of these on the left is it always the same——
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; on all of the photographs we have discussed so far.
Mr. McCloy. I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, it appears to the eye that only a portion of this is in focus. Is that correct?
Mr. Frazier. Only a portion of the entire photograph is in focus, yes, and that is the area where these individual marks appear, occur.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; the reason being the outer area, the area up to the edge of the firing-pin impression is considerably higher, and the microscope does not have the depth of focus to focus on a very deep groove or depression such as the firing pin at the bottom of it and still maintain the top in focus.
The firing pin is circular, I should say, hemispherical in shape, so that it leaves a cup-shaped impression of it—only one portion of it can be in focus at the same time; the other part being either higher or lower will be out of focus.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.
Mr. Eisenberg. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, it does.
Mr. Eisenberg. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. Eisenberg. There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. Frazier. Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. Frazier. It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.
Mr. Eisenberg. That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe the types of markings which are generated onto a bullet, as opposed to those which are generated onto a cartridge case?
Mr. Frazier. A bullet when it is fired picks up the marks of the barrel of the weapon. These marks consist of rifling marks of the lands and the grooves, the spiral grooves in the barrel, and, in addition, the abrasion marks or rubbing marks which the bullet picks up due to the friction between the barrel and the surface of the copper jacket on the bullet, or if it is a lead bullet, with the lead.
Mr. McCloy. You said the marks of the groove. You mean the marks of the groove or the marks of the lands?
Mr. Frazier. Both, sir; both are present. In this barrel there are four lands and four grooves. Each of the raised portions in the barrel will be impressed into the surface of the bullet causing four—we call them land impressions—on the bullet, and, in between, four groove impressions.
Mr. Eisenberg. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel from which the bullets are fired.
The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or faulty cleaning.
They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they result from wear, that is an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges, bullets through it.
In this particular barrel the manufacturer's marks are caused by the drill which drills out the barrel, leaving certain marks from the drilling tool. Then portions of these marks are erased by a rifling tool which cuts the four spiral grooves in the barrel and, in turn, leaves marks themselves, and in connection with those marks of course, the drilling marks, being circular in shape, there is a tearing away of the surface of the metal, so that a microscopically rough surface is left.
Then removing part of those marks with a separate tool causes that barrel to assume an individual characteristic, a character all of its own.
In other words, at that time you could identify a bullet fired from that barrel as having been fired from the barrel to the exclusion of all other barrels, because there is no system whatever to the drilling of the barrel. The only system is in the rifling or in the cutting of the grooves, and in this case of rifle barrels, even the cutters wear down as the barrels are made, eventually of course having to be discarded or re-sharpened.
Mr. Eisenberg. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to determine whether their microscopic characteristics are identical?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say, paired barrels, which have been manufactured on the same machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as individual microscopic characteristics are concerned. Their rifling impressions of course would be identical, but the individual marks there would be entirely different.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit—that is, 399?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. Eisenberg. How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. Frazier. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains—that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed—160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. Eisenberg. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. Frazier. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
Mr. Eisenberg. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. Eisenberg. How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. Frazier. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. Eisenberg. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?
Mr. Frazier. It had no effect on it at all.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain why?
Mr. Frazier. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take a photograph of your comparison of Exhibit 399 with a test bullet?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. This photograph was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us the magnification?
Mr. Frazier. 70 diameters.
Mr. Eisenberg. And this reads C-14 on the left and C-l on the right?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; it does.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted?
Mr. McCloy. The one on the right is the cartridge that you just——
Mr. Frazier. Yes. 399, yes, sir.
Mr. McCloy. 399?
Mr. Frazier. And the one on the left is the test bullet.
Mr. McCloy. The test. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 566, Mr. Reporter.
(The item so described was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 566 and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss photograph 566?
Mr. Frazier. This exhibit shows on the left side of a dividing vertical line representing the top of the prism in the microscope which was used for the comparison, a portion of the surface from the test bullet from the rifle, 139, and on the right side of the photograph a portion of the surface of the bullet, 399.
The marks shown in the photograph are on an area representing approximately one-half of one groove impression in the barrel of the weapon, which extends from approximately 2 inches up from the bottom of the photograph, being the edge of one land impression, and the beginning of a groove impression, up to the top of the photograph, that area being approximately one-half or possibly two-thirds of a groove impression.
The microscopic marks which were used in the identification, after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification, were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photograph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and inbetween size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon.
There will be some marks which will not show up on one bullet which show up on the other bullet, and similarly some marks on the other bullet, in this case Exhibit 399, will not be present on the test bullet, that stiuation being due to a number of causes.
One, the bullets could have originally been slightly different in diameter, the larger bullet, of course, picking up more marks during its passage through the barrel.
Secondly, the two bullets may not have expanded exactly the same, due to the pressure of the powder behind them as they passed through the barrel.
Third, with each bullet fired through the barrel, there are certain changes that occur due to the wearing away of the surface of the metal of the barrel, so that after a series of shots through a particular barrel, it would be expected that the pattern of microscopic marks produced by it would change.
The identification is based on areas such as this on the bullet and the comparison of the microscopic marks around the entire surface of the bullet which bears individual characteristics.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, running through the middle of the exhibit there seem to be finer lines on the right-hand side than on the left. Could you explain that, the reason why the lines come out with more detail or that there are more lines on the right side than on the left?
Mr. Frazier. Those marks could be the result of the bullet striking some object after it was fired, or they could be the result of changes having taken place in the barrel.
For instance, even a piece of coarse cloth, leather or some other object could have polished the surface of the metal slightly and left infinitesimal scratches which, when enlarged sufficiently, actually look like marks on the bullet.
Mr. Eisenberg. In making your examination of the bullet, what was the relative attention you gave to the broader lines we see in this picture and the finer lines such as those we have just been referring to?
Mr. Frazier. The broader lines would be more characteristic or they are looked for most, because they change less rapidly than the fine lines. For instance, firing two or three bullets through a barrel could completely erase microscopic marks which would appear as fine lines in a certain area, whereas the coarser lines and grooves on the bullet would be maintained over a series of fired bullets.
Mr. Eisenberg. In evaluating these lines, do you examine the lines individually, or are you interested in their relationship with one another in addition?
Mr. Frazier. It is a combination. You actually examine each mark and each line individually, but it is a mental process rather than a matter of adding one line to another. It is a process of looking at a series of lines and you actually notice that they are composed of round-topped ridges, V-topped ridges, flat-topped ridges, and it is a mental process of looking at the whole pattern rather than the individual marks.
Mr. Eisenberg. All these lines that we are looking at lie within a groove, within one groove, did you say?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; except for the lower portion of the photograph, there is a portion of a land impression showing one rather deep groove running across the bottom of the picture, and a series of grooves shown next to the edge of the land impression.
Mr. Eisenberg. Will you identify the circular-looking mark on the right-hand side of the picture?
Mr. Frazier. That could be either a flaw in the bullet, the metal itself, before it was fired, or could be the result of the bullet having struck some object after it was fired and before it stopped, or as it stopped, or could be the result of having been dropped or roughly handled.
This particular mark there would be invisible practically speaking to the naked eye when looking at the bullet.
Mr. McCloy. The mark to which you refer is the one on the right-hand side of the exhibit toward the top, about an inch and a half from the center line?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is that about 11 o'clock?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have another photograph, Mr. Frazier, of this?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled Jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found—this bullet fragment was found—in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. Frazier. Yes; I am.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is your mark on it?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. Eisenberg. How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. Frazier. Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion?
Mr. Frazier. This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, did you weigh this fragment?
Mr. Frazier. Yes; I did. It weighs 44.6 grains.
Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take a photograph of the fragment as compared with a test bullet?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. This photograph is labeled C-14 on the left and C-2 on the right, and it is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. C-14 being the test bullet?
Mr. Frazier. The test bullet from 139.
Mr. Eisenberg. And what is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr. Frazier. It would be 70 diameters.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may that be admitted?
Mr. McCloy. C-2 is the actual fragment?
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
Mr. Eisenberg. The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.
Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.
(The items described, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 567 and 568, were received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss this photograph with us?
Mr. Frazier. In Commission Exhibit 568 is again the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, with the test bullet from the rifle 139 on the left, and the bullet, Exhibit 567, on the right. Am I right in that the bullet jacket fragment is 567?
Mr. Eisenberg. I think I put it down here. That is right, 567.
Mr. Frazier. Approximately two-thirds of a groove impression from each of the two bullets is shown, with a very small portion at the bottom of the photograph of a land impression. The individual microscopic characteristics which were used in the comparison, and on which the identification was made, were photographed and are as shown in this photograph. However, this photograph did not enter into the actual conclusion reached. The microscopic characteristics appear as parallel horizontal lines extending from the test bullet on the left to the bullet Exhibit 567 on the right.
The marks used in the identification are grooves, paired lines, a series of ridges up and down the hairline on one bullet, and they also appear on the opposite side of the photograph.
In one particular instance it will be seen that at the edge of the land impression at the lower left portion of the photograph is a very definite paired ridge which appears on the right side of the photograph but in a slightly different area.
The reason for the difference in the location of this paired line on the exhibit, Exhibit 567, can be explained by the fact that this is a jacket fragment, that it was torn from the rest of the bullet, and is greatly mutilated, distorted, and bears only a very few areas suitable for identification purposes because of that fact.
The distortion has foreshortened the area of the jacket fragment, 567, to the extent that over this approximately one-tenth-of-an-inch surface represented in this photograph, these lines do not coincide exactly on the lower part of the photograph when they are lined up on the upper part of the photograph.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you say they don't correspond exactly, do you mean at all, or do you mean they aren't——
Mr. Frazier. I mean that the marks are present, but they do not line up at the hairline.
Mr. Eisenberg. But in your opinion the marks on the left are the same as the marks on the right?
Mr. Frazier. The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
Mr. McCloy. They are not lined up in the microscope because there is mutilation on the fragment?
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCloy. And there is no mutilation on the test cartridge?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, in the lower portion of each side of that photograph, which I take it is the groove of the bullet, or the land impression of the rifle—is that correct?
Mr. Frazier. The land on the rifle leaves this groove on the bullet.
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; the right-hand side seems to be slightly striated while the left-hand side does not seem to be striated. Can you explain that?
Mr. Frazier. Well, the striae in this side are not apparent in this photograph. I don't know whether they actually exist on the bullet or not. You can't tell from the photograph, because they are so fine as to possibly not show at all.
A close examination right at the hairline shows a whole series of very fine scratches which do not appear further away from the hairline, and that could be very easily due to differences in the metal, as the bullet passed down the barrel, being pressed less forcibly against the barrel, or could also be due to the fact that at the edges of the lands it is very often evident that hot gases from the burning powder had passed the bullet through these cracks and actually will melt or erode away the surface of the bullet.
As to why they may or may not be present is difficult to say from an examination of the photograph.
Mr. Eisenberg. What portion of the bullet fragment provided enough markings for purposes of identification, approximately?
Mr. Frazier. I would say that one-fourth, in this instance, one-fourth of 567's surface was available. One-fifth to one-sixth would have been sufficient for identification, based on the character of the marks present.