Chapter XXIX: Part 29

If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.

It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high.

Representative BOGGS. Is this a stationary target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, this is shooting from a rest at a stationary target.

Representative BOGGS. This is just a normal----

Mr. FRAZIER. This is just the trajectory of the bullet.

Representative BOGGS. I understand.

Mr. FRAZIER. As calculated----

Mr. McCLOY. Putting it another way, what would be the drop of the bullet at a hundred yards if you aim point-blank straight at that target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Assuming no sighting or anything, the bullet would drop about 1.2 inches from the line of the bore at 100 yards.

Representative BOGGS. 1.2 inches?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. But now the telescopic sight at a hundred yards would correct that?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Actually, you would sight so that the muzzle is tipped up slightly with reference to the sight.

Mr. EISENBERG. The error would be introduced if you shot at a target which is closer or further away than the sighting-in target; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, that's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you characterize these errors as material?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not--unless you began shooting at distances well beyond your sighting-in point--then the amount of variation increases very rapidly.

Mr. EISENBERG. What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175 feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the trajectory characteristics, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you find this shot accurately?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to Governor Connally?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.

Representative BOGGS. You are not answering that as an expert.

Mr. FRAZIER. From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.

Representative BOGGS. Putting my question another way, you would not have to be an expert marksman to accomplish this objective?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, you certainly would not.

Representative BOGGS. And a man is a relatively large target, is he not?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly, and do this--hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?

Mr. FRAZIER. Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that make it a better choice than a more powerfully recoiling weapon for the type of crime which was committed?

Mr. FRAZIER. For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better choice, because the recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off the target, it does not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-powered rifle, such as a .30/06 or a .270 Winchester, or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for instance, or one of the other military-type weapons available.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges--the killing power of the rifles you have named?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?

Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military--it is an established military weapon.

Representative BOGGS. This is a military weapon, is it not?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. That is designed to kill a human being.

Representative BOGGS. Exactly.

Mr. EISENBERG. Unless there are further questions on the weapon, I am going to move into the area of the identification of the cartridge cases and the bullets.

Mr. McCLOY. I may say I have to leave at twelve o'clock for a twelve-fifteen appointment. I will be back this afternoon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.

And the other one I received on November 27, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.

Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving these cartridge cases, did you clean them up or in any way prepare them for examination?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The bases were cleaned of a paint which was placed on them by the manufacturer. In spots this red lacquer on the base of the case was overlapping the head of the case where some of the microscopic marks were located, and some of that color was taken off.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that lacquer put on the cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER. It seals the primer area against moisture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other changes made in the preparation of the cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have examined the cartridge cases previously. Are they in the same condition now that they were when you received them in the laboratory except for the cleaning of the lacquer?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you make the examinations?

Mr. FRAZIER. On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963, and November 27, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?

Mr. FRAZIER. The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the bolt face and the firing pin of the rifle.

(At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?

Representative BOGGS. They may be admitted.

(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139--as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the corners, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.

The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged in this photograph to show the types of marks I was referring to.

Mr. EISENBERG. You took this photograph yourself, and it is a photograph of the bolt face of the 139 rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced as 558?

Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 558, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this bolt-face photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 11 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you slip out the bolt of the rifle so we could see how it compares, and show us the part of the bolt which is photographed?

Mr. FRAZIER. Orienting the photograph with the writing at the bottom, orients the bolt also, as it comes out of the rifle--with the slot shown as a groove on the bottom of the bolt. Then the extractor on the bolt, is the area shown at the left side of the photograph, as you view it--the actual bolt face itself is inset into the bolt below the surface of the extractor, and a supporting shoulder around it, and in the center, of course, is the firing-pin hole and the firing pin.

The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in these marks during the life of the weapon are very important in identification, because many of the machining marks can be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of marks which are peculiar to it.

The same is true of extractors and ejectors. They are in turn machined and will have a pattern of marks or scratches on their surfaces which will mark cartridge cases in the same manner each time.

The comparison we made was of the marks appearing in this photograph, 558, in fairly close proximity to the firing pin hole, since that is the area that the primer in the head of the cartridge case comes in contact with.

The primer in a cartridge case normally takes marks more readily than the surrounding brass portion of the cartridge case, which is a considerably harder metal and is not impressed with these marks as readily.

The three cartridge cases, 553, 554, and 555, were compared----

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that 543, 544, and 545?

Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.

Representative BOGGS. Who manufactured these cartridges?

Mr. FRAZIER. Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill.

Representative BOGGS. They manufacture cartridges and bullets for all manner of rifles?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.

Representative BOGGS. This is not--this rifle is not common in the United States, is it?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is fairly common now, but at the time it was manufactured or used primarily it was not. It was imported into this country as surplus military equipment, and has been advertised quite widely.

Representative BOGGS. These three cartridge--these three shells that you had were the same as the live ones that were found there, were they not?

Mr. FRAZIER. There was one live cartridge found. They are identical.

Representative BOGGS. And the live one was manufactured also by----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp "WCO" and "6.5. mm."

Representative BOGGS. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy them anywhere?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily, or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the United States in one lot, one shipment--and they have been transmitted over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun shops--used guns--mail-order houses and places of that nature--and gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.

Representative BOGGS. Go ahead.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?

Mr. FRAZIER. Because the marks which are placed on any bolt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling machine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched--until you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future accidental markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles. But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough--even though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor variations in the cutting operation.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled surfaces?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; many times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go into detail on that?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks or milling marks and so on, it is sometimes possible to identify a particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this, where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from any other bolt face. It is a matter actually--when you get down to the basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is because the original markings will not be exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of the original ones?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as I understand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface, such as this.

Mr. FRAZIER. I have worked with both. In other words, in comparing tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in working with these tools, as I understand your testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.

Mr. FRAZIER. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it occasionally can be identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have made?

Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands of them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given tool--that you have examined--change over the course of the use of the tool?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a hard object.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example, one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing, or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it may gradually change over a period of time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a soft metal?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was hard metal----

Mr. EISENBERG. Well----

Mr. FRAZIER. With reference to copper or other softer metals--it is a steel. I could not say how hard it actually is.

Mr. EISENBERG. What will the effect of the metal used in the bolt face be upon the tool which is used to finish it off, cut it and finish it off?

Mr. FRAZIER. The tool will gradually wear out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, will the tool leave different marks on the end of the bolt face from one bolt to the very next bolt face?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; that very often happens. The tool is worn out or the small cuttings get underneath the edge, between the tool, and nick the edge of the tool, so that the tool will gradually change over a period of time. The cutting edge--the amount of change depends upon the amount of wear, the heat involved, and the hardness of the metal--the relative hardness of the metal.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will that particular change be noticed invariably in two consecutive bolt faces?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. So what is the genesis of the difference in the two consecutive bolt faces as they come from the manufacturer?

Mr. FRAZIER. The change, as I said, depends on the bolt you are using. It does not always take place, because some bolts are made of a very soft metal, and they will not necessarily change a machining tool to that extent.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the markings, you said, would be different on two consecutive bolt faces?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if the tool is not changed, what is the origin of the difference between the markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. There are other accidental markings placed there during the machining operation.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that?

Mr. FRAZIER. For instance, as the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a dust--or a very fine powder or chip--that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks--that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt--unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.

Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these very fine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find on that examination?

Mr. FRAZIER. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.

Mr. EISENBERG. There actually was none?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was none.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the bolt face with which we are dealing, Exhibit 139, can you say from inspection whether the markings on that bolt face are predominantly the accidental markings introduced subsequent to manufacture, or the markings of the manufacture?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that these were filing marks for the most part which were made during manufacture, some of which have been obliterated and changed through use--possibly corrosion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, taking Exhibit 543, did you prepare a photograph of this exhibit----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

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.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED

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.