Chapter XXX: Part 30

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.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now this portion of the fragment was an even smaller portion of the bullet, the entire bullet, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. So when you say one-fifth and one-sixth, are you referring now to the proportion of marks on the fragment, as opposed to the proportion of marks you would want from an entire bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No; I am referring to the proportion of marks on the fragment which were used in the examination as compared to the total bullet circumference which would have existed on an unmutilated bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, do you feel that the amount of markings here were sufficient to make positive identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made identifications in the past with as few or less markings as are present on this bullet fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; and on less, much less of an area. The character of the marks is more important than the number of the marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, here you were of course unable to see all of the lines which were present on the bullet before mutilation. Have you ever had an occasion where you examined a bullet and saw one portion of it which was an apparent match and then found out that the balance of the bullet was not an apparent match?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; and if I understand your words "apparent match," there is no such thing as an apparent match. It either is an identification or it isn't, and until you have made up your mind, you don't have an apparent match. We don't actually use that term in the FBI. Unless you have sufficient marks for an identification, you cannot say one way or the other as to whether or not two bullets were fired from a particular barrel.

In other words, you cannot nonidentify on the absence of similarities any more than you can identify when you have no similarities present.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any possible chance of error creeping in.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; we never use it, never.

Mr. EISENBERG. And why is that?

Mr. FRAZIER. There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is or isn't as far as we are concerned.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in this case it is?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this bullet fragment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. Do we have any proof in the record thus far as to where the fragment referred to a moment ago came from?

Mr. EISENBERG. Honestly, I am not sure. I know it will be in the record eventually, but I have not taken that up as part of this testimony.

Mr. McCLOY. That will be subject to further proof.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. If it is not in the record. As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And the fragment 567----

Mr. FRAZIER. 567, the one we have just finished.

Mr. McCLOY. Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. You have no doubt about any of those?

Mr. FRAZIER. None whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.

Mr. EISENBERG. Your mark is on that fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?

Mr. FRAZIER. It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It consists of the base or most rearward portion of the jacket of a metal-jacketed bullet, from which the lead core is missing.

Mr. EISENBERG. How can you tell that it is the most rearward portion?

Mr. FRAZIER. It has the shape which bases of bullets have. It has the cannelure which is located at the rear, on the portion of bullets of this type.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567, and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You cannot?

Mr. FRAZIER. There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.

However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now 569 is without the core; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how much weight you would add if you had the core?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, I cannot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Not at all?

Mr. FRAZIER. No. I do not have the figure on the core weight.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, is it possible that if you did make such an estimate, the weight, the projected weight of 569 plus the actual weight of 567 would exceed the bullet weight of the 6.5 mm. bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, no; it would not.

Mr. EISENBERG. It would not?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would not come even close to it, because the amount of core is only--one-quarter inch of the bullet is all that remains at the base, and that much core would not weigh more than 40 grains at the most.

Mr. EISENBERG. No cannelure shows on 567, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you make a comparison photograph of 569 with a test bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is marked C-14 on the left and C-3 on the right; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, from the rifle 139, and C-3 is Exhibit 569.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification on this photograph is what, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. 70 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. 570.

(The item was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 570 and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss this picture?

Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 570 shows a portion of the test bullet from Exhibit 139 on the left side of the photograph, and a portion of the bullet 569 on the right side, divided by a hairline.

The photograph was taken of the microscopic marks, examined through the comparison microscope, consisting of very fine and very coarse grooves, or scratches, or ridges, on the surface of each of the bullets as compared with those on the other bullet.

The photograph did not, of course, enter into the conclusion reached in the examination, but was merely taken to demonstrate, to illustrate the types of marks present insofar as a photograph can show them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what portion of the Exhibit 569 was unmutilated enough to allow you to make a comparison of its markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately one-third. Actually, the entire base section of the bullet was present, but approximately one-half of that base was mutilated. On the mutilated area, either marks were destroyed completely by striking some object, or being compressed or stretched, or they were thrown out of relationship with each other by stretching or compressing to the extent that they were of no value.

So I would estimate approximately one-third of the area was present.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say one-third, is this total area or circumference?

Mr. FRAZIER. Circumference--one-third of the circumference.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any further pictures of any of the bullets, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, I do not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I hand you two bullets and ask whether you are familiar with them.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am. These are the two test bullets which I fired from this rifle, Exhibit 139.

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

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Exhibit 572?

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 572, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials.

Mr. EISENBERG. As you examined the bullet and the two bullet fragments, are they in the same condition now as they were when they entered your hands?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. One other question on the cartridge cases.

Did you examine the cartridge cases for chambering marks, extraction marks, or ejection marks?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did, but I did not make any comparisons of either extractor or ejector marks or chambering marks, since the purpose of my examination was primarily to determine whether they were fired in this rifle, and such marks would not have assisted in that determination. They were not necessary because they would have indicated only that it may have been loaded into and extracted from the weapon, whereas the marks which I found served to identify it as having been fired in the weapon, actually.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, unless you have further questions on the cartridge cases or bullets, I would like to move on to another subject.

Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?

Mr. FRAZIER. Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.

Mr. McCLOY. And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at the minimum?

Mr. FRAZIER. I meant at least two bullets.

Mr. McCLOY. There were at least two different bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. At least two, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 60 rounds.

Mr. EISENBERG. And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find the ammunition dependable?

Mr. FRAZIER. Very dependable.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you elaborate as to what that other ammunition consists of?

Mr. FRAZIER. Certain companies have imported into the United States cartridges of foreign manufacture. Those I have seen for this rifle were of Italian manufacture. They have pulled the military bullets from those cartridges and reloading hunting type or soft-point bullets into the cartridges. In doing that, they did not, apparently, take any great pains in loading them. Occasionally, the mouth of the case would be bent over and the bullet driven in right on top of the bent case.

I have seen split cartridge cases, even before they were fired, badly corroded cartridge cases. All in all, the ammunition is of generally poor overall appearance, and it has been reported to me that it was of poor firing quality.

I have not fired any of it, personally.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you heard anything about the dependability of the Italian-made ammunition, unreloaded?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not as such.

However, I have experienced the examination of Italian ammunition of various years of manufacture and, of course, various makes. And I think it is rather poor quality in this particular caliber, primarily due to the very short seating depth to which bullets of this type are seated in the cartridge, which causes the bullets to loosen very readily in the cartridge case even before they are loaded into a clip or fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice, Mr. Frazier, in your examination of targets and so forth, whether there was any marked degree of yaw or tumbling by the bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. No evidence at all of tumbling or yaw.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the firing of 60 shots materially affect the microscopic characteristics of Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would change them, if not completely, practically completely.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, some witnesses to the assassination have stated that they heard more than three shots. Can you think of any reason why they might have come to that conclusion--in terms of acoustical properties of high-velocity bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. They could very readily have heard other sounds which could be confused with shots. It is apparent--it is obvious with any weapon in which the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, which is 1,127, approximately, feet per second, the bullet itself will cause a shock wave or a sound wave, and a person standing in front of that weapon will hear the report of the bullet passing and then subsequently the sound will reach them of the cartridge explosion, which could very easily be confused with two shots. There will be the crack of the bullet going by, overhead or in the vicinity, and then the sound of the shot.

So that you would hear for three shots actually six reports, which could have caused some confusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a bullet in a pill box which is marked Q-188. I ask you whether you are familiar with this bullet.

I would like to state for the record that this bullet was found in the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.

Mr. McCLOY. As far as you know, we have no proof of that yet?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am familiar with it. I have made an examination of that bullet.

With reference to this bullet, I could furnish everything except the weight of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Just taking one thing at a time. You are familiar with it. Does it have your marking on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 573?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 573, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this bullet, do you recall, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would need to refer to my notes for that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply that for us at a subsequent time?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the weight.

Is this bullet in the same condition as it was when you received it in the laboratory, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean it up or in any way alter it when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.

The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.

The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was the direction of the twist?

Mr. FRAZIER. To the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how many types of rifle would produce, on a 6.5 mm. bullet, four lands and four grooves, right twist, with the width of lands and grooves which you established as being those on this bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Only from experience, I could say that it would be relatively few which would agree with all of those characteristics. I have, of course, not seen or measured all of the foreign rifles, and therefore I could not estimate the number that there might be.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any miscroscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine the depth of the grooves of the bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet, 573, had what appeared to be normal-depth grooves.

However, this bullet is completely flattened due to hitting a plaster or cement or other hard material on one side, and the opposite side, as a result of the flattening--has assumed a concave appearance, which has stretched the surface in various places and changes its overall appearance--that is the basis for actually having to state that there were not enough unmutilated marks for identification purposes on it.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you do conclude that this was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel characteristics?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, do you have any further questions on this?

Mr. McCLOY. When you say you were able to determine it was fired from this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with which I am not familiar in the foreign field.

Mr. McCLOY. But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a 6.5 mm. bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And the bullet, such as we find it, has now characteristics similar to the type of bullet which was our Exhibit No. 399?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does. Placing them side by side, the cannelure, which is really the only physical characteristic apparent, comes to exactly the same place on both 399 and 573, indicating that this bullet was loaded to exactly the same depth in the cartridge--the two bullets, both 399 and 573.

Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no further questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Not with reference to this material, no.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you thinking of----