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.