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?