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.