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.