Part 58

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?

Mr. FRAZIER. That's true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to----

Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.

Representative BOGGS. One other question, then.

It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.

Representative BOGGS. So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?

Mr. FRAZIER. If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.

Representative BOGGS. But they were not there when you received it originally?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.

Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier, if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted-in with the use of a target at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes, will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is further or closer away than the sighting-in target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it will, because the bullet in leaving the muzzle follows a curved path rather than a straight path, and in order to hit a specific target at a specific range, it is necessary for the bullet to travel up and drop down to the target, rather than have the bore pointed right at the target at the time of discharge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you calculate the amount of error which would be introduced by a specific projectile?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made such calculations?

Mr. FRAZIER. I have taken calculations for similar weight and velocity bullets from ballistics tables, which bullets approximate the velocity of the 6.5 mm. bullet and the weight of that bullet as fired from 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are these results affected by the rifle which is employed, or do they depend upon the missile?

Mr. FRAZIER. They depend upon the weight and shape of the missile and the velocity, but not upon the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of these calculations?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.

If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.

It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high.

Representative BOGGS. Is this a stationary target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, this is shooting from a rest at a stationary target.

Representative BOGGS. This is just a normal----

Mr. FRAZIER. This is just the trajectory of the bullet.

Representative BOGGS. I understand.

Mr. FRAZIER. As calculated----

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.

The three cartridge cases, 553, 554, and 555, were compared----

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that 543, 544, and 545?

Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.

Representative BOGGS. Who manufactured these cartridges?

Mr. FRAZIER. Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill.

Representative BOGGS. They manufacture cartridges and bullets for all manner of rifles?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.

Representative BOGGS. This is not--this rifle is not common in the United States, is it?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is fairly common now, but at the time it was manufactured or used primarily it was not. It was imported into this country as surplus military equipment, and has been advertised quite widely.

Representative BOGGS. These three cartridge--these three shells that you had were the same as the live ones that were found there, were they not?

Mr. FRAZIER. There was one live cartridge found. They are identical.

Representative BOGGS. And the live one was manufactured also by----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp "WCO" and "6.5. mm."

Representative BOGGS. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy them anywhere?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily, or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the United States in one lot, one shipment--and they have been transmitted over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun shops--used guns--mail-order houses and places of that nature--and gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.

Representative BOGGS. Go ahead.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?

Mr. FRAZIER. Because the marks which are placed on any bolt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling machine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched--until you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future accidental markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles. But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough--even though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor variations in the cutting operation.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled surfaces?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; many times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go into detail on that?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks or milling marks and so on, it is sometimes possible to identify a particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this, where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from any other bolt face. It is a matter actually--when you get down to the basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is because the original markings will not be exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of the original ones?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as I understand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface, such as this.

Mr. FRAZIER. I have worked with both. In other words, in comparing tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in working with these tools, as I understand your testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.

Mr. FRAZIER. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it occasionally can be identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have made?

Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands of them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given tool--that you have examined--change over the course of the use of the tool?