Part 59

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a hard object.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example, one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing, or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it may gradually change over a period of time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a soft metal?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was hard metal----

Mr. EISENBERG. Well----

Mr. FRAZIER. With reference to copper or other softer metals--it is a steel. I could not say how hard it actually is.

Mr. EISENBERG. What will the effect of the metal used in the bolt face be upon the tool which is used to finish it off, cut it and finish it off?

Mr. FRAZIER. The tool will gradually wear out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, will the tool leave different marks on the end of the bolt face from one bolt to the very next bolt face?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; that very often happens. The tool is worn out or the small cuttings get underneath the edge, between the tool, and nick the edge of the tool, so that the tool will gradually change over a period of time. The cutting edge--the amount of change depends upon the amount of wear, the heat involved, and the hardness of the metal--the relative hardness of the metal.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will that particular change be noticed invariably in two consecutive bolt faces?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. So what is the genesis of the difference in the two consecutive bolt faces as they come from the manufacturer?

Mr. FRAZIER. The change, as I said, depends on the bolt you are using. It does not always take place, because some bolts are made of a very soft metal, and they will not necessarily change a machining tool to that extent.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the markings, you said, would be different on two consecutive bolt faces?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if the tool is not changed, what is the origin of the difference between the markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. There are other accidental markings placed there during the machining operation.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that?

Mr. FRAZIER. For instance, as the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a dust--or a very fine powder or chip--that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks--that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt--unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.

Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these very fine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find on that examination?

Mr. FRAZIER. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.

Mr. EISENBERG. There actually was none?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was none.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the bolt face with which we are dealing, Exhibit 139, can you say from inspection whether the markings on that bolt face are predominantly the accidental markings introduced subsequent to manufacture, or the markings of the manufacture?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that these were filing marks for the most part which were made during manufacture, some of which have been obliterated and changed through use--possibly corrosion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, taking Exhibit 543, did you prepare a photograph of this exhibit----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Compared with the test cartridge case?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is the photograph, showing the test cartridge case from Exhibit 557 on the right and the cartridge case 543 on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?

Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 559 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, that is marked on the left C-14, and on the right, C-6.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the left-hand photograph is a photograph of what?

Mr. FRAZIER. Of the cartridge case 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the actual fired case?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it shows just a portion of the primer, and a very small portion of the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the right-hand side of that photograph, marked C-6?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is a test cartridge case, fired in the rifle Exhibit 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 100 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is that magnification equal on both sides of the picture?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make your identification of Exhibit 543, that is the identification of that exhibit as having been fired in the rifle 139, on the basis of your examination under the microscope, or on the basis of the photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. Under the microscope. The photograph has no relationship whatsoever to the examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?

Mr. FRAZIER. The examination is made microscopically through the use of your eyes, and your eyes will record depths and shapes to a much greater extent than can be shown in a photograph. So that the examination and comparison is made of these irregular surfaces mentally, rather than mechanically by any means. The photograph is taken primarily to illustrate the types of marks found and their location, relatively, on the specimen.

Representative BOGGS. We will have to adjourn and come back at 2.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 2:10 p.m.

Mr. McCLOY. You are still under oath, you know.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to begin by clearing up a few items which have been covered or left open during the morning session.

First, you were going to supply us with certain figures concerning the times which were taken by two of the Agents to fire three shots in the first series of tests which were made for determining the accuracy of the firing under rapid-fire conditions.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that was at two targets. The first one I gave you--Killion fired in 9 seconds. The other was a target marked Cunningham and Frazier. Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target, assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those calculations now?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may or may not be exactly accurate.

But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the intended spot on the target. At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or 6.1 inches.

I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop in the amount of lead.

And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you convert those lead distances into the amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head, above the point of the target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that table also shows leads at other car speeds?

Mr. FRAZIER. This table--I could calculate them--it only shows miles per hour translated into feet per second.

Mr. EISENBERG. I mean, does it show various miles per hour?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it shows miles per hour in feet per second.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without going into detail at this time, may I have permission to introduce this table into evidence?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. This will be Commission Exhibit 560.

(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 560 was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Frazier, in the construction of this table and also in your last tests for rapid fire for this rifle, you used a five-and-a-half second figure as a factor in your calculations, and in your attempt at rapid fire accuracy placements. Can you give us the source of that figure?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. You were the source of it, based on examination, as I understood it, of a movie taken at the scene, and measurements taken at the scene. However, I have no knowledge of the actual time.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I just wanted to establish that this is a source that was supplied by the Commission and which is tentative, and it is not to imply any final conclusion on the part of the FBI; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. I hope it is taken that way, because we don't know what the time actually was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Another point then, which should have been covered this morning, Mr. Frazier, in your qualifications: have you testified before in court?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of times?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 400 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Finally, we had discussed briefly your examination of consecutively manufactured bolt faces to see whether any two such consecutively manufactured bolt faces were identical in their microscopic characteristics. How many such examinations have you performed.

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say about four examinations of pairs of bolt faces which have been consecutively manufactured.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in each case the result was what?

Mr. FRAZIER. The marks on one bolt face in no way resembled the marks on the other bolt face.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a microscope, and that is also known as C-6 and C-14, is that right?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the markings which you have seen under the microscope and on the basis of which you made your identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the 139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission Exhibit 543 on the right side.

The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature, that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on the two specimens themselves.

Mr. EISENBERG. Referring for a second to this mental, visual, comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms training--firearms-identification training--be able to look under a microscope and make a determination for himself concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a given weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER. In that connection that person could look through the microscope. He may or may not see these individual characteristics which are present, because he does not know what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your mind going back and forth between one area and the other until you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.

If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a layman could make?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say so; yes. I don't think a layman would recognize some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown in the photographs as actually being significant or not significant, because there will be things present which have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case in the gun.

There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and there are no marks registered at that point as a result of the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the absence of similar marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you, which is 559----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?

Mr. FRAZIER. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not identical to explain why you would get such a result?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle 4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the photograph.

On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which runs through there, having an entirely different appearance from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other cartridge case.

In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the marks that are present.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.

Mr. Frazier, could you discuss or characterize those points which you have circled on Commission Exhibit 559, starting from the top?

Mr. FRAZIER. Number 1 circle is drawn around a depression in the metal of irregular shape. I might say that number 1 shows on the right side of the photograph, and only half of it shows on the left side because of the relative position of the two cartridge cases in the photograph.

Number 2 is a circle drawn around a long line which extends obliquely across each cartridge case from the upper left to the lower right. The long line itself is a means of orienting the cartridge cases one with the other, but the circle is drawn around a break in that line in the form of a very small hump or an absence of metal which shows up as an actual break in the long line.

Number 3 again is a depression between two grooves, which is rather similar in shape. I cannot tell you how deep it is because the photograph only shows two dimensions. But on the cartridge cases it has a very characteristic depth to it, which is readily apparent.

It is formed by two parallel lines extending from the upper left to the lower, towards the lower right, with the depression in between, and again one side of the depression is formed by a small raised area in the primer metal which is seen in each photograph as a conical, almost a conical-shaped bump or raised area.

Number 4 is another raised portion on the photograph. In connection with 4, I would like to point out that a portion of this bump has been erased from the test cartridge case on the left-hand side of the photograph, the erasure caused by the turning of the bolt of the weapon while being pressed against the primer, which has smoothed off some of the protruding rough areas on the primer.

Number 5 is a horizontal ridge which has two depressions, one on the top and one on the bottom, shown on both sides of the photograph, and number 6 is a wishbone type of ridge, a wide ridge which divides into two smaller ridges on the left-hand edge, and in the middle of the dividing lines, the forked lines, is a small dent or raised portion. Those six which I have marked are only portions of those shown in the photograph, and of course the photograph does not show the entire surface of the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to find identifying marks on the brass as well as the primer on this cartridge case?

Mr. FRAZIER. No; I did not notice any marks on the brass portions outside of the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that typical of cartridge-case identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Generally that is true, unless there is a great pressure, unless the brass of the cartridge case is soft, or unless the marks are very sharp on the breech face; then they will be impressed into the brass.

Mr. EISENBERG. This picture represents only a portion of the primer. You examined the entire primer to make your identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And found?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would not have been necessary to examine the entire primer necessarily, but of course we do examine the entire primer, pick out all of the marks on the left and the right, and rotate the cartridge cases and look at them from various angles, before arriving at a conclusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you amplify the meaning of the statement that it would not be necessary to examine the entire primer?

Mr. FRAZIER. There are sufficient marks shown in this photograph upon which to base an identification. In other words, it would not be necessary to have the rest of the primer if it had been mutilated or destroyed or something of that nature.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine the firing-pin impression in the cartridge?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a picture of that examination?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Here is the photograph of the firing-pin impression, again on the left the rifle, and on the right the cartridge case, Commission's 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. That bears the number C-14 and C-6, corresponding to the numbers on Commission Exhibit 559?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph or have it taken under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it equal on both sides?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 561.

(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 561 was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed with the discussion of the circled marks on this photograph, number 561?

Mr. FRAZIER. In the case of firing-pin impressions which are shown on Exhibit 561, the marks result from two related sources; excuse me, not sources, but from two related causes, one being the force given to the firing pin driving it into the primer to set off the cartridge, and the second being the force of the powder charge inside the cartridge being driven back--driving the primer back against the firing pin at the same time, so that the metal of the primer is caused to flow or be stamped by the firing pin and pressed against by the gases, so that any irregularities in the firing pin will be impressed into the primer of the cartridge case.

Number 1 consists of a double horizontal line, one a fairly wide coarse line at the top. Immediately under that approximately one-eighth of an inch is a fairly fine horizontal line.

Circled and marked number 2 is a very coarse, wide ridge, very short in length, approximately one-half an inch, and an eighth to a quarter of an inch in height. This ridge is formed by two grooves, a straight groove across the top, and a curved or crescent-shaped groove across the bottom.

Number 3 is a circle drawn around two small raised areas in the primer metal separated by a depression.

Number 4 is a section from a large ridge across the metal of the primer, which has a break in its surface in the lower portion of the circle, and immediately above the break is a groove, and immediately above that again is another ridge which is at a little steeper angle upwards to the left.

Number 5 is a depression, is a portion of a depression appearing at the bottom of the circle with a very short ridge running horizontally across the circle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of dissimilarities?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces.