Part 60

Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear, whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures are the same or not.

So I don't think we can say that it is an absence of dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this cartridge case?

Mr. McCLOY. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you have testified also that you identified the cartridge case which is Exhibit 544 as having been fired from this rifle, in this rifle, to the exclusion of all others. Did you take a photograph of the comparison that you made under the microscope of number 544?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I again took two photographs, one of the breech-face or bolt-face marks, and one of the firing-pin marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. This exhibit which I am holding is a picture of the breech-face marks?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And was that taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification here is what?

Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.

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

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be number 562, Mr. Reporter.

(The item described as Commission Exhibit No. 562 was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the markings on this picture, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Commission Exhibit 562, there is again the vertical dividing line which is the top of the prism in the microscope which divides your view. On the left hand side is a portion of the primer and a portion of the head of the test cartridge case from Exhibit 139. On the right side of the photograph is a portion of the surface of the primer and a portion of the firing-pin impression of the cartridge case, Commission Exhibit 544.

To assist in pointing out on the photograph some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are present, I have had circles drawn, circling at the top, number 1, an oval-shaped depression in the metal, having an irregularly shaped or wavy ridge across the bottom of the circle. Immediately below that is another ridge which has a flat top, and is more or less of a diamond shape.

Number 3 circle is over a very coarse, wide ridge separated by two fairly deep grooves on each side.

Number 4 circle is over a conical-shaped raised portion on the primer which represents a dent in the metal of the bolt face, and number 5 again is a raised area on the primer which is a portion of a ridge. In this instance this is more or less of a compound ridge which runs horizontally with a small break in it pointing down toward the lower left.

Mr. McCLOY. Is that same break apparent in the left hand photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is. Looking very closely and right at the hairline, you can see the break in the ridge where it forms more or less of a =Y=. The actual connecting point is not present, but you can see the portion of the ridge as it heads towards the horizontal ridge. The hairline has separated that portion of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you call these marks strongly characteristic marks, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; very characteristic. They are primarily characteristic because of their irregular shape. If they had been regular in shape, it wouldn't have meant nearly as much as it does to have the irregular rough surfaces and contours of the marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think you have identified the next picture I am holding as having been taken by you?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was. That is a 70-diameter magnification photograph of Exhibit 544 on the right, and the test from the rifle on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this bears the numbers C-14 and C-7, and is a firing-pin photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May this firing-pin mark photograph be admitted, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 563.

(The item was numbered 563, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you review that photograph, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Exhibit 563 the test cartridge case representing the rifle is on the left side of the photograph, and shows most of the firing-pin impression in that cartridge case. Five circles have been drawn over towards the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression, and five similarly located circles have been drawn over the area at the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression of Exhibit 544.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is actually the left-hand side of the right-hand part of the picture?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would be--that is right; at the dividing line, the circles on 544 are drawn close to the dividing line, which shows only a very small portion of the firing pin of that cartridge case.

Beginning with number 1, it has a gently sloping ridge running from upper left toward lower right in each instance, with a break in the ridge contour at the middle in the form of an extension upwards toward the top of the photograph.

In number 2 there is a circle drawn around the end of a very long line in the left-hand side of the photograph. The circle is drawn to show a =Y=-shaped break in this line located on both cartridge cases.

Number 3 is a photograph of an irregular-shaped raised portion on the firing-pin impression, which is very difficult to describe in words.

Number 4 is a groove extending from upper right to lower left which has a break in its lower side to allow a horizontal groove to come in towards the main groove. The lower portion of that groove coming in from the lower side is in the form of a crescent-shaped ridge, which starts horizontally from the left and then falls off towards the lower right-hand side of the photograph.

The circle, number 5, is again a =Y=-shaped or wishbone-shaped ridge, with a horizontal bar on the right, and then extending ridges upward toward the left and downward to the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, are these firing-pin marks what you would call strongly characteristic?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say so.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the firing pin give any evidence of having been altered subsequent to the original manufacture?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; only in an accidental sort of way, that is, very fine scratches which may have been caused by firing or dirt on a cartridge or something which may have scratched the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are firing-pin marks usually as characteristic of a given cartridge case as the primer marks?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say they are as characteristic. However, they may not always be as evident, they may not be seen as readily. However, they are just as characteristic.

Mr. McCLOY. Just to repeat again, what is this side of this picture? What does this represent?

Mr. FRAZIER. That represents the rifle cartridge.

Mr. McCLOY. The rifle cartridge itself?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And this on the right?

Mr. FRAZIER. This is one of the three cartridge cases recovered from the building, Exhibit 544.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you fired two test cartridges in the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. We fired several test cartridge cases. These two are the ones that were used in the comparisons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you fire several for possible comparison purposes, or only two for possible comparison purposes?

Mr. FRAZIER. Those we fired were in the time-fire test and we retained some of those for possible use in comparing, but it was not necessary to use them, actually.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you use both of these test cartridge cases in the photographs, or only one of them?

Mr. FRAZIER. I could not tell by these photographs. We did not make any distinction when we were comparing tests with the evidence as to which test cartridge case we were using.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you made your selection among cartridge cases to select the items which would be used as test cases for comparison purposes, were the items you rejected much different from those you selected?

Mr. FRAZIER. No. The marks were generally the same on all of them. Those we used in this comparison were two tests which we fired on November 23d and used them in our tests--made our examination, our identification.

Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of the other tests that were made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you just as easily have used other of the items from your original November twenty----

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting to the last cartridge case, Exhibit 545, did you take a photograph of the exhibit together with the test case under the microscope after making your identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. This photograph shows that cartridge case 545 on the right, and the test cartridge case from the rifle, 139, on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is marked on the right C-38 and on the left C-14?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again this is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is of the primer?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have a second photograph here also, marked C-14 and C-38, also taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this is of the markings of the firing pin?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the magnification first of the primer-markings photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is 100 diameters enlargement on the primer, and on the firing-pin it is 80 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now in all the cases of the photographs you have given us, the magnifications are equal on both sides, are they?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted into evidence?

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. They will be 564 and 565.

(The items, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 564 and 565, were received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the photograph, Exhibit 564 please, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 564 is again, a portion of the primer of the cartridge case fired by me in the rifle number 139 appearing on the left side of the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, and on the right side a portion of the surface of the cartridge case, Exhibit 545, showing its primer and the marks on it.

In the photograph four circles, or portions of circles, have been drawn, circling some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are found which permitted identifying the two cartridge cases as having been fired in the same weapon.

In the upper circle are again two ridges separated by a groove, the lower right-hand end of which is blocked by a raised portion in the metal of the primer.

Circle number 2 is again a depression bounded on the top by a long sloping groove, sloping from the upper left subsequently to the lower right.

In circle number 3 there is a series of ridges running horizontally across the photograph. The lowest of these three ridges is a rather wide round-topped ridge.

Circle number 4 shows the left-hand side of a figure which you could roughly call a Z in the primer, which consists of a horizontal or nearly horizontal line running from left to right which meets a second line running from right down to the left, which again meets a third line which runs from the left to the right. This is shown in both photographs as the three lines which form the shape of a Z on the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, on this photograph there is shown a mark at approximately 3 o'clock on the left-hand side of the picture, and 9 o'clock on the right-hand side, and the marks seem to be different in the two pictures, being broader on the left-hand, C-14, than on the right, C-38. Could you explain the genesis of the difference? It seems to extend further down.

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately in the center of the photograph where the two images meet, there is a scraped area which is the result of the surface of the metal of the bolt scraping the surface of the primer as the bolt was turned in opening the bolt to extract the cartridge.

On the test cartridge case, this area is much broader and coarser because the bolt was pressing more tightly against the primer when it was turned. On the evidence cartridge case, the marks are relatively fine, separated, and even show portions of the surface of the primer in between the circular marks left by the rotating bolt. The reason is that this primer was not being pressed as tightly against the bolt at the time it was turned.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that be due to differences in the construction of the cartridge--the two cartridges?

Mr. FRAZIER. It could be differences in the cartridge, but primarily it would be a difference in the amount of setback of the cartridge against the bolt at the time it was fired.

If a cartridge is slightly away from the bolt when it is fired, the primer is blown back out of the cartridge. As the pressure builds up, the cartridge then moves back and reseats the primer in the primer pocket. The manner in which that movement of the primer out and back in is accomplished determines how tightly the primer will bear against the face of the breach after the cartridge has been fired.

It could be that, and it could be just a slight difference in the hardness of the metal of the primer which caused this one to flow back more and be marked more.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss Exhibit No. 565?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; in Commission Exhibit No. 565 is shown the firing-pin impressions of the test cartridge case from the 139 rifle on the left and the cartridge case, 545, on the right, with a dividing line through the middle separating the primer of one cartridge case from the primer of the other.

No circles have been drawn around this photograph because the marks shown are marks of an abraded area on the firing pin, and are more or less parallel and formed parallel patterns, so that the eye can follow from one line across to the opposite side of the photograph.

In this area shown of the firing pin of the weapon, there was a small scraped area which left these microscopic ridges and grooves shown on the left photograph, and also reproduced in the 545 primer or firing-pin impression on the right side of the photograph.

Mr. McCLOY. State for me again what is on the left side? What is this C-14?

Mr. FRAZIER. This is the rifle cartridge case, the test cartridge case.

Mr. McCLOY. The test rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; the cartridge case which I fired in 139.

Mr. McCLOY. In 139. And the one on the right?

Mr. FRAZIER. This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545.

Mr. McCLOY. Which was found in the building?

Mr. FRAZIER. Found in the building.

Mr. McCLOY. On all of these on the left is it always the same----

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?

Mr. McCLOY. The one on the right is the cartridge that you just----

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?