Part 61

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.

Mr. McCLOY. And the fragment 567----

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?