TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER (continued 2)

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?

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.)