(Testimony of Robert A. Frazier Resumed)
Mr. Frazier.
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.
|
