Mr. Frazier.

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--

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?