Mr. Frazier.

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-1 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?

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.