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?