Warren Commission (03 of 26): Hearings Vol. III (of 15) (part 5 of 5)

Warren Commission (03 of 26): Hearings Vol. III (of 15) (part 5 of 5)

Mr. FRAZIER. I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?

Mr. FRAZIER. The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the bolt face and the firing pin of the rifle.

(At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?

Representative BOGGS. They may be admitted.

(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139--as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the corners, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.

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.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 2:10 p.m.

Mr. McCLOY. You are still under oath, you know.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to begin by clearing up a few items which have been covered or left open during the morning session.

First, you were going to supply us with certain figures concerning the times which were taken by two of the Agents to fire three shots in the first series of tests which were made for determining the accuracy of the firing under rapid-fire conditions.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that was at two targets. The first one I gave you--Killion fired in 9 seconds. The other was a target marked Cunningham and Frazier. Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target, assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those calculations now?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may or may not be exactly accurate.

But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the intended spot on the target. At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or 6.1 inches.

I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop in the amount of lead.

And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you convert those lead distances into the amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head, above the point of the target?

Mr. FRAZIER. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that table also shows leads at other car speeds?

Mr. FRAZIER. This table--I could calculate them--it only shows miles per hour translated into feet per second.

Mr. EISENBERG. I mean, does it show various miles per hour?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it shows miles per hour in feet per second.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without going into detail at this time, may I have permission to introduce this table into evidence?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. This will be Commission Exhibit 560.

(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 560 was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Frazier, in the construction of this table and also in your last tests for rapid fire for this rifle, you used a five-and-a-half second figure as a factor in your calculations, and in your attempt at rapid fire accuracy placements. Can you give us the source of that figure?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. You were the source of it, based on examination, as I understood it, of a movie taken at the scene, and measurements taken at the scene. However, I have no knowledge of the actual time.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I just wanted to establish that this is a source that was supplied by the Commission and which is tentative, and it is not to imply any final conclusion on the part of the FBI; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. I hope it is taken that way, because we don't know what the time actually was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Another point then, which should have been covered this morning, Mr. Frazier, in your qualifications: have you testified before in court?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of times?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 400 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Finally, we had discussed briefly your examination of consecutively manufactured bolt faces to see whether any two such consecutively manufactured bolt faces were identical in their microscopic characteristics. How many such examinations have you performed.

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say about four examinations of pairs of bolt faces which have been consecutively manufactured.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in each case the result was what?

Mr. FRAZIER. The marks on one bolt face in no way resembled the marks on the other bolt face.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a microscope, and that is also known as C-6 and C-14, is that right?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the markings which you have seen under the microscope and on the basis of which you made your identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the 139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission Exhibit 543 on the right side.

The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature, that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on the two specimens themselves.

Mr. EISENBERG. Referring for a second to this mental, visual, comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms training--firearms-identification training--be able to look under a microscope and make a determination for himself concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a given weapon?

Mr. FRAZIER. In that connection that person could look through the microscope. He may or may not see these individual characteristics which are present, because he does not know what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your mind going back and forth between one area and the other until you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.

If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a layman could make?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say so; yes. I don't think a layman would recognize some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown in the photographs as actually being significant or not significant, because there will be things present which have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case in the gun.

There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and there are no marks registered at that point as a result of the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the absence of similar marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you, which is 559----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?

Mr. FRAZIER. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not identical to explain why you would get such a result?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle 4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the photograph.

On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which runs through there, having an entirely different appearance from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other cartridge case.

In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the marks that are present.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.

Mr. Frazier, could you discuss or characterize those points which you have circled on Commission Exhibit 559, starting from the top?

Mr. FRAZIER. Number 1 circle is drawn around a depression in the metal of irregular shape. I might say that number 1 shows on the right side of the photograph, and only half of it shows on the left side because of the relative position of the two cartridge cases in the photograph.

Number 2 is a circle drawn around a long line which extends obliquely across each cartridge case from the upper left to the lower right. The long line itself is a means of orienting the cartridge cases one with the other, but the circle is drawn around a break in that line in the form of a very small hump or an absence of metal which shows up as an actual break in the long line.

Number 3 again is a depression between two grooves, which is rather similar in shape. I cannot tell you how deep it is because the photograph only shows two dimensions. But on the cartridge cases it has a very characteristic depth to it, which is readily apparent.

It is formed by two parallel lines extending from the upper left to the lower, towards the lower right, with the depression in between, and again one side of the depression is formed by a small raised area in the primer metal which is seen in each photograph as a conical, almost a conical-shaped bump or raised area.

Number 4 is another raised portion on the photograph. In connection with 4, I would like to point out that a portion of this bump has been erased from the test cartridge case on the left-hand side of the photograph, the erasure caused by the turning of the bolt of the weapon while being pressed against the primer, which has smoothed off some of the protruding rough areas on the primer.

Number 5 is a horizontal ridge which has two depressions, one on the top and one on the bottom, shown on both sides of the photograph, and number 6 is a wishbone type of ridge, a wide ridge which divides into two smaller ridges on the left-hand edge, and in the middle of the dividing lines, the forked lines, is a small dent or raised portion. Those six which I have marked are only portions of those shown in the photograph, and of course the photograph does not show the entire surface of the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to find identifying marks on the brass as well as the primer on this cartridge case?

Mr. FRAZIER. No; I did not notice any marks on the brass portions outside of the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that typical of cartridge-case identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Generally that is true, unless there is a great pressure, unless the brass of the cartridge case is soft, or unless the marks are very sharp on the breech face; then they will be impressed into the brass.

Mr. EISENBERG. This picture represents only a portion of the primer. You examined the entire primer to make your identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And found?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would not have been necessary to examine the entire primer necessarily, but of course we do examine the entire primer, pick out all of the marks on the left and the right, and rotate the cartridge cases and look at them from various angles, before arriving at a conclusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you amplify the meaning of the statement that it would not be necessary to examine the entire primer?

Mr. FRAZIER. There are sufficient marks shown in this photograph upon which to base an identification. In other words, it would not be necessary to have the rest of the primer if it had been mutilated or destroyed or something of that nature.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine the firing-pin impression in the cartridge?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a picture of that examination?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Here is the photograph of the firing-pin impression, again on the left the rifle, and on the right the cartridge case, Commission's 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. That bears the number C-14 and C-6, corresponding to the numbers on Commission Exhibit 559?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph or have it taken under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it equal on both sides?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 561.

(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 561 was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed with the discussion of the circled marks on this photograph, number 561?

Mr. FRAZIER. In the case of firing-pin impressions which are shown on Exhibit 561, the marks result from two related sources; excuse me, not sources, but from two related causes, one being the force given to the firing pin driving it into the primer to set off the cartridge, and the second being the force of the powder charge inside the cartridge being driven back--driving the primer back against the firing pin at the same time, so that the metal of the primer is caused to flow or be stamped by the firing pin and pressed against by the gases, so that any irregularities in the firing pin will be impressed into the primer of the cartridge case.

Number 1 consists of a double horizontal line, one a fairly wide coarse line at the top. Immediately under that approximately one-eighth of an inch is a fairly fine horizontal line.

Circled and marked number 2 is a very coarse, wide ridge, very short in length, approximately one-half an inch, and an eighth to a quarter of an inch in height. This ridge is formed by two grooves, a straight groove across the top, and a curved or crescent-shaped groove across the bottom.

Number 3 is a circle drawn around two small raised areas in the primer metal separated by a depression.

Number 4 is a section from a large ridge across the metal of the primer, which has a break in its surface in the lower portion of the circle, and immediately above the break is a groove, and immediately above that again is another ridge which is at a little steeper angle upwards to the left.

Number 5 is a depression, is a portion of a depression appearing at the bottom of the circle with a very short ridge running horizontally across the circle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of dissimilarities?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces.

Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear, whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures are the same or not.

So I don't think we can say that it is an absence of dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this cartridge case?

Mr. McCLOY. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you have testified also that you identified the cartridge case which is Exhibit 544 as having been fired from this rifle, in this rifle, to the exclusion of all others. Did you take a photograph of the comparison that you made under the microscope of number 544?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I again took two photographs, one of the breech-face or bolt-face marks, and one of the firing-pin marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. This exhibit which I am holding is a picture of the breech-face marks?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And was that taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification here is what?

Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be number 562, Mr. Reporter.

(The item described as Commission Exhibit No. 562 was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the markings on this picture, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Commission Exhibit 562, there is again the vertical dividing line which is the top of the prism in the microscope which divides your view. On the left hand side is a portion of the primer and a portion of the head of the test cartridge case from Exhibit 139. On the right side of the photograph is a portion of the surface of the primer and a portion of the firing-pin impression of the cartridge case, Commission Exhibit 544.

To assist in pointing out on the photograph some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are present, I have had circles drawn, circling at the top, number 1, an oval-shaped depression in the metal, having an irregularly shaped or wavy ridge across the bottom of the circle. Immediately below that is another ridge which has a flat top, and is more or less of a diamond shape.

Number 3 circle is over a very coarse, wide ridge separated by two fairly deep grooves on each side.

Number 4 circle is over a conical-shaped raised portion on the primer which represents a dent in the metal of the bolt face, and number 5 again is a raised area on the primer which is a portion of a ridge. In this instance this is more or less of a compound ridge which runs horizontally with a small break in it pointing down toward the lower left.

Mr. McCLOY. Is that same break apparent in the left hand photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is. Looking very closely and right at the hairline, you can see the break in the ridge where it forms more or less of a =Y=. The actual connecting point is not present, but you can see the portion of the ridge as it heads towards the horizontal ridge. The hairline has separated that portion of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you call these marks strongly characteristic marks, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; very characteristic. They are primarily characteristic because of their irregular shape. If they had been regular in shape, it wouldn't have meant nearly as much as it does to have the irregular rough surfaces and contours of the marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think you have identified the next picture I am holding as having been taken by you?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was. That is a 70-diameter magnification photograph of Exhibit 544 on the right, and the test from the rifle on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this bears the numbers C-14 and C-7, and is a firing-pin photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May this firing-pin mark photograph be admitted, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 563.

(The item was numbered 563, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you review that photograph, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Exhibit 563 the test cartridge case representing the rifle is on the left side of the photograph, and shows most of the firing-pin impression in that cartridge case. Five circles have been drawn over towards the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression, and five similarly located circles have been drawn over the area at the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression of Exhibit 544.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is actually the left-hand side of the right-hand part of the picture?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would be--that is right; at the dividing line, the circles on 544 are drawn close to the dividing line, which shows only a very small portion of the firing pin of that cartridge case.

Beginning with number 1, it has a gently sloping ridge running from upper left toward lower right in each instance, with a break in the ridge contour at the middle in the form of an extension upwards toward the top of the photograph.

In number 2 there is a circle drawn around the end of a very long line in the left-hand side of the photograph. The circle is drawn to show a =Y=-shaped break in this line located on both cartridge cases.

Number 3 is a photograph of an irregular-shaped raised portion on the firing-pin impression, which is very difficult to describe in words.

Number 4 is a groove extending from upper right to lower left which has a break in its lower side to allow a horizontal groove to come in towards the main groove. The lower portion of that groove coming in from the lower side is in the form of a crescent-shaped ridge, which starts horizontally from the left and then falls off towards the lower right-hand side of the photograph.

The circle, number 5, is again a =Y=-shaped or wishbone-shaped ridge, with a horizontal bar on the right, and then extending ridges upward toward the left and downward to the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, are these firing-pin marks what you would call strongly characteristic?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say so.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the firing pin give any evidence of having been altered subsequent to the original manufacture?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; only in an accidental sort of way, that is, very fine scratches which may have been caused by firing or dirt on a cartridge or something which may have scratched the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are firing-pin marks usually as characteristic of a given cartridge case as the primer marks?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say they are as characteristic. However, they may not always be as evident, they may not be seen as readily. However, they are just as characteristic.

Mr. McCLOY. Just to repeat again, what is this side of this picture? What does this represent?

Mr. FRAZIER. That represents the rifle cartridge.

Mr. McCLOY. The rifle cartridge itself?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And this on the right?

Mr. FRAZIER. This is one of the three cartridge cases recovered from the building, Exhibit 544.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you fired two test cartridges in the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. We fired several test cartridge cases. These two are the ones that were used in the comparisons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you fire several for possible comparison purposes, or only two for possible comparison purposes?

Mr. FRAZIER. Those we fired were in the time-fire test and we retained some of those for possible use in comparing, but it was not necessary to use them, actually.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you use both of these test cartridge cases in the photographs, or only one of them?

Mr. FRAZIER. I could not tell by these photographs. We did not make any distinction when we were comparing tests with the evidence as to which test cartridge case we were using.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you made your selection among cartridge cases to select the items which would be used as test cases for comparison purposes, were the items you rejected much different from those you selected?

Mr. FRAZIER. No. The marks were generally the same on all of them. Those we used in this comparison were two tests which we fired on November 23d and used them in our tests--made our examination, our identification.

Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of the other tests that were made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you just as easily have used other of the items from your original November twenty----

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting to the last cartridge case, Exhibit 545, did you take a photograph of the exhibit together with the test case under the microscope after making your identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. This photograph shows that cartridge case 545 on the right, and the test cartridge case from the rifle, 139, on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is marked on the right C-38 and on the left C-14?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again this is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is of the primer?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have a second photograph here also, marked C-14 and C-38, also taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this is of the markings of the firing pin?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the magnification first of the primer-markings photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is 100 diameters enlargement on the primer, and on the firing-pin it is 80 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now in all the cases of the photographs you have given us, the magnifications are equal on both sides, are they?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted into evidence?

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. They will be 564 and 565.

(The items, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 564 and 565, were received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the photograph, Exhibit 564 please, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 564 is again, a portion of the primer of the cartridge case fired by me in the rifle number 139 appearing on the left side of the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, and on the right side a portion of the surface of the cartridge case, Exhibit 545, showing its primer and the marks on it.

In the photograph four circles, or portions of circles, have been drawn, circling some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are found which permitted identifying the two cartridge cases as having been fired in the same weapon.

In the upper circle are again two ridges separated by a groove, the lower right-hand end of which is blocked by a raised portion in the metal of the primer.

Circle number 2 is again a depression bounded on the top by a long sloping groove, sloping from the upper left subsequently to the lower right.

In circle number 3 there is a series of ridges running horizontally across the photograph. The lowest of these three ridges is a rather wide round-topped ridge.

Circle number 4 shows the left-hand side of a figure which you could roughly call a Z in the primer, which consists of a horizontal or nearly horizontal line running from left to right which meets a second line running from right down to the left, which again meets a third line which runs from the left to the right. This is shown in both photographs as the three lines which form the shape of a Z on the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, on this photograph there is shown a mark at approximately 3 o'clock on the left-hand side of the picture, and 9 o'clock on the right-hand side, and the marks seem to be different in the two pictures, being broader on the left-hand, C-14, than on the right, C-38. Could you explain the genesis of the difference? It seems to extend further down.

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately in the center of the photograph where the two images meet, there is a scraped area which is the result of the surface of the metal of the bolt scraping the surface of the primer as the bolt was turned in opening the bolt to extract the cartridge.

On the test cartridge case, this area is much broader and coarser because the bolt was pressing more tightly against the primer when it was turned. On the evidence cartridge case, the marks are relatively fine, separated, and even show portions of the surface of the primer in between the circular marks left by the rotating bolt. The reason is that this primer was not being pressed as tightly against the bolt at the time it was turned.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that be due to differences in the construction of the cartridge--the two cartridges?

Mr. FRAZIER. It could be differences in the cartridge, but primarily it would be a difference in the amount of setback of the cartridge against the bolt at the time it was fired.

If a cartridge is slightly away from the bolt when it is fired, the primer is blown back out of the cartridge. As the pressure builds up, the cartridge then moves back and reseats the primer in the primer pocket. The manner in which that movement of the primer out and back in is accomplished determines how tightly the primer will bear against the face of the breach after the cartridge has been fired.

It could be that, and it could be just a slight difference in the hardness of the metal of the primer which caused this one to flow back more and be marked more.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss Exhibit No. 565?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; in Commission Exhibit No. 565 is shown the firing-pin impressions of the test cartridge case from the 139 rifle on the left and the cartridge case, 545, on the right, with a dividing line through the middle separating the primer of one cartridge case from the primer of the other.

No circles have been drawn around this photograph because the marks shown are marks of an abraded area on the firing pin, and are more or less parallel and formed parallel patterns, so that the eye can follow from one line across to the opposite side of the photograph.

In this area shown of the firing pin of the weapon, there was a small scraped area which left these microscopic ridges and grooves shown on the left photograph, and also reproduced in the 545 primer or firing-pin impression on the right side of the photograph.

Mr. McCLOY. State for me again what is on the left side? What is this C-14?

Mr. FRAZIER. This is the rifle cartridge case, the test cartridge case.

Mr. McCLOY. The test rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; the cartridge case which I fired in 139.

Mr. McCLOY. In 139. And the one on the right?

Mr. FRAZIER. This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545.

Mr. McCLOY. Which was found in the building?

Mr. FRAZIER. Found in the building.

Mr. McCLOY. On all of these on the left is it always the same----

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; on all of the photographs we have discussed so far.

Mr. McCLOY. I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, it appears to the eye that only a portion of this is in focus. Is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Only a portion of the entire photograph is in focus, yes, and that is the area where these individual marks appear, occur.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the reason being the outer area, the area up to the edge of the firing-pin impression is considerably higher, and the microscope does not have the depth of focus to focus on a very deep groove or depression such as the firing pin at the bottom of it and still maintain the top in focus.

The firing pin is circular, I should say, hemispherical in shape, so that it leaves a cup-shaped impression of it--only one portion of it can be in focus at the same time; the other part being either higher or lower will be out of focus.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the types of markings which are generated onto a bullet, as opposed to those which are generated onto a cartridge case?

Mr. FRAZIER. A bullet when it is fired picks up the marks of the barrel of the weapon. These marks consist of rifling marks of the lands and the grooves, the spiral grooves in the barrel, and, in addition, the abrasion marks or rubbing marks which the bullet picks up due to the friction between the barrel and the surface of the copper jacket on the bullet, or if it is a lead bullet, with the lead.

Mr. McCLOY. You said the marks of the groove. You mean the marks of the groove or the marks of the lands?

Mr. FRAZIER. Both, sir; both are present. In this barrel there are four lands and four grooves. Each of the raised portions in the barrel will be impressed into the surface of the bullet causing four--we call them land impressions--on the bullet, and, in between, four groove impressions.

Mr. EISENBERG. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel from which the bullets are fired.

The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or faulty cleaning.

They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they result from wear, that is an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges, bullets through it.

In this particular barrel the manufacturer's marks are caused by the drill which drills out the barrel, leaving certain marks from the drilling tool. Then portions of these marks are erased by a rifling tool which cuts the four spiral grooves in the barrel and, in turn, leaves marks themselves, and in connection with those marks of course, the drilling marks, being circular in shape, there is a tearing away of the surface of the metal, so that a microscopically rough surface is left.

Then removing part of those marks with a separate tool causes that barrel to assume an individual characteristic, a character all of its own.

In other words, at that time you could identify a bullet fired from that barrel as having been fired from the barrel to the exclusion of all other barrels, because there is no system whatever to the drilling of the barrel. The only system is in the rifling or in the cutting of the grooves, and in this case of rifle barrels, even the cutters wear down as the barrels are made, eventually of course having to be discarded or re-sharpened.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to determine whether their microscopic characteristics are identical?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say, paired barrels, which have been manufactured on the same machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as individual microscopic 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-l 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.

The microscopic marks which were used in the identification, after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification, were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photograph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and inbetween size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon.

There will be some marks which will not show up on one bullet which show up on the other bullet, and similarly some marks on the other bullet, in this case Exhibit 399, will not be present on the test bullet, that stiuation being due to a number of causes.

One, the bullets could have originally been slightly different in diameter, the larger bullet, of course, picking up more marks during its passage through the barrel.

Secondly, the two bullets may not have expanded exactly the same, due to the pressure of the powder behind them as they passed through the barrel.

Third, with each bullet fired through the barrel, there are certain changes that occur due to the wearing away of the surface of the metal of the barrel, so that after a series of shots through a particular barrel, it would be expected that the pattern of microscopic marks produced by it would change.

The identification is based on areas such as this on the bullet and the comparison of the microscopic marks around the entire surface of the bullet which bears individual characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, running through the middle of the exhibit there seem to be finer lines on the right-hand side than on the left. Could you explain that, the reason why the lines come out with more detail or that there are more lines on the right side than on the left?

Mr. FRAZIER. Those marks could be the result of the bullet striking some object after it was fired, or they could be the result of changes having taken place in the barrel.

For instance, even a piece of coarse cloth, leather or some other object could have polished the surface of the metal slightly and left infinitesimal scratches which, when enlarged sufficiently, actually look like marks on the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. In making your examination of the bullet, what was the relative attention you gave to the broader lines we see in this picture and the finer lines such as those we have just been referring to?

Mr. FRAZIER. The broader lines would be more characteristic or they are looked for most, because they change less rapidly than the fine lines. For instance, firing two or three bullets through a barrel could completely erase microscopic marks which would appear as fine lines in a certain area, whereas the coarser lines and grooves on the bullet would be maintained over a series of fired bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. In evaluating these lines, do you examine the lines individually, or are you interested in their relationship with one another in addition?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is a combination. You actually examine each mark and each line individually, but it is a mental process rather than a matter of adding one line to another. It is a process of looking at a series of lines and you actually notice that they are composed of round-topped ridges, =V=-topped ridges, flat-topped ridges, and it is a mental process of looking at the whole pattern rather than the individual marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. All these lines that we are looking at lie within a groove, within one groove, did you say?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; except for the lower portion of the photograph, there is a portion of a land impression showing one rather deep groove running across the bottom of the picture, and a series of grooves shown next to the edge of the land impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will you identify the circular-looking mark on the right-hand side of the picture?

Mr. FRAZIER. That could be either a flaw in the bullet, the metal itself, before it was fired, or could be the result of the bullet having struck some object after it was fired and before it stopped, or as it stopped, or could be the result of having been dropped or roughly handled.

This particular mark there would be invisible practically speaking to the naked eye when looking at the bullet.

Mr. McCLOY. The mark to which you refer is the one on the right-hand side of the exhibit toward the top, about an inch and a half from the center line?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that about 11 o'clock?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have another photograph, Mr. Frazier, of this?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled Jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.

Mr. EISENBERG. How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?

Mr. FRAZIER. Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you weigh this fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. It weighs 44.6 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the fragment as compared with a test bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is labeled C-14 on the left and C-2 on the right, and it is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. The test bullet from 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the magnification of this photograph?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 70 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may that be admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. C-2 is the actual fragment?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The items described, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 567 and 568, were received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss this photograph with us?

Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 568 is again the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, with the test bullet from the rifle 139 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.

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 is?

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?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And the fragment 567----

Mr. FRAZIER. 567, the one we have just finished.

Mr. McCLOY. Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. You have no doubt about any of those?

Mr. FRAZIER. None whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.

Mr. EISENBERG. Your mark is on that fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?

Mr. FRAZIER. It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It consists of the base or most rearward portion of the jacket of a metal-jacketed bullet, from which the lead core is missing.

Mr. EISENBERG. How can you tell that it is the most rearward portion?

Mr. FRAZIER. It has the shape which bases of bullets have. It has the cannelure which is located at the rear, on the portion of bullets of this type.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567, and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You cannot?

Mr. FRAZIER. There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.

However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now 569 is without the core; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how much weight you would add if you had the core?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, I cannot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Not at all?

Mr. FRAZIER. No. I do not have the figure on the core weight.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, is it possible that if you did make such an estimate, the weight, the projected weight of 569 plus the actual weight of 567 would exceed the bullet weight of the 6.5 mm. bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, no; it would not.

Mr. EISENBERG. It would not?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would not come even close to it, because the amount of core is only--one-quarter inch of the bullet is all that remains at the base, and that much core would not weigh more than 40 grains at the most.

Mr. EISENBERG. No cannelure shows on 567, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you make a comparison photograph of 569 with a test bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is marked C-14 on the left and C-3 on the right; is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, from the rifle 139, and C-3 is Exhibit 569.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification on this photograph is what, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. 70 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. 570.

(The item was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 570 and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss this picture?

Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 570 shows a portion of the test bullet from Exhibit 139 on the left side of the photograph, and a portion of the bullet 569 on the right side, divided by a hairline.

The photograph was taken of the microscopic marks, examined through the comparison microscope, consisting of very fine and very coarse grooves, or scratches, or ridges, on the surface of each of the bullets as compared with those on the other bullet.

The photograph did not, of course, enter into the conclusion reached in the examination, but was merely taken to demonstrate, to illustrate the types of marks present insofar as a photograph can show them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what portion of the Exhibit 569 was unmutilated enough to allow you to make a comparison of its markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately one-third. Actually, the entire base section of the bullet was present, but approximately one-half of that base was mutilated. On the mutilated area, either marks were destroyed completely by striking some object, or being compressed or stretched, or they were thrown out of relationship with each other by stretching or compressing to the extent that they were of no value.

So I would estimate approximately one-third of the area was present.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say one-third, is this total area or circumference?

Mr. FRAZIER. Circumference--one-third of the circumference.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any further pictures of any of the bullets, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, I do not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I hand you two bullets and ask whether you are familiar with them.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am. These are the two test bullets which I fired from this rifle, Exhibit 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Exhibit 572?

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 572, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials.

Mr. EISENBERG. As you examined the bullet and the two bullet fragments, are they in the same condition now as they were when they entered your hands?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. One other question on the cartridge cases.

Did you examine the cartridge cases for chambering marks, extraction marks, or ejection marks?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did, but I did not make any comparisons of either extractor or ejector marks or chambering marks, since the purpose of my examination was primarily to determine whether they were fired in this rifle, and such marks would not have assisted in that determination. They were not necessary because they would have indicated only that it may have been loaded into and extracted from the weapon, whereas the marks which I found served to identify it as having been fired in the weapon, actually.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, unless you have further questions on the cartridge cases or bullets, I would like to move on to another subject.

Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?

Mr. FRAZIER. Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.

Mr. McCLOY. And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at the minimum?

Mr. FRAZIER. I meant at least two bullets.

Mr. McCLOY. There were at least two different bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. At least two, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 60 rounds.

Mr. EISENBERG. And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find the ammunition dependable?

Mr. FRAZIER. Very dependable.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you elaborate as to what that other ammunition consists of?

Mr. FRAZIER. Certain companies have imported into the United States cartridges of foreign manufacture. Those I have seen for this rifle were of Italian manufacture. They have pulled the military bullets from those cartridges and reloading hunting type or soft-point bullets into the cartridges. In doing that, they did not, apparently, take any great pains in loading them. Occasionally, the mouth of the case would be bent over and the bullet driven in right on top of the bent case.

I have seen split cartridge cases, even before they were fired, badly corroded cartridge cases. All in all, the ammunition is of generally poor overall appearance, and it has been reported to me that it was of poor firing quality.

I have not fired any of it, personally.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you heard anything about the dependability of the Italian-made ammunition, unreloaded?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not as such.

However, I have experienced the examination of Italian ammunition of various years of manufacture and, of course, various makes. And I think it is rather poor quality in this particular caliber, primarily due to the very short seating depth to which bullets of this type are seated in the cartridge, which causes the bullets to loosen very readily in the cartridge case even before they are loaded into a clip or fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice, Mr. Frazier, in your examination of targets and so forth, whether there was any marked degree of yaw or tumbling by the bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. No evidence at all of tumbling or yaw.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the firing of 60 shots materially affect the microscopic characteristics of Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would change them, if not completely, practically completely.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, some witnesses to the assassination have stated that they heard more than three shots. Can you think of any reason why they might have come to that conclusion--in terms of acoustical properties of high-velocity bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER. They could very readily have heard other sounds which could be confused with shots. It is apparent--it is obvious with any weapon in which the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, which is 1,127, approximately, feet per second, the bullet itself will cause a shock wave or a sound wave, and a person standing in front of that weapon will hear the report of the bullet passing and then subsequently the sound will reach them of the cartridge explosion, which could very easily be confused with two shots. There will be the crack of the bullet going by, overhead or in the vicinity, and then the sound of the shot.

So that you would hear for three shots actually six reports, which could have caused some confusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a bullet in a pill box which is marked Q-188. I ask you whether you are familiar with this bullet.

I would like to state for the record that this bullet was found in the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.

Mr. McCLOY. As far as you know, we have no proof of that yet?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am familiar with it. I have made an examination of that bullet.

With reference to this bullet, I could furnish everything except the weight of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Just taking one thing at a time. You are familiar with it. Does it have your marking on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 573?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 573, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this bullet, do you recall, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would need to refer to my notes for that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply that for us at a subsequent time?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the weight.

Is this bullet in the same condition as it was when you received it in the laboratory, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean it up or in any way alter it when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER. I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.

The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.

The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was the direction of the twist?

Mr. FRAZIER. To the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how many types of rifle would produce, on a 6.5 mm. bullet, four lands and four grooves, right twist, with the width of lands and grooves which you established as being those on this bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Only from experience, I could say that it would be relatively few which would agree with all of those characteristics. I have, of course, not seen or measured all of the foreign rifles, and therefore I could not estimate the number that there might be.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any miscroscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine the depth of the grooves of the bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet, 573, had what appeared to be normal-depth grooves.

However, this bullet is completely flattened due to hitting a plaster or cement or other hard material on one side, and the opposite side, as a result of the flattening--has assumed a concave appearance, which has stretched the surface in various places and changes its overall appearance--that is the basis for actually having to state that there were not enough unmutilated marks for identification purposes on it.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you do conclude that this was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel characteristics?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, do you have any further questions on this?

Mr. McCLOY. When you say you were able to determine it was fired from this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with which I am not familiar in the foreign field.

Mr. McCLOY. But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a 6.5 mm. bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And the bullet, such as we find it, has now characteristics similar to the type of bullet which was our Exhibit No. 399?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does. Placing them side by side, the cannelure, which is really the only physical characteristic apparent, comes to exactly the same place on both 399 and 573, indicating that this bullet was loaded to exactly the same depth in the cartridge--the two bullets, both 399 and 573.

Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no further questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. Not with reference to this material, no.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you thinking of----

Mr. FRAZIER. I am thinking of other examinations which I made, but which probably will come up at another time.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to examinations such as the clothing, holes in the clothing, and the fracture in the automobile windshield?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. There will be testimony elicited at another time on those examinations, Mr. Frazier.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier will be a witness in those, too?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. Specter will probably elicit that testimony.

Mr. Chairman, or gentlemen, are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.

Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. I have one photograph here that might be useful in this regard, and that is of a clip showing the six cartridges loaded into it.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that might be a good idea. You might identify that, to show what we mean by clips.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. One photograph loaded, and one unloaded?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take those photographs?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier, you testified that if you didn't use the clip you would only be able to shoot one shell at a time, is that right?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this weapon does not have the box magazine commonly found in most military weapons which holds the cartridges and can be reloaded one at a time, but they must remain in the clip, or they will malfunction. The follower in the weapon will throw the cartridges right back out of the gun.

Mr. McCLOY. That explains it to my mind, because I know I have fired rifles with clips and fired them without clips. But they were much more convenient in loading.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this one is designed----

Mr. McCLOY. For example, the Springfield you could load with clip or load without a clip.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. But this one has to have a clip in order not to malfunction?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Those will be 574 and 575.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 574 and 575, and received in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. You have been very helpful.

TESTIMONY OF RONALD SIMMONS

Mr. EISENBERG. Our next witness will be Mr. Simmons.

Mr. McCLOY. Would you hold up your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SIMMONS. I do.

Mr. McCLOY. Please be seated.

This, as you know--the constitution of the Commission and its purpose--we want to ask you something about the firearm aspect of our hearings, and certain characteristics of this rifle that we would like to hear from you about, and if there is anything else you have that can throw light on our problems.

If you can state for the record, first, your name, and where you live.

Mr. SIMMONS. My name is Ronald Simmons. I live near Havre de Grace, Md.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Eisenberg?

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?

Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the area of evaluation of weapons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Since 1951, in various classes of weapons.

Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the laboratories on small arms.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has part of it--of these--have part of these evaluations been conducted with military rifles, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Most of our evaluations have been associated with military rifles.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area?

Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continuously concerned with this since 1957.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons you have evaluated as to accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as developmental weapons.

Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to----

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. In the course of that you have examined hundreds of rifles, though, have you not?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be employed, and the wounding power of the projectiles.

Mr. McCLOY. In the course of this you have fired a great many rifles yourself?

Mr. SIMMONS. No, sir; I don't fire them.

Mr. McCLOY. Somebody else fires them?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. But you make the studies in relation to the accuracy of the weapons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. The firing is accomplished by employees of the development and proof services, which is the weapons testing facility at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation----

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an expert to testify in this area?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to-round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?

Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?

Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.

I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?

Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round-to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?

Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.

Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.?

Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the course of this test from a machine rest, Mr. Simmons, did you also attempt to determine the muzzle velocity?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you test for yaw?

Mr. SIMMONS. We took spark shadowgraph pictures at various stations down range from the muzzle, so that we actually have pictures of the position of the bullet relative to the top and bottom of our range.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring those pictures with you?

Mr. SIMMONS. No; I do not have them with me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you furnish those to the Commission at a later date?

Mr. SIMMONS. They could be made available later. I would like to point out these are not pictures, however. They are on large pieces of glass, and they are not photos.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can they be read by a layman?

Mr. SIMMONS. That I do not know. I do not read them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, I wonder whether you can send them up, and we could take a look at them.

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we can have them forwarded.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon in?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.

Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you recognize these shims that I display to you, Mr. Simmons, as being the shims that were placed in the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. I saw the shims only when they were in the weapon, but those look very much like what was evident from the external view, after they were in place.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, Mr. Chairman, these shims were given to me by the FBI who told me that they had removed them from the weapon after they had been placed there by Mr. Simmons' laboratory.

May I have these introduced as evidence?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?

Mr. SIMMONS. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our machine shops--rather a machinist in one of our machine shops.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I wonder whether you could take these shims back after I have marked them to find out whether the three had been placed?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am marking these 576, 577, and 578. They consist of three shims in three small envelopes.

(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 576, 577, and 578, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid-fire conditions?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.

I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?

Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.

Mr. SIMMONS. For our experiment, I do not see how a difference of a few feet would make any difference.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take pictures or have pictures taken showing what that range looked like?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; I have copies of these pictures here. I show you three pictures--the first showing the window from which the weapon was fired in our experiments; the second showing the view of the three targets from the window; and the third showing a rifleman in position.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you take these pictures yourself?

Mr. SIMMONS. No; these pictures were taken by one of the cameramen from the development and proof services.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see the scenes represented in these pictures?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are these pictures accurate reproductions of these scenes?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the first, second, and third pictures described by Mr. Simmons admitted as exhibits. That will be 579 for the first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 579, 580, and 581 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, the targets were--well, can you describe the targets for us?

Mr. SIMMONS. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many marksmen were involved?

Mr. SIMMONS. We used three riflemen.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what their background was?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a rifleman, and also has a Master rating.

Mr. EISENBERG. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?

Mr. SIMMONS. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight--because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the total number of rounds fired was what?

Mr. SIMMONS. 21.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets?

Mr. SIMMONS. I brought photos of the targets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take these photographs, Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?

Mr. SIMMONS. These photographs were taken by the photographic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate reproductions of the targets?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583 and 584?

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 582, 583, and 584 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photographs?

Mr. SIMMONS. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target.

As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of the weapon is quite good.

Mr. McCLOY. That first target is what distance?

Mr. SIMMONS. 175 feet. And we had to make an assumption here about the point of aim. It is quite likely that in fact each man was aiming at a different portion of the target--there were no markings on the target visible to the firer.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did I understand you just told the firers to aim at the target without referring to----

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is an apparent crossline running darkly through that photograph.

Mr. SIMMONS. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements from the actual impact point.

The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course, we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target.

On the third target, the angle through which the weapon had to be moved to get to the third target from the second was relatively small, and there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One of these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where the iron sight was employed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, when you said that the firers had to make a large shift relatively in their firing position, and were in a hurry, is this your interpretation or is this based on discussions with them subsequently?

Mr. SIMMONS. This is based on discussions with the firers after the experiment.

Mr. EISENBERG. After these tests were finished, did you make a determination of the amount of error--average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the intersection of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming--the aiming error associated with the three riflemen--this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, could you convert those at a hundred yards to inches?

Mr. SIMMONS. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3-1/2 inches.

Mr. EISENBERG. In arriving at these figures, had you discounted the round-to-round dispersion as determined in the bench rest test?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round dispersion.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the actual accuracy of the riflemen would have to include the round-to-round dispersion, would it not?

Mrs. SIMMONS. Yes; it would.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why did you then subtract the round-to-round dispersion figure, or discount it?

Mr. SIMMONS. We wanted to determine what the aiming error itself was associated with the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the times in which the various riflemen used to fire the three shots in each sequence?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of two readings on stop watches.

Mr. EISENBERG. For each rifleman?

Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise.

Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.

Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6-3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.

Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?

Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.

Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope, but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?

Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.

Mr. EISENBERG. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made--particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.

There was also comment made about the trigger pull, which is different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you prepare a table showing the probability of hit at a given target at given ranges by riflemen with given degrees of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, we prepared a table which showed what the probability of a hit would be on specific sizes of target as a function of aiming error, and using the appropriate round-to-round dispersion also in these calculations.

Mr. EISENBERG. What were the targets that you used in your calculations?

Mr. SIMMONS. We used two circular targets, one of 4 inches in radius and one of 9 inches in radius, to approximate the area of the head and the area of the shoulders, or the thorax, actually. And a significant point to these calculations to us is that against the larger target, if you fire with the 0.7 mil aiming error which was observed against the first target, the probability of hitting that target is 1, and it is 1 at all three ranges, out to 270 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the meaning of the probability being 1?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, the probability is effectively one. Actually the number is 0.99 and several more digits afterwards. It is rounded off to 1. Simply implying that the probability of a hit is very high with the small aiming errors and short range.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now of course this aiming error is derived from the three riflemen who you employed in the tests, is that correct?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed to the other two?

Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.2 mil aiming error, again at the larger targets, the probability of hitting the target at 175 feet is 1; at 240 feet it is 0.96; and at 270 feet it is 0.92.

Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the second two figures in terms of probability?

Mr. SIMMONS. These also are very high values.

Mr. EISENBERG. The mil figure was 1.2, was it?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include, did you say, both aiming error and round-to-round dispersion?

Mr. SIMMONS. The 1.2 is the aiming error. When we include the round-to-round dispersion, it becomes only 1.24 mils.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the probability reflect the 1.2 or the 1.24 figure?

Mr. SIMMONS. It reflects the total error, which is 1.24.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the same on the first series of calculations you gave us?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go on to the third?

Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.4 mil aiming error, and the round-to-round dispersion, giving a total error of 1.43 mils, the probability of hit at the 175 foot target is 0.99; at 240 feet it is 0.91; at 270 feet it is 0.85.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the figures for the smaller target?

Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 0.7 mil aiming error, the probability of a hit at 175 feet is 0.96; at 240 feet, 0.81; at 270 feet, 0.73.

For the 1.2 mil aiming error, the probability is 0.69 at 175 feet; 0.74 at 240 feet; 0.39 at 270 feet.

Using the----

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize those, or explain them in lay terms?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, against a shorter target, the probability is still almost 0.7, which is a relatively high value. The effective-range increase is beginning to show, however, because at 270 feet the value of 0.4 tends to be small.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does 0.4 mean you have 4 chances in 10 of hitting?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Now, our assumption throughout all of this is that the actual target was probably not either a small--the small area, but tending to be a larger area, as indicated by the crosshairs in these targets which we placed at this point.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have given us probabilities of hit with three variations of aiming error. You have selected these three variations in what manner, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. These were actually the three values which were demonstrated in the experiment.

Mr. EISENBERG. But each of those values is associated with one target?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. However, you have applied them to all three targets?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have a special reason for doing that?

Mr. SIMMONS. No. We are victims of habit, and we tend to provide such information in parametric form.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, of course the assassin's aiming error must be unknown. But do you have any opinion concerning the probable aiming error of an assassin using this weapon against the aiming error displayed by the three riflemen you employed?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, it looks like to achieve hits as indicated, the accuracy, overall accuracy of the three rounds would have to be of the order of 1.2 mils. And this is really not a small number as far as marksmanship goes. There have been many exercises in which we have been involved where the aiming error turns out to be much smaller, smaller than this. And in match competition, of course, the numbers actually turn out to be--the total aiming error turns out to be about equal to the round-to-round dispersion.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you make the reference to many exercises, are you referring to exercises solely with skilled riflemen?

Mr. SIMMONS. If we have skilled riflemen, the values for aiming error tend to be of the order of 1 mil. As a matter of fact, to qualify as expert on Army rifle courses, about a 1 mil aiming error is required--a standard deviation of 1 mil.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that with a rest or without a rest?

Mr. SIMMONS. This would be without a rest. This would be the actual aiming error from the fixed position, firing range.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is this with open or telescopic sights?

Mr. SIMMONS. This would be with the peepsight on the conventional rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you exercises which you feel would be applicable to the assassination--that is, exercises conducted with--under noncombat conditions, with a telescopic sight and a rest?

Mr. SIMMONS. The only experience that we have with the telescopic sight with which I am familiar is the exercise using this weapon. There have been experiments made using telescopic sights, but these are of limited interest militarily.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, what effect does the introduction of a rest and telescopic sight have on probable aiming error?

Mr. SIMMONS. From a position where the movement of the weapon is not great, and where the target is slowly moving, the fixed position on the telescope should enhance the probability of a hit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?

Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, has data been compiled showing the effect of the time taken between shots on the accuracy of the shots?

Mr. SIMMONS. There have been experiments run where aiming error has been measured as a function of the time one has to aim.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do those experiments show that aiming error is directly proportionate to the length of time one has to aim?

Mr. SIMMONS. Not directly proportionate, but aiming error decreases as time increases. But once you get to the area of about 4 seconds in time, then there is very small decrease in aiming error for increase in time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Translating that to this weapon, does that mean that taking more than 8 seconds between three shots should not appreciably affect the degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. The 8 seconds I was referring to is between shots.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said 4 seconds, I thought.

Mr. SIMMONS. I beg your pardon.

Mr. EISENBERG. And I was saying, if you took 4 seconds between the first and second, and 4 seconds between the second and third, for a total of 8 seconds, on the basis of this data would that mean after 8 seconds you would not be substantially increasing your accuracy by taking more time?

Mr. SIMMONS. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately how many bullets did you fire in the course of your tests?

Mr. SIMMONS. We fired 47 bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?

Mr. SIMMONS. None.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you aware when you performed your tests of the conclusions of any other body concerning the accuracy of this weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. No; we were not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you aware of such conclusions at this point?

Mr. SIMMONS. No; I am not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. You said that these riflemen, or one or two of them at least, had the rank of master. What is that?

Mr. SIMMONS. I again fall back on my comment earlier that I am not a shooter myself. A master is one of the ratings given to highly qualified riflemen by the National Rifle Association. These men have all participated in national match competitions in the National Rifle Association.

Mr. McCLOY. Is that a higher grade than sharpshooter in the Army?

Mr. SIMMONS. There is really no comparison between the rating of master in the NRA and the rating of sharpshooter in the Army.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure whether or not you answered this question, but do you feel that if the target was moving, rather than having the rifleman move, there would have been a difference in aiming error, increased or decreased aiming error--if the target was moving 5 to 10 miles an hour?

Mr. SIMMONS. I think the movement of the target in this case would have practically no effect on the accuracy of fire, because from the map we are led to believe that the movement was primarily away from the firer, so that the back of the President was fully exposed to the rifleman at all times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that.

Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?

Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth of the measurements which are shown in here.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions.

Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony?

Mr. SIMMONS. I think not.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether we could have a copy of your table?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. From your experience, Mr. Simmons, do you feel that with a man who had been in the Marine Corps, with the rifle instruction he had there, using this rifle, and what you know of the shots that killed the President--do you think he was an extraordinarily good shot, do you think he was just shooting in accordance with what might be taken to be the skill that service in the Marine Corps would give him?

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all.

Mr. EISENBERG. One thing, Mr. Chairman. May I have this admitted as 586, this table which Mr. Simmons prepared, from which he was giving testimony earlier? This is "Table I, Hit Probability as a Function of Range and Aiming Error."

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The table referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 586 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do you mean, accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?

Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. One further question.

Looking at the figures for aiming error, as discounted by round-to-round dispersion, how would you characterize the actual performance of men with this rifle--that is, not the accuracy of the weapon, but the accuracy of man and weapon.

Mr. SIMMONS. I am not sure I understand your question.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel on the basis of the aiming error, discounted for round-to-round dispersion or including it, that this weapon is an easy one with which to be accurate, or a difficult one?

Mr. SIMMONS. It appears to be relatively conventional in that regard, I assume. The telescope helps in the accuracy against a target which is well displayed, as was the case here. And the weapon is reasonably conventional. So that I think it would not be significantly different from any other weapon.

Mr. McCLOY. If you were having a dry run with this, you could certainly make yourself used to the drag in the trigger without discharging the rifle, could you not?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull. When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.

Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?

Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired, and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into the weapon.

Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is all.

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful.

We shall recess now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Wednesday, April 1, 1964

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM AND JOSEPH D. NICOL

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington. D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Cunningham, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Joseph Nicol. We understand that you are a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Nicol is a firearms expert with the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Illinois.

You have both been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work.

Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please.

You may proceed with the examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, would you state your name and position?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Cortlandt Cunningham. I am a Special Agent of the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in what branch of the FBI do you work?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am assigned to the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Northwestern University, and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Miami.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly state your qualifications in the field of firearms identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Upon entering the FBI Laboratory, I underwent an extensive training course under the supervision of experienced examiners in the field of firearms identification, which consisted of making thousands of examinations and comparisons of bullets, cartridge cases, and weapons.

I have also done reading in the subject. I have done some research and conducted many experiments in the field. And, of course, I have made thousands of examinations on my own and testified numerous times in State and Federal courts.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many years have you been in the Laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Over 5 years, and I have been in the Bureau over 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.

Mr. EISENBERG. To begin with, Mr. Cunningham, we had some testimony yesterday on the bullet which is thought to have been fired at General Walker. That is Commission Exhibit No. 573. Are you familiar with this bullet, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you supply the weight of that bullet, which was going to be supplied to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can. This bullet weighed 148.25 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that show some weight loss, if the bullet was from a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does. Those bullets weigh 161 grains, but there is a great deal of mutilation on this bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you tell us when you received this bullet in your laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. It was received from the Dallas office of the FBI on December 4, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when was it examined?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was examined that date.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 143, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this exhibit, which, for the record, is a revolver.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you will excuse me, I won't open the cylinder. I have checked the cylinder, and there are expended or fired cartridge cases in the cylinder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you have placed in it for a special demonstration?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I fired it, yes, prior to my testimony here today. I have seen this weapon before.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again for the record, this is the weapon which is believed to have been used in the murder of Officer Tippit. Can you describe this weapon in terms of name, caliber and so forth?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want me to describe it as it is today?

Mr. EISENBERG. As it is today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As it is today, it is a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, Victory Model revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. And was it always a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. Originally this weapon was known as a .38-200 British Service revolver. In this country the weapon would be known as a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, Victory Model. However, the British gave the designation .38-200 to it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this revolver made in the United States?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And has it been in England subsequent to that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how can you tell that, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, first of all, all weapons going into England have to be proofed. They are proofed at, usually, the Birmingham proofhouse.

Representative FORD. What does that mean?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are tested for whether they will withstand a certain charge. They place in the cylinders overloaded cartridges, and they are fired, in the cylinder, as this one has been. It has been proofed to 3-1/2 tons. Each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.

You can tell that, because each chamber has been stamped with the Birmingham proofmark, indicating that each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain to us the difference between a .38 S&W and a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are completely different cartridges. One cartridge is a .38 Special, and the other cartridge is a .38 S&W, or actually written out it would be Smith and Wesson. It was developed for their weapons, and it 1s quite an old cartridge, and it is known--usually as appears on a box of ammunition--as merely a .38 S&W. However, there are many differences in the cartridges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you brought two--an example of each type of cartridge with you?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have. First of all, this is actually a Western .38 S&W cartridge. You will see the head stamping on the base of this cartridge signifies it to be a .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before you go any further--Mr. Chairman, may I have this marked as an exhibit--this specimen?

I am holding a cartridge marked Western .38 S&W, and it is submitted as Commission Exhibit 587.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 587, and received in evidence.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you would care to see one broken down, I have one with me. That is the same cartridge where the bullet has been pulled and the powder has been dumped out.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is also a .38 S&W cartridge, but it has been disassembled into a bullet and a cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The bullet has been pulled out of the cartridge case and the powder removed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as an exhibit?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be. What is the number?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 588.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 588.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 588, and received in evidence.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular cartridge, which is one complete cartridge, is a Remington-Peters .38 S&W. These two components actually are of the same cartridge. All I have done is pull the bullet, and it is also a Remington-Peters .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the same cartridge as Exhibits 588 and 587?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The only difference is that they are different brands. They were made by two different manufacturers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show that to the Chairman for his examination?

The CHAIRMAN. These appear to be lead bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The others appeared to be jacketed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are not, sir. It is known as gilding metal. They are copper-coated lead bullets. Actually, it is an alloy--it is not pure copper. They have been flash coated, for sales appeal, more than anything else.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that coating serve to prevent distortion to any measurable extent when the bullet has penetrated a body?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it would not, to any appreciable amount. It is such a thin coat, as you can see. Later on I will show you the ones that have been fired, and also the bullets removed from Officer Tippit's body. You can see the coating comes off--it flakes off--it is very thin.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that Exhibits 587 and 588 are substantially similar to the R-P cartridge you have just been discussing?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. They are both loaded to the same specifications, even though there are two manufacturers. All commercially made ammunition in this country is loaded to a specific muzzle velocity.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this R-P cartridge which Mr. Cunningham has been discussing admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 589?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 589, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You have been showing us a .38 S&W, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an example of a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do. The first one is a Western .38 Special copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture, a .38 Special. The other components I have here are components of the same cartridge from which the bullet has been pulled.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have the cartridge case, bullet, and cartridge admitted into evidence as 590?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 590, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe to us briefly the difference----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want the Remington-Peters?

Mr. EISENBERG. You are holding in your hand a Remington-Peters disassembled and assembled .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you hand that to the Chief Justice? May this be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 591?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 591, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. This consists of an assembled R-P .38 Special and a disassembled R-P .38 Special.

Again, I notice, Mr. Cunningham, that the R-P bullet has a lead-colored look, whereas Exhibit 590 had a copper-colored look.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The Western coating is known by the trade name "Lubaloy." It is a trade name of the Western Cartridge Co., and it is nothing more than a gilding metal--actually, it is just a flash coating on the outside of the bullet. There is some advantage, a very small advantage, as to leading. But it is mostly for sales appeal, because with Winchester bullets, some do and some don't have the coating. Most of Winchesters which is the same bullet, have not been copper coated--that they are selling today.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain the difference in terms of dimensions and contour, weight, and so forth, between the .38 Special bullets which you have just shown us and the .38 S&W bullets which you have shown to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The complete .38 Special cartridges, both brands, they are approximately the same--they are made to specifications, and they are within--just 1/1000th difference between the two of them. They are very close. In some cases, there is a slight difference, but generally they are the same size.

The .38 Special cartridges are a little over 1-1/2 inches in length. The .38 S&W cartridges are approximately 1.2 inches in length. In other words, there is about 4/10ths of an inch difference in their length.

The bullets of the .38 Special weigh 158 grains--both brands. The bullets in the .38 S&W cartridges--there is one grain difference--Western Lubaloy bullets weigh 145 grains, and Remington's bullets weigh 146 grains, which is very close, when you figure there are 7,000 grains to the pound.

The length of the bullets themselves--the .38 Special bullets are approximately .72 plus inch. The .38 S&W bullets are approximately .6 plus inch. The lengths of the cartridge cases are also different. A .38 Special is approximately 1.15 inches for both brands. The .38 S&W cartridge cases are approximately .77 inch. And there you have approximately a quarter of an inch difference between the lengths of the cartridge cases.

The diameters of the bullets--the .38 Special bullets, at the portion of the bullet where the case is crimped into the bullet are approximately .357".

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the groove around the base of the bullet, also known as the cannelure?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is just above the two grooves, which are known as cannelures, where the bullet is crimped. It is known as the crimp ring. It is nothing more than where the case has been crimped in.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have pulled out the bullet from Exhibit 591, and there is a little groove running above the second groove from the top--from the bottom, the base, of the bullet.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would be your crimping groove. Up at approximately that area, both .38 Specials are approximately .357". However, the bases of the .38 Specials, both brands, are about .350".

In other words, there is about 7/1000ths difference between the base and where they are crimped, and both brands of .38 Specials seem to run--slightly undersized at the base.

On the .38 Special the diameter of the bullets where they are crimped is .357". The .38 S&W Remington-Peters bullets run about .360", or just slightly less, which is about 3/1000ths larger. Their bases, both brands, run about .356". In other words, they run about 6/1000ths larger at the base--even though the bullets are shorter overall in the .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. To summarize that, in terms of the diameter, do I understand that the .38 Special and the .38 S&W have a similar diameter as you approach the nose of the bullet, but that the .38 has a somewhat larger diameter at the base than the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. .38 S&W.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, why would the gun be rechambered from the original chamber, which was designed for the .38 S&W, to the chamber as it stands now, which you tell us is designed for the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this country, the .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge at the present time. In years gone by, many, many, many weapons have been made for that particular cartridge. But they are usually the top-break, the cheaper type of weapon. The .38 Special cartridge is a better cartridge. There is a higher velocity and everything about the cartridge is better than the .38 S&W, ballistically.

The .38 Special has become popular in this country for revolvers. And the reason it was chambered in .38 S&W originally is because in England and on the Continent it is a popular cartridge. The .38 S&W in England is the .38-200. They loaded a 200-grain bullet into the same cartridge case, and it was the standard British Army load for this particular weapon and others. Why they took that particular cartridge, I do not know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the gun rebarreled as well as rechambered?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. The barrel of this weapon has been cut off approximately 2-3/4 inches. The original barrel was 5 inches for this model.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the failure to rebarrel affect the accuracy of the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It should slightly, if you are firing .38 Special bullets, because they are slightly undersized in a .38 S&W barrel. On the average, .38 S&W barrels are approximately 4/1000ths larger than the normal .38 Special barrel. In this particular weapon, that holds true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would it affect accuracy at close range?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever. And there, again, the shortening of the barrel would affect the accuracy more than the use of .38 Special, due to the fact that your sight radius has been cut down.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, when you shorten the barrel, the length between the front and the back sights is shorter, therefore giving more room for error?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. In other words, the movement of the front sight will cause more of a discrepancy at the target at longer ranges, due to the shorter sight radius.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any functional reason for cutting the barrel down to its present short size?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Sales appeal, I would say, is the main reason. Also, concealment.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is a short barrel, cut-down barrel weapon like this usually purchased for legitimate purposes by other than police officers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Possibly a collector. Among target shooters, it is not a popular weapon, due to the short sight radius. Revolvers with 6-inch barrels are very accurate weapons. A target shooter would not use a weapon of the short barrel type. Therefore, it is not a very popular weapon for sportsmen.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the cutting off of the barrel increase the possibility of concealment?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does, because it makes it handier. I carried, when I was in the field 5 years--I carried my personally owned firearm, which had a 2-inch barrel, due to the fact that for concealment you could not see it when I wore a suit, and it was more discreet in the type of work I was doing.

The CHAIRMAN. Can both kinds of cartridges be used interchangeably in this gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this particular gun, yes sir. It makes no difference.

The CHAIRMAN. Either an S&W or S&W Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the chambers of this particular cylinder have been bored out, it appears from the very rough marks, to accommodate the forward portion of a .38 Special cartridge. Also, when this barrel was made--or the cylinder was made--the chambers had a shoulder or lip that the .38 S&W cartridge case would fit up against. The bullet would go forward farther, but the cartridge case would fit up against this shoulder at the neck.

And in order to chamber a .38 Special, that forward portion had to be bored out slightly, several thousandths to accommodate the longer cartridge, which, by the way, is a very common thing on these surplus weapons. Practically all of them are being rechambered, due to the popularity of the .38 Special cartridge.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, this weapon--was this weapon sold into the United States after it had been used in England?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much sign of use does it show?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has definitely been used, there is no doubt. However, the cylinder is quite tight, and I would say that this weapon is in good operating condition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, since it was sold used, are you unable to attribute any amount of use to the last user?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right, you would not be able to tell.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain briefly the manner in which this revolver is operated, paying particular attention to extraction and loading and reloading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. First of all, the weapon has a frame into which a barrel has been screwed and a cylinder which is hinged on a crane is also fitted into the frame. There is a cylinder release on the left-hand side of this weapon which enables one to push the cylinder to the left.

The cylinder has six chambers--in other words, it is a six-shot weapon. There is an extractor rod and an extractor in the rear portion of the cylinder. When you press on the extractor rod, either loaded cartridges or fired cartridge cases may be extracted from the cylinder so that it may be reloaded again.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, in the operation of this weapon, the cylinder takes six bullets--is that correct?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the operation of this weapon, when six bullets have been loaded into the cylinder, is any action needed for firing except six consecutive trigger pulls?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. You can fire this weapon either single or double action.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain the meaning of that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Double action is accomplished by pulling the trigger. In other words, you just pull the trigger each time and you can fire this weapon six times before reloading. This weapon can also be cocked, which puts the sear on the step of the hammer and reduces the trigger pull, and may be fired that way. This is known as single action.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if a person using the gun and having it fully loaded with six bullets fired less than six bullets, can he use this ejector-extraction mechanism without losing his unfired bullets as well as the empty cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir--by merely tipping the weapon. The unfired cartridge is heavier, and will fall out of the cylinder into his hand. Then he can extract the cartridge cases and load in more.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you demonstrate that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If I may have a cartridge, please.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are now placing an unfired----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the cartridge you are loading in there--for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the case expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge cases merely by one push of the ejector rod.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge case--later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.

Representative FORD. That would happen any time that you did it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand--unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.

Representative FORD. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; at 8:15.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were.

Mr. EISENBERG. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately 8:15 this morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that it is now 9:45. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could this revolver be loaded on the run, or while walking?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It could.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you personally loaded a revolver like this while walking?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. And running.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does this revolver have a serial number on it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you read that number to us, please?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. V-510210.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this serial number unique to this particular type of weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Smith and Wesson does not duplicate numbers. You may have a similar number, but not with the prefix "V."

Mr. EISENBERG. So this is the only such weapon with this serial number that is in existence?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. As far as I know. I have never found one in my experience, and Smith and Wesson does not duplicate serial numbers in a particular series of weapons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Smith and Wesson claims not to duplicate?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, how fast could one get off shots from this weapon, shooting rapid fire, and without sighting?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In a combat stance, that is crouched, with a gun at belt level, and your wrist locked, you would have no trouble at all getting off five shots in from 3 to 4 seconds.

Mr. EISENBERG. With what degree of accuracy at close range?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent. All FBI agents, for instance, practice at 7 yards, which is 21 feet, and we are hitting in the "kill zone" without any problem.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much training would one have to have with this weapon to get four hits in four or five shots at close range into a human body?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever--if you can pull the trigger and point directly at a person, at 8 feet you would not likely miss--with one exception. If you did not lock your wrist, there is a possibility you could shoot too low, or you could pull to the side. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge and with--and really grabbing hold of the weapon, would have little difficulty at all at that distance.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "lock your wrist," do you mean just pointing the wrist so that it is in a straight line with your lower forearm?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. In other words, to tighten it, and not be in a relaxed position. By merely tightening the wrist, you would have no trouble at all hitting a person, approximately the same distance as Mr. Eisenberg and myself.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose a person who had the normal small-arms training that he gets in the Marine Corps would have the ability to do what you have just spoken of?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Definitely, sir. As a matter of fact, with any training at all with a revolver, I would say that he would hit 90 percent of the time.

Representative FORD. Is there a recoil action at all from this kind of weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; you get recoil. But if you have had any training with a weapon of this sort, the recoil is not even noticed. The first time you ever fired this weapon the recoil or the noise, might bother you. But if you have ever fired a handgun, you don't even think about recoil. You automatically adjust.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, you mentioned distance between you and me earlier, a few sentences ago. Could you estimate that distance?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Approximately 8 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the revolver, I propose to move on to identification of bullets and cartridge cases associated with the Tippit murder.

The CHAIRMAN. I have none.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 145 and 518, which, for the record, consist of bullets, unfired bullets which were found in the revolver and the pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald following his arrest on November 22. I ask you whether you are familiar with the bullets in these exhibits.

You are now looking at which exhibit, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 518.

I have seen them before.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe these bullets very briefly?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. They are cartridges. There are four cartridges. Two are Western .38 Special with copper-coated lead bullets loaded into these cartridges. The other two are Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with lead bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in the other exhibit?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of one Western .38 Special cartridge, which is also loaded with a copper-coated lead bullet, and the other cartridge is a Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge, which is loaded with a lead bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you another group of bullets, marked Q-82 through Q-86.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eisenberg, would you state for the record at this time what those two bullets are? They are introduced another time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; all the bullets which Mr. Cunningham examined were found either in the pocket or the--pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald--or the cylinder of his revolver at the time of his arrest on November 22.

I now hand you another group of bullets marked Q-82 through Q-86, and with certain other markings on them.

Are you familiar with these bullets? And may I state for the record that the bullets I have just handed Mr. Cunningham derive from the same source.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am familiar with these bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe these briefly?

Before I do that--Mr. Chairman, may I have these bullets admitted into evidence as a group, as Exhibit 592?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 592, and received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. At this time, I shall have to leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court.

Commissioner Ford, would you preside?

And, during the morning, Commissioner Dulles will be here, I am told, and if you leave, leave him in charge, will you, please?

Representative FORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Cunningham, thank you for your assistance. Glad to have seen you.

(At this point, Mr. Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in Exhibit 592, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; all five of them are Western .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with copper-coated lead bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that of a total of--you have examined a total of 11 bullets, and three are Remington-Peter--well, at any rate, of the 11 they are divided 3 and 8 into Remington-Peter and Western .38 Special bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four cartridge cases in an envelope marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77. And I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.

Mr. Cunningham, before going on to the cartridge cases I just handed you, could you explain when you received the bullets which are comprised in the last three exhibits, and who you received them from, and how they were presented to you?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of the two cartridges that we received--the FBI received from the U.S. Secret Service. We received them on December 3, 1963.

That is correct. They were personally delivered to the laboratory by Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI, who is a liaison agent with the Secret Service. And he delivered them to us on December 3, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did he identify them in any way to you when he delivered them? Did he describe their origin to you?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; he did not describe them to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Could you go on to the next group of five cartridges?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. I don't know the exhibit number.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 592.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 592 was received in the FBI Laboratory from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us who you received them from?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Dallas office of the FBI. I have no first-hand knowledge. I know that they were received from the Dallas Police Department--but that was due to what I have read in an FBI investigative report. The laboratory received them from the Dallas office on November 30.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you go on to the last group of four bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 518 was also received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge the group of two and the group of four bullets, which together total six, were taken by the Dallas Police from the chamber of the revolver which is Exhibit 143, after the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. They were then split into two groups of two and four as we have them now, two bullets being given to the Secret Service and eventually, as Mr. Cunningham relates, to the FBI, and four bullets going to the Dallas office of the FBI.

The group of five bullets was taken from a pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald, following his apprehension on November 22 and was kept separated from the remaining bullets, I believe, merely because they had been taken from a different source--that is, the pocket rather than the chamber of the revolver.

Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin.

First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you microscopically examine the bases of both cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to Exhibit 518, consisting of four bullets, which, as I mentioned earlier, were, like the two bullets in Exhibit 145, taken from the chamber of the revolver, did you find any nicks in any of these bullets, the bases of any of these bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just by handling, there are bound to be small microscopic scratches of one kind or other. But there was no indication that any of the primers in these four cartridges had been struck by a firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these also examined microscopically?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, individually.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say there was no indication that they were struck by a firing pin, in your opinion, based on the construction of this weapon, if the firing pin had been drawn back to any extent and then released, would it have left a mark on one of the cartridges?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is--yes and no. It depends on how far it is drawn back. As soon as the hammer internally clears the rebound block, the hammer is then able to go forward and it probably would have fired. But up to that point, the hammer is held back from striking, it cannot--under normal conditions--be made to fire a cartridge.

However, it has been found with this particular weapon, a drop of approximately 3 feet on the hammer would fire a cartridge in the chamber.

Representative FORD. How far back does the hammer have to be drawn in order to fire?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That can be shown very easily by holding the cylinder. By holding the cylinder, that distance can be seen, which is approximately 3/8 to 1/2 inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. The witness is demonstrating.

The hammer, as he says, is going back about 3/8 of an inch.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Once you allow the cylinder to rotate, then the rebound block is pushed out of the way, as you can see. Then you can cock the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you demonstrate for us the sound which would be heard if you held the cylinder, pulled back, and then released the trigger?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. A snapping sound can definitely be heard.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is a very audible snapping sound. Would that snap--that amount of snap--leave a mark on the base of the cartridge case against which the firing pin----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Under these conditions it could not leave a mark, because the rebound block is in the way.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say rebound block, this is a block between the firing pin and the base of the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it is the block that is forcing the trigger to go forward after it is pulled back. You see, your trigger will snap back. It is done by a spring in the block.

Mr. EISENBERG. To put it differently, this block would prevent the firing pin from emerging from its hole?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. That is exactly it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could the firing pin emerge from its hole without having traveled a considerable distance back? That is, to say, at what point does the rebound block release the hammer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately--well, right there you can hear it. That is a good half inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you pull it back and then release that half an inch to disengage the rebound block?

(The witness did so.)

Mr. EISENBERG. If the firing pin hit the cartridge with that amount of force, do you believe the cartridge would be fired?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any possibility it would not be fired? Any substantial possibility?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It would still make a mark.

Mr. EISENBERG. It would make a mark, at any rate?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me clarify it. It still will not fire because the block will go forward.

Mr. EISENBERG. What will go forward?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the trigger has to be pulled through the whole cycle in a Smith----

Mr. EISENBERG. In order to disengage----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Either that, or cocked before the block will be out of the way. When you pull the trigger and you don't release it or if it is in the cocked position and the trigger is pulled and not released, the hammer will stay forward. The firing pin will stay forward, so you can see it out through the breech face, as long as the trigger is pulled. Then when you release the trigger, the rebound block throws your trigger forward, so the weapon can be fired again.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are modifying what you had said previously?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you do that upon closer examination of the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; it is on the basis of trying to describe an internal part without seeing it. If you would care to, I can show you what it looks like. I have a photograph of the National Rifle Association breakdown. It would be easier to explain if I could show you what I am referring to.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you, please?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before you refer to this diagram, could I take a look at it?

Congressman Ford, could I have that diagram admitted into evidence?

Representative FORD. It will be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 593.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 593, and received in evidence.)

Representative FORD. Mr. Eisenberg, do you want the whole article?

Mr. EISENBERG. I think we might as well put the whole article in, yes.

(To Mr. Cunningham.) Perhaps it would be easiest if you came around here, since the diagram is a small one.

Now, the diagram which you are referring to is on page 61, the second page of this Exhibit 593?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Right.

As you can see, it is a diagram with the sideplate removed, which is this portion right here. It is the right-hand side of the weapon. (Witness pointing to revolver.) We are looking down on it with the sideplate on. These four screws hold on the sideplate.

When you pull the trigger of----

Mr. EISENBERG. The sideplate is marked 20 over here?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes--No. 20 is the sideplate.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the diagram.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. 42 in the diagram is the trigger. There is a sear arrangement on the trigger, attached to the trigger. If you cock it, the sear arrangement will go up into a notch on the hammer right there, and hold it back--right in here.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is number----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You see, this is the sear.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you use numbers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. No. 39 is the sear, and the sear is attached to the trigger, which is No. 42 in the diagram.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, we are referring to the first page of the exhibit.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. When the trigger is pulled on this particular weapon, or if the hammer is drawn back, there is a notch on the hammer which is engaged by the sear. When the hammer is back you have to pull the trigger to disengage the sear mechanism from the hammer. When you pull back and it is in the notch, that is known as single-action firing.

Also, No. 30 in the diagram is known as the rebound slide or block, and this rebound slide is positioned right behind the trigger on an internal part of the weapon. When the trigger is pulled, the recoil slide runs in a horizontal direction. As you can see by the larger drawing right here--it is a small camming action. It comes up, and is being pushed back.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the middle of the second page of the exhibit.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Now, do you see the rounded portion of the hammer right here, right in front of the notch?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is No.----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Number--on No. 42, the hammer, on the bottom, right next to the notch that the sear engages, is a rounded portion. That is--in actuality, this rebound slide acts as an internal safety, so the hammer cannot go forward unless the trigger is pulled or it is cocked, because it is in the way. It cannot go all the way forward, due to the fact that--right there you can see it very plainly in the schematic numbered drawing on page 2.

Mr. EISENBERG. The number you are pointing to is what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is on the trigger, number----

Mr. EISENBERG. Forty-two?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Not trigger--the hammer, No. 34.

By the way, on the prior 42 I meant 34. I got the wrong number. I was referring to the right piece, but the wrong number.

But you can see this little--it is like a curved portion. It prevents the hammer from going any further forward. The firing pin will not come out of the hole in the breech face.

Now, as soon as you pull the hammer back, the rebound slide, No. 30, is out of the way.

Also, when you pull the weapon through double action, that slide pushes back, and your sear doesn't even touch the groove in the hammer, but it just keeps on going right on through. In other words, you are pulling the trigger strictly against the mainspring all the way. When it is on the notch, it is being held, and the only pressure needed, is to take off the sear.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, to focus this line of questioning, Officer McDonald, who has reported that he was in a struggle with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22d, while Oswald was in possession of this revolver, has stated that--I am reading now from an affidavit, from a letter from Officer McDonald to Mr. J. E. Curry, chief of police of the Dallas Police Force, dated December 3, 1963.

He states in this letter that as he came in contact with Oswald, "I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip, I heard the snap of the hammer, and the pistol crossed over my left cheek. I marked the pistol and six rounds at central station. The primer of one round was dented on misfire at the time of the struggle with the suspect."

Now, in light of your examination of this weapon, and your discussion, could you comment on this statement?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I personally have fired this weapon numerous times, as well as Special Agents Robert Frazier and Charles Killion. At no time did we ever attempt to fire this weapon that it misfired. It operated excellently and every time we have tried to fire it, it has fired.

It is very possible when he says that he reached across, and he grabbed it, that he locked the cylinder, which I think any trained police officer would do. You want to stop this cylinder from rotating. As soon as you do that, you have actually stopped the hammer falling on a live round, because if the hammer is allowed to go forward again, and it hasn't gotten into the cocked position, the rebound slide, as I was stating before, would block the firing pin from striking the primer of the cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the cylinder is so interconnected with the trigger, that the trigger cannot be pulled all the way back when the cylinder has been firmly grasped?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if the hammer has not been pulled all the way back, the rebound slide will not allow the firing pin to strike the cartridge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if the firing pin had struck the primer, it could only have been after the trigger was pulled all the way back, under the discussion you have just given us, is that correct?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Or after cocking.

Mr. EISENBERG. Or after it had been cocked and pulled?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; if it is in the cocked position, grabbing the cylinder will do you no good; due to the fact that in the very operation of cocking this weapon, the cylinder is rotated, and it is ready to be fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in either event, the hammer would have traveled almost to the outermost extremity to which it can go. That is, the hammer would have traveled back all the way, whether it was cocked or fired in a double-action manner. If that had happened, what would the likelihood be that upon returning to the cartridge case, it would not fire the cartridge case--that upon returning to the cartridge, the cartridge would not be fired?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You mean actually the hammer had gone all the way through its cycle?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can only say that from my examination internally, as well as having fired this weapon--I found no reason why you would get a misfire with this weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if a man had put his hand between the hammer and the point at which the hammer enters, with the firing pin, into the breech face, would that stop the weapon from firing?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes and no. It is very possible that you can do it. And it hurts, by the way, because the mainspring in this one--you can see the indentation in my thumb--is a very strong mainspring. It would be possible. You could put something in there.

Now, the question is when you pull that object out, would there be enough distance and enough force to set off the primer?

That is quite a moot point, because you could grab the hammer and recock it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from that question, would the man's finger or whatever object he stuck in there be firmly fixed for a second or two, between the hammer and the breech face?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It could be.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would he feel the impact?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. He would definitely feel the impact--if he had a piece of tissue of his hand in between. Now, if a piece of material, of course, went between it which I don't know how it could happen--if you were struggling over the gun, and he said he grabbed the gun--I don't know how he could have anything except a portion of his hand, and I am sure he would feel it if the trigger was pulled.

Mr. EISENBERG. Finally, if he had just grasped the cylinder, and Oswald had pulled back on the trigger, could you demonstrate the sound which might have been heard?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; you can hold it, and you get a snapping sound--if the gun is grabbed away forcefully, and he would be really grabbing hard. So there could have been an attempt to shoot and a snap would be heard. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. The only thing which is unlikely is that the primer would be dented on the misfire?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You would not get any denting if the cylinder was held and the gun was jerked forcibly out of Oswald's hands. You would hear the snap, but you would get no mark on the primer whatsoever.

The same thing he could hear if he jerked it out of his hands and he accidentally, somehow, hit the hammer--you would still get a noise, a snapping sound. But the firing pin would not come in contact with the primer of the cartridge.

Representative FORD. Because of the discussion we had a few minutes ago?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Using the diagram that was inserted as Exhibit 593.

Mr. EISENBERG. One final question. Officer McDonald says in this letter, "I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol."

Now, would that grip in itself in any way interfere with the action of the pistol--the revolver?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know what he means by that.

Mr. EISENBERG. If he means what he says, that is, if he got a secure grip on the butt----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If he got a secure grip on the butt, that would take him away.

Mr. EISENBERG. Take him away from what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would take him away from the cylinder. If you are fighting over a weapon, the first thing is to get it off of you and then get hold of the cylinder. And then you can get both hands on the gun to jerk it away. That is what I would do.

As I say, it is the way we are taught. You want to get the gun off of you first, so you are not in direct line, and then go in and attempt to get it away from the person.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose the gun was pulled away from Oswald as Oswald had his grip on the trigger, so that he could not get the trigger through the complete cycle. Would there be a snapping noise made?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Definitely. If you locked the cylinder and jerked it away, you would get a snapping noise.

Mr. EISENBERG. Suppose you did not lock the cylinder, but for some reason or other the full trigger cycle was not gone through?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Then you would also get it. It would be difficult, but you could get it.

Mr. EISENBERG. How hard do you have to pull on that trigger in order to fire the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For double action--that is, without cocking, it is approximately 11 to 12 pounds, which is normal for this type of weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I handed you earlier four cartridge cases in a plastic envelope marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, also marked C47-C50. Are you familiar with these cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am. I have previously looked at them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They do. Right on the side of each one, right there.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive these cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These cartridge cases were received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I would like to state that these cartridge cases were found in the immediate proximity of the site at which Officer Tippit was killed. They were found on the ground near the street where Officer Tippit was killed on November 22.

Representative FORD. These are the ones that were found in the street near the automobile?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, either in the street or in a lawn in front of a private residence, or semiapartment house.

Representative FORD. I see. In other words, they were possibly some of those that were on the lawn in the front of 400?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; again, for the record only, since this witness is unable to testify as to where they were picked up. The mechanism of this revolver is such that the shells are not ejected until the user decides to eject them--unlike a bolt-action rifle where the cartridge must be ejected where you shoot from.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these four cartridge cases introduced into evidence as 594.

Representative FORD. They may be admitted.

(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 594, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe the make of these cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two of these cartridge cases are Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge cases. The other two cartridge cases are Western .38 Special cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you examined earlier six bullets which I told you had been--six cartridges which I told you had been taken from the chamber of the revolver which we have been looking at.

Those cartridges were divided into three Remington-Peters and three Western, were they not?

(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that--or 50-50. So that the division is the same, the division of the cartridge cases is the same, as between Remington-Peters and Western, as the division of the cartridges found--which I told you were found in the chamber?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge cases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you perform this examination, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On November 30, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how did you make the examination?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I first marked these cartridge cases upon receiving them. There were four. I would like to state, first of all that Special Agents Frazier and Killion also independently examined these four cartridge cases, and made the same comparisons that I am going to state. I am telling you what I found--although they independently arrived at the same conclusion.

The cartridge cases were first marked and examined for the presence of any individual characteristic marks on these cartridge cases whereby it would be possible to identify them as having been fired in a weapon. I then test-fired Commission Exhibit 143, using similar ammunition, and microscopically compared the four cartridge case--one at a time--that is Commission Exhibit 594--with the tests obtained from the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you here two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you describe these cartridge cases to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. One is a Western .38 Special cartridge case. The other is a Winchester .38 Special cartridge case.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how did you get possession of these cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These were test-fired in Commission Exhibit No. 143, by myself.

Mr. EISENBERG. So these are the test cartridges you were referring to?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That was a portion of them; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Commission Exhibit 595?

Representative FORD. They will be admitted.

(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 595, and received in evidence.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I also would like to state that we were test firing Remington-Peters, also.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many test cartridges were fired, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To begin with, three. And we have since fired the weapon many times.

Representative BOGGS. How many cartridges were fired by Oswald?

Mr. EISENBERG. We are going to get into that. This is a difficult question which you are going to have to make a decision on. So I would rather develop that slowly.

I notice that one of the cartridge cases in Exhibit 595 is split on the side, Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is due to the oversized chambers of this revolver. As I previously testified, the weapon was originally chambered for the .38 S&W, which is a wider cartridge than .38 Special. And when a .38 Special is fired in this particular weapon, the case form fits to the shape of each chamber. And in one of those cartridges, the metal just let go. Normally it does not; however this one particular case split slightly.

Representative FORD. Does that have any impact on the rest of the operation?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I test-fired the weapon originally, and I didn't even know it had split until I tried to eject it.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned before, by the way, that there had been no misfires with this weapon. Approximately how many times was the weapon fired altogether?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing exactly, but I imagine we are approaching close to a hundred times by now.

Mr. EISENBERG. And no misfires?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And no misfires.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, did you take photographs of the cartridge cases which you have just identified as having been fired from 143, and the cartridge cases which are Commission Exhibit No. 595?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make your identification on the basis of the photographs or on the basis of your examination under the microscope?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My conclusions were arrived at strictly on the basis of my examinations. These photographs in no way entered into the identification and are strictly for demonstrative purposes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us these photographs, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's take them one at a time, and let's introduce them as exhibits, one at a time. I have here--you have given me five photographs. Did you take each of these photographs?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a matter of fact; I did. I personally took these.

Mr. EISENBERG. And these are photographs of what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are photographs of the individual characteristic marks on the base and in the firing-pin impression on test cartridge cases obtained from Oswald's revolver, and also the marks on the base and in the firing-pin impression on the cartridge cases, Commission Exhibit No. 594.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted, if you would, as 596, 597, 598, 599, and 600.

Representative FORD. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 596 through 600, and received in evidence.)

Representative FORD. Will the witness explain to the Commission what they mean?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; he will. Did you also make a photograph of the breech face of the weapon, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did. I didn't take this photograph. I was present when it was taken. I have compared the negative with the actual breech face of Commission Exhibit 143, and I found it to be a true and accurate reproduction.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us that photograph? May I have that admitted as 601, Mr. Chairman?

Representative FORD. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 601, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us the area of the revolver which corresponds to the area shown in the photograph, Exhibit 601?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The cylinder was first removed to facilitate the photograph. That is very easily done by removing the forward sideplate screw, which is just above the trigger, which allows the crane to slide right out, and the cylinder removed.

The photograph was taken from the right side, looking in toward the firing-pin hole.

Representative BOGGS. Just the way you are holding the revolver now?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; just the way I am holding it now.

Representative BOGGS. With the cylinder removed?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. With the cylinder removed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, there is a cylindrical-shaped object in the center of that picture, Mr. Cunningham. Could you describe what that is--right in the center of the picture?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is known by two different names. It is known as a hammer-nose bushing, or a recoil block. It is--Smith and Wesson presses this particular block in. It forms the hole through which the firing pin comes out of the breech face.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the firing pin strikes the center of the cartridge, or the primer, as it is called?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which causes the cartridge to fire. Now, what is the magnification of the photograph of the breech face?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of the breech face, it is approximately 17 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. There are a number of markings or lines on this breech face. Are these the microscopic characteristics which reproduce on the cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And are the microscopic characteristics of this breech face individual to this weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is your method of determining that a given cartridge case has been fired from a given weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The breech face marks, as well as the individual imperfections in the firing pin.

Representative BOGGS. Let me ask a very elementary question, the answer to which I used to know years ago, but I have forgotten. Just exactly what does the firing pin do? What happens after that strikes?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it is easier to start with the cartridge itself. The components of a cartridge are a bullet, a cartridge case, a primer in the base of the cartridge case, and powder.

Now, the primer is made out of a very soft metal that can be dented. These primers at manufacture are filled with, basically, an explosive. For instance, Remington-Peters cartridges have PETN, which is one of Du Pont's explosives. RDX is used as one of the components of Western cartridge cases, as well as lead styphnate, lead azides, and other explosive materials.

When the firing pin strikes, there is a small explosion. Fire is given off----

Representative BOGGS. How does that bring about the explosion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is sensitive to detonation by a sharp blow.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the primer is sensitive?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it is an explosive. To differentiate from the powder, which is not explosive. Powder burns.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I have taken Commission Exhibit No. 591, which consists of an unfired cartridge, and there is a round circle in the middle of the base of that cartridge. Is that the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. That is actually a separate entity that has been pressed into a hole in the base of the cartridge case.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is more sensitive to shock than the powder in the cartridge case itself?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Powder is relatively insensitive. You don't set off powder by a blow.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the primer is quite sensitive?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is normally. I am talking about a normal blow. The primer is very sensitive. I just named a few of the components, but there are many other compounds in priming mixtures, which are considered secret by each company. But I know that they are explosive mixtures. And the actual striking of the firing pin--with enough force--causes a small detonation to occur. The fire given off, goes through holes in the base, and into where the powder is, and starts the powder burning. It is the gases that are given off when powder burns, which actually cause the bullet to move forward--the pressure builds up behind it, and the bullet goes forward.

Representative BOGGS. That is a very good explanation. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I wonder whether you could review the pictures with us, and discuss some of the markings which you found in those pictures that led you to decide that the cartridge cases shown therein have been fired in the revolver we have been discussing.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. The first photograph is a photograph of the breech-face marks, the individual characteristic marks remaining on test cartridge cases obtained from the revolver, and on the C-50 cartridge case that was recovered from the scene. C-50 is on the left. C-15 is on the right. And the hairline, the magnified hairline down the center separates the two cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the invariable procedure to put the test cartridge on the right and the suspect cartridge on the left? Or at least is that your standard procedure?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I usually put the suspect on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, in the photographs at any rate, in all the photographs we are going to see, the test cartridge is on the right, and the suspect cartridge is on the left?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Usually.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the magnification of this photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is approximately 91 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go on, please?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. On the left you will see the stamping, "SP", which is in the cartridge case itself. And over here next to the hairline you will see the individual characteristic marks. And you will see similar marks continuing on the other side of the hairline.

On the C-15, the revolver side, you will see a dark portion running vertically down through. That is the space that the Congressman was asking about--how it fits the primer. That is the small space at the top where the primer fits into the base of the cartridge. And over here to the right of that dark mark you will see a lighter colored object with more individual characteristic marks, that is actually the primer, the individual characteristic marks on the primer of the test cartridge case.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, as I understand it, in effect this picture can be viewed as a composite cartridge? That is, the picture on the left begins where the picture on the right ends, in terms of position on the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In essence; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the point of the picture is to show that when you make this composite, the lines on each case show up as if there were no composite at all, but as if they were simply one case, because they are so close together in microscopic markings?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; in proximity. And they are brought together.

Representative BOGGS. And so similar?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. What is the magnification again?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is approximately 91 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any dissimilarities on the two--on the test and the suspect cartridge cases, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; there are always dissimilarities. However, the similarities so outweigh the dissimilarities that it is an identification. If there are no dissimilarities, I would be suspicious that it would be faked--using the same photograph and just cut and put together.

There are always dissimilarities.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why there are always dissimilarities when the two cartridge cases are fired in the very same weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The metal is different; one cartridge case is slightly harder than another; for some reason the cartridge case wasn't driven back, upon firing, into the breech face exactly the same way. In other words, these marks are reproducing, but you don't get exactly the same hit. It would not be possible to get exactly the same hit time after time with different cartridge cases.

Representative FORD. What ratio of similarities and dissimilarities do you have to have?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There is no ratio. Based upon the examiner's training and experience, he comes to the conclusion that a particular cartridge case or bullet has been fired from a particular weapon. As in this photograph, you can see the dissimilarity is very slight. These are excellent marks.

Representative FORD. There was never any doubt in your mind, then?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. You say these are particularly strong marks?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These are very, very, good marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, these marks are on the brass, so to speak, of the cartridge case, rather than in the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; that is correct. Actually, it is brass, it is nickelplated brass.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that unusual, to be able to pick up such strong marks in the brass as opposed to the primer of the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not really unusual; no. It depends upon the particular weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine the microscopic markings on the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you found what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could identify the weapon on the basis of the imperfections, individual characteristic marks, in the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. The firing-pin impression. And what about the area of the primer around the firing-pin impression?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, each of these three areas--the brass, the primer, and the firing-pin impression--carries individually characteristic microscopic marks which would be the basis of identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, you cannot make a flat statement.

Mr. EISENBERG. No; in this case.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this particular case, I knew at the time I was examining it, all of the firing-pin impressions were excellent, and some portions of the breech-face marks were. But you cannot say they will mark in exactly the same place, due to the fact that these cases will mark in different areas, they are different cartridges, they have been fired at a different time. You will get good areas, and then in another area your marks will not be sufficient. In other words, it is just the way the cartridge case was driven back at the time of the explosion in the primer, and the bullet is fired.

They can hit slightly different, hit deeper on one side, be lighter on the other. When a primer is set in a little bit deeper, it will not pick up these marks on the primer part, whereas the firing-pin impression can be excellent--one portion of the case will be excellent. But each one is a different examination. And many times they will mark in different places.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us the next photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. This is Commission document No. 597. This is a photograph, photomicrograph, rather, of the breech face marks on two cartridge cases. The one on the left is C-49, which is our number C-49, and the one on the right of the hairline is a test cartridge case from this revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This one was approximately 120 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the magnification equal on both sides?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true of all the pictures you are showing us today?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The negative is taken at exactly the same time. You are photographing through a single eyepiece, with a focusable hairline down the middle, whatever is on both stages of your comparison microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn that picture around again?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. These marking are also on the brass, or outside of the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And again it is a sort of a composite photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, these markings seem a little less distinct than the others.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is in a different area. On this particular case, the marks are excellent. You can see down in here some nice fine marks, and then the heavier marks coming across there. They are good marks.

Representative FORD. Could you point out, as you look at the photograph, what you consider good similarities, which would help you in the identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Now, this is not the only point of similarity. These strictly demonstrate the type of marks. There are many more marks on these cartridge cases, all over the base of the cartridge cases, as well as in the firing-pin impressions. But Mr. Eisenberg asked that we have a photograph to demonstrate the type of marks on each particular cartridge case.

Representative FORD. This is only illustrative, then?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. My identification was not based on this picture. It was based on my complete microscopic examination and comparison of test cartridge cases from the revolver with this particular cartridge case.

Representative FORD. Could you show me the similarities?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. You see, you have your large--it is slightly out of focus up towards this end----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, as you demonstrate this, could you mark with circles and with a number what you are talking about, so when the record is looked at it is clear what you are talking about?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. All right--up here, near the top, you will find a very deep ridge, which I will mark "1." As you are coming down, you will find another real deep ridge, which I will mark "2."

When you consider this is 120 times, this is actually quite close together, except it has been magnified--you have a set of marks resembling "railroad tracks," which I will mark "3."

You will find over here--you go down to your next step. There are similarities in between there. The next big set of "railroad tracks" I will mark "4."

Then you move down, and you will find another similarity, four nice marks down near the bottom. This whole area is similar. You are going out of focus, but you can see these "railroad tracks." They are running along very nicely, and that is being marked "No. 5."

The next photograph is a photograph--on the left of the hairline----

Mr. EISENBERG. What Commission exhibit is that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. 598.

On the left of the hairline is our number C-47, the cartridge case. On the right is a test from the C-15 revolver, which is Commission Exhibit 143. These also are breech-face marks in the base of the cartridge cases.

On the right you can see the space between the primer and the base of the cartridge case, and also the individual characteristic marks in the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This is approximately 123-1/2 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Congressman Ford, would you care for a discussion of this?

Representative FORD. No. The one previously gave the basis.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Actually, this seems to be a slightly larger area. You have again the same "railroad tracks," all up and down, going across the two cartridge cases.

Representative FORD. To the layman that seems even more----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Demonstrative, yes. I don't know if you saw the photographs of the cartridge cases in the rifle, the assassination rifle. Those marks are just as distinctive as the more demonstrative marks in this particular breech face. But to a trained examiner, they stand out. They are harder to see than those on these particular photographs. And even in these photographs, the photograph you were asking me, they were not quite as vivid as they are on this photograph.

But there, again, it goes back to what I told you--each cartridge case will strike the breech face in a slightly different way, and you don't get complete similarity.

Mr. EISENBERG. To illustrate your point, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you Commission Exhibit 565, which is a photograph, which was explained yesterday, of the cartridge case fired in the rifle, and a test cartridge.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, this demonstrates it very well.

This is the very rough surface on the bolt of the assassination rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bolt face?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; the bolt face, and it is just as distinctive as these striae on my photographs of the breech-face marks of the revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. By "striae" you mean lines?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; just lines. But it is more difficult to see, due to the character of these marks--even though one type of mark is just as characteristic as the other type.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand your testimony, to the trained observer the photograph shown--the cartridges shown in the photographs on 565 can be as easily identified with each other as the cartridges shown on, let's say, 598?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. But to the layman it is easier to see the similarities on 598, with its striae, than 565 with its grosser imperfections?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; due to the type of marks on each of the cartridge cases, one is easier for the layman to see.

The next photograph is Commission document No. 599. On the left of the hairline is our number C-48, the cartridge case. On the right is the test cartridge case from Oswald's revolver.

Now, here you asked about what happens--somebody asked what happens on the other side. Here you have the other side. In this particular cartridge case----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the other half of the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. In other words, you are seeing the primer, the space between the primer and the brass on the cartridge case itself--on the questioned cartridge case this time--and the base of the cartridge case of the test is on the right. It looks like it is one. It is just the opposite side of the cartridge case from the other photographs.

In other words, you take the photograph of the most demonstrative marks--which look real good, naturally. The examination is of all the marks. That is the big difference. And this time you will see--it is very demonstrative--on each side of the hairline, a great deal of similarity between these marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification here?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is approximately 96 times.

Mr. RHYNE. Why do you vary the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The magnification of every photograph you take, sir, depends on the length of the bellows of the camera. The microscope will have a set magnification. But each time that you focus the length of the bellows can change, which will increase or decrease the magnification. Also with some photographs you mask off areas which are out of focus. You certainly would not want to print a whole negative where you have distortion. You bring into focus one small portion of the surface of that bullet.

If, say, one surface of the bullet is slightly flattened and the other surface is rounded--the rounded surface will be going out of focus much faster than the flattened side, and it would be very confusing. That is the type of thing. You mask differently.

Then when you have the negatives enlarged, you can enlarge one negative more than you do the other. So it can be based either on the length of the bellows, or on the amount you have enlarged it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that all the photographs?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, there is one more.

This photograph is a photograph of the firing-pin impression of the C-49 cartridge case, and the firing-pin impression on the test from Oswald's revolver, and this is Commission document 600.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 120 times, approximately.

Now, here you have very distinctive marks, but it is much more difficult for a layman to pick them out. That is the reason I have circled these marks and numbered them, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, on each side of the hairline. On the left is C-49, and on the right is the cartridge case obtained from C-143.

You have this very large, very distinctive imperfection.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to circle number 1?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In number 1. Also, in number 2, it looks like a little set of railroad tracks, and this one with the same shape coming down through. You can see this little piece and this little piece. Over here you have a real small "railroad track."

Mr. EISENBERG. That is number 3?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is number 3. And it looks like a little hump or bump, and that is very distinctive.

There is a slight overlapping here, but you can see it is sort of a =V= shape--in number 4, very distinctive. Down here you have a =Z= line with a line through it, number 6. I only brought those out to show six of the similarities. If you go through you can pick out places in the firing-pin impressions, that are similar, by yourself.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the top of each of these photos, C-49 and C-15, there is a large comma-shaped indentation, or comma-shaped mark. What is that caused by, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is caused by a very large imperfection--a very distinctive imperfection in the firing pin itself. And here it is.

Here I am looking at Commission document 601, the breech face and firing pin. If you will look at the firing pin in this photograph, you will see over on this side, this very large imperfection. It is like a facet--it is a flattened side. It shows up in the photograph of the firing pin.

It is indented--since it is missing from the firing pin, it will show as a flattened area in the firing-pin impression. In other words, what is concave on the firing pin itself, will be convex in the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the cartridge cases, I will move on to the bullets.

Representative FORD. Mr. Boggs?

Representative BOGGS. Just one question. What you are saying is that there is no doubt about the fact that the cartridges that you examined came from this revolver?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. And, of course, there is no question about the fact that this was Mr. Oswald's revolver. Is that so?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be proved, I hope, before the end of the hearings. This witness cannot himself testify.

Representative BOGGS. I understand that. I am asking you.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is no question, I don't think, about that. That will be the subject of testimony.

Representative BOGGS. I know--we are not following the exact rules of evidence around here.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will connect it up.

Representative BOGGS. In that connection--how many bullets were recovered?

Mr. EISENBERG. Four were recovered from the body of the officer. But as you will see from the testimony which we will get into right now, that doesn't mean four shots were fired, because there is a slight problem here. I would rather have the witness develop it.

Representative BOGGS. You are being very mysterious now, but it is all right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four bullets in plastic cases marked C-251, C-252, Q-13, and C-253, which have also certain other markings on them, and I ask you if you are familiar with these bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on these bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I would like to state these four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.

When did you receive these bullets, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Q-13 bullet was delivered to the Laboratory the first time on the morning of November 23d, and it was delivered to the Laboratory by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas office of the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. By the way, it was returned to Dallas, and then it was returned to the Laboratory, delivered again by Special Agent Vincent Drain, of the Dallas office, also, Special Agent Warren De Brueys. They delivered our Q-13 a second time on November 27th.

Representative FORD. When you say "our," what do you mean by "our"?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, to facilitate reporting in the Laboratory, we usually give these items a Q or a K number. A Q number is a questioned item, like a bullet from a body, and a known is a gun, the K is a known, like a weapon.

That is for reporting purposes. But since this case began, we have so much evidence, and we have received so much evidence, it was considered practical to reassign a C number by us--like Mr. Eisenberg said, they are C-253, C-262, and C-251. They also have a Q number. Q-13 is C-13. That is the reason why I said "our" Q-13.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you examine Q-13, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. November 23d, the first time. That was when I made my examination. It was returned on the other date. But it was examined on 11-23.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Q-13 has in it a brass colored object, as well as a bullet--that is, the box containing Q-13, your Q-13.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. That was identified as the button--the button--from the coat of Officer Tippit. The bullet struck that button and when the bullet was removed from the body, the button was also removed.

Representative BOGGS. Went right in?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. I have no first-hand knowledge. But that is what it was identified as.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these four bullets admitted as 602, 603, 604, and 605.

Representative FORD. They will be admitted.

(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 602 through 605, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive what are now marked 603, 604, and 605, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were received in the FBI Laboratory on March 16th of this year, and they were submitted to the Laboratory by the Dallas office of the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. When were they examined?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were examined on March 17, 1964.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the great time difference between the receipt and examination of the first bullet and the receipt and examination of the last three bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At your request, you asked us to postpone the examination of these three bullets in order to facilitate other examinations you wished more expedited than the examinations of these bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now you are explaining the time between the receipt and the examination?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why these three bullets----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, between the first submission and the second?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; between the submission of the first bullet, and the submission to you of the second three bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it is my understanding the first bullet was turned over to the FBI office in Dallas by the Dallas Police Department. They reportedly said this was the only bullet that was recovered, or that they had. Later at the request of this Commission, we went back to the Dallas Police Department and found in their files that they actually had three other bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you examine these four bullets to determine whether they had been fired in the revolver, Exhibit No. 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sorry.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the four bullets which have just been marked into evidence to determine whether those four bullets had been fired in the revolver, No. 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give us your results, your conclusions?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

First of all, Commission Exhibit 602, which is our Q-13 bullet, I found to be a .38 Special, copper-coated lead bullet of Western-Winchester manufacture which had been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist. I also found the other three bullets----

Mr. EISENBERG. 603----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 603, 604, and 605, Commission Exhibits, which are C-253, C-252, and C-251, respectively. I found that 251 and C-253----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the Commission numbers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibits 605, 603, they, too, were .38 Special copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, which had been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist.

The grooves in the barrel ran in a right-hand direction, a right twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. That accounts for three bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

And Commission Exhibit 604, which is C-252, is a .38 Special Remington-Peters lead bullet, which has been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. Winchester-Western, you say?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; that is Remington----

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's go over that.

We have 603----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 602, 603, and 605 are your copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture.

Mr. EISENBERG. And 604?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And 604 is a Remington-Peters lead bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.

However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.

Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.

Representative FORD. When you say this weapon, will you identify what you mean by "this weapon"?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.

Mr. EISENBERG. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that the gun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled for the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know if wobble is the correct word. But as the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably getting an erratic passage, so the marks won't reproduce.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to say that the bullets were not fired from this weapon, No. 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is not; since the rifling characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143--this revolver--are the same as those present on the four bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.

Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.

Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the bullet--you cannot match them up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.

Representative BOGGS. There is no way to do it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; other than what I have said. In other words, you can tell manufacture. But there is no way of--that I know of--of connecting or identifying a particular bullet having been loaded into a particular cartridge case.

Representative BOGGS. But there is no doubt about the fact that the four cartridge cases came from firing in that weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were fired in that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you said before that you would be missing a bullet--under the explanation you gave--would you be missing both a bullet and a cartridge case?

Representative BOGGS. Excuse me, before you answer that question. What testimony have we developed with reference to this delay in the transmission of these bullets to either the FBI or to the Commission?

Mr. EISENBERG. Just what you have heard. Would you like to have it developed further?

Representative BOGGS. Well, is this within his competence?

Mr. EISENBERG. I do not think so. I can state for the record myself that about 2 weeks ago I requested--I made a request of Mr. Conrad, who is the Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Laboratory--that the three Tippit bullets which had not theretofore been examined, be examined. At that point they had not yet been sent from the Dallas Police to the FBI, and no request had apparently been made for them.

Representative BOGGS. Well, the FBI obtained one almost immediately.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. And then there was how long a delay before the other three?

Mr. EISENBERG. You have the dates there, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The date was--we obtained the first one on November 23, 1963, and then----

Representative BOGGS. The day after the killing of Officer Tippit?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it was delivered at the same time as all the other material. And then it was returned November 17, 1963.

As far as the FBI is concerned, sir, we have no jurisdiction in that case. We were doing the lab work for the Dallas Police Department, but in the investigation of the death of Officer Tippit we do not have jurisdiction.

Representative BOGGS. How did the Commission ascertain that these additional bullets were there?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, upon review of the underlying materials, it developed that while one bullet had been taken out of Officer Tippit as soon as he got to the hospital, which was apparently the first bullet, the one examined November 23, three further bullets were taken out at the autopsy. And since we knew that only one bullet had been examined by the FBI, and since we knew at that point that three further bullets had been taken out, we asked that those three further bullets be examined.

Representative BOGGS. What proof do you have though that these are the bullets?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, again, we will have to connect it up at a subsequent time. They were turned over to the FBI Dallas Office, were they, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. I am talking about the three bullets now, not the first bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; turned over to the FBI Dallas Office by the Dallas Police. Now, we will have to connect up by deposition or testimony before the Commission on the origin of those bullets, and proof is not in the record now, as it is not in the case of many of these items, as to origin. However, I have no doubt that we will be able to connect it up and put it all in the record.

Representative BOGGS. Has there been any inquiry made as to why there was this delay in removing the other three bullets to the FBI?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, as Mr. Cunningham stated, I was told since this was not within the jurisdiction of the FBI, they would only examine evidence which was given to them. And since it had not been given to them, they had not examined it.

When I asked for it, there was a formal request made for them, and they made their examination at that point.

Is that your understanding, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, sir. In other words, we will do laboratory examinations for any duly constituted law-enforcement agency upon request. And we did it in this case. We offer our facilities but do not go out and ask for work. Since we have no jurisdiction in the killing of Officer Tippit, we would make no investigation and therefore, we would have no reason to go and ask for additional bullets, until of course this Commission asked us to, and then we did on behalf of the Commission.

Representative BOGGS. Do you have any theory, and this is just a theory, you understand, as to this discrepancy in these results as compared to the cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Inasmuch as there are three Western bullets, you would be missing one Western cartridge case, and one Remington bullet. You are missing one of each. He could have missed one of the shots. I do not know how many times he actually fired the weapon. But he could have missed once. It is very possible that he could have. And depending on the angle, it would be very difficult to find that bullet unless it struck some close intervening object. Also I have no first-hand information, again, but I believe that some neighbor turned in these cartridge cases to the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that is correct.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You have received a letter from the Dallas office of the FBI just recently, I believe, setting forth that information.

Representative BOGGS. That would account for one. There would still be another one, would there not?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There would be just one cartridge case missing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other logical theory which could explain the results?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of course, he could have had an empty cartridge case remaining in the weapon at the time he fired it. Then he would only have fired four shots, and then a bullet is still unaccounted for. That would explain it also.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, if he had an unejected R-P cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No--a Western.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean an unejected Western cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And he fired two Winchester and two R-P bullets--now in that case--and, if he then ejected he would get three Winchester and two R-P bullets, would he not--that is, cartridge case--if he had an extra cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If he had an extra cartridge case----

Mr. EISENBERG. He would get five cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, if he had an extra cartridge case, say a Remington----

Mr. EISENBERG. I was right the first time. Suppose he has an extra Remington?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, then you would have lost a Western. If he fires four times?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And he has the fifth one in. You would still have to have three Western cartridges loaded in and one Remington cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. But then----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Which is four.

Mr. EISENBERG. But then you only have to lose one cartridge case. You do not have to lose a bullet and a cartridge case.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right. You do have to lose one case.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the case you lose would be a Western case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Western.

Representative FORD. Is it unusual to have a mixture of this kind in a pistol?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Usually they are all the same brand. Although if you have two boxes--.38 Special cartridges come in boxes of 50. And you will see hand-loaders once in a while. By the way, we found no indication that they had been hand loaded.

Representative BOGGS. Is this a police weapon as well?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; and a very good one. Not in that particular caliber. In other words, the caliber----

Representative BOGGS. That is what I meant.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge in this country. The .38 Special is.

Representative BOGGS. .38 Special is?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That cartridge.

Representative BOGGS. With police forces?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We use it. Most of your larger police forces use the .38 Special. It is a better cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the example we were using before as a second possible theory--the cartridge case that would be lost would be a Western case, I believe actually?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, it would be a Western case.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, also getting back to a subject we were discussing, I will quote in part from a letter from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Rankin dated March 31, 1964.

"On March 30, 1964, Mr. Eisenberg requested that the Dallas Police Department be contacted to determine whether any additional cartridge cases had been recovered." And I say parenthetically I mean in addition to the four which we have seen here.

"On March 30, 1964, Lieutenant Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, advised the Dallas office of this Bureau that all of the cartridge cases and bullets recovered had been previously submitted to the FBI."

You mentioned or discussed the question of hand loading. Can you describe what you mean by hand loading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Hand loading is nothing more than taking components and by means of a press you make your own cartridges. You put them together.

Mr. EISENBERG. In this process, would you be able to take a bullet of one manufacturer and a cartridge case of another?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said that you found no evidence that that had been done in this case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We found no sizing marks on the cartridge cases, which after the first time it has been fired, you many times have to resize it, due to the fact that one chamber can be too large. They always full-length resize, for in a police department many officers will be using this ammunition. You might not resize if one were only firing them in one gun. In other words, you are limiting the chambers of your cylinder that they will fit into. But normally they are full-length resized, and from this you get these sizing marks. Actually they are scrape marks from the sizing die.

Mr. EISENBERG. In a hand-loading operation, is the equipment needed bulky or small?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is quite bulky.

Mr. EISENBERG. If Oswald had hand-loading equipment, would it have been likely to have been turned up among his personal effects? Could it be easily missed?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You could not miss it; no, sir.

Representative FORD. When you say bulky----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A "C" press or an "O" press will stand anywhere from 10 to 12 inches high with a 2-foot handle. Your turret-type would run almost a foot and a half high above the table. And they are all made very heavy because of your full-length resizing--not only on your small revolver cartridges, but for all your hunting cartridges--that takes great pressure. They are heavy duty. And you need quite a bit of equipment. Most of the time there will be a case trimmer, your complete press--there is a primer press, and then you have to have dies for the cartridge you are loading--your sizing dies and your bullet dies that you use to press the bullet into the cartridge case. Then there are all sorts of sundry equipment that go along with hand loading--your powder measurer, which is usually quite large if it is one that will do it volumetrically. True, you can have a balance and weigh out a particular amount for each one, but it takes an awful lot of time. Normally they are volumetric powder measures. You tip it and it puts a certain amount of powder into the cartridge case.

Representative FORD. Is it expensive equipment to buy?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Originally, yes. Comparatively so. A good press, I think you can buy one anywhere from $29 to over $100. You will have to invest, I would say, $150 to have a fairly good outfit. But over the years it is a cheap investment. Instead of paying $2.80 a box, or $2.85 a box, you are turning out cartridges, once you have your brass, for--even rifle, hunting cartridges--for about 7 cents, and lead bullet cartridges down to around 3 cents apiece.

Representative FORD. $2.80 a box?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have the component list here from Western. I do not have the cost per box of ammunition, but it can run anywhere from $2.25 all the way up to $6 to $8 for some of your larger hunting rifle cartridges--boxes of 20 in hunting ammunition, boxes of 50 in your revolver and pistol ammunition.

Even buying components, it is comparatively cheap. If you buy them by the hundred, and they will run, for instance the .38 Special, 158 grain lead bullets per hundred, only $2.80, and that is for original components. If you have the brass, your powder cost is negligible--probably a penny a cartridge, half a cent a cartridge for a .38 Special. So it saves you so much money if you are a target shooter, for instance, it is advantageous to do it if you like to shoot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a skilled operation, hand loading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Basically, no. Once you have the basic--if you do any reading on it, and you take your time, and are very careful, it is not a difficult operation at all.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would a----

Representative BOGGS. How are these cartridges loaded mechanically--not like this hand loading.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is all done on large machines. They buy their lead, for instance, in rods. They ask for a lead alloy of a certain hardness. Then these machines--they feed in the rods in the bullet-making machines, and they cut them off to length. They have different diameter rods. For a .38 the rod diameter would be approximately .357" or .358". Then this machine comes down in a swaging operation.

Another machine puts the knurling around--forming the lubricating grooves, and another groove. They tumble out as fast as the machine can run.

Then you have your case formation. They buy their cases--they look like little cups of copper. Actually it is a copper alloy. And then you go through a drawing process, and then an annealing, and a drawing and annealing, and a drawing and annealing of these brass cases. And then once you get them to approximate length, you full-size them and form the cases. The machine keeps tumbling them out.

And a small lathe--as these cases are going around--turns the case and puts in the extraction groove--all automatically. Another machine comes up from the bottom and puts the head stamp in. Another one is a drilling operation, and it puts in the holes for the primer and also the flash holes into the case. All done automatically. And they tumble into a big box.

Then they take those components and they put them on the line. The primers are all done by hand, except for shotgun primers at Western.

There are girls sitting at these presses who do 50 or 100 at a time. They put guide plates into the machine in which the girls put the primers. They are automatically loaded. All the primers are put in by hand, in essence.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, what is the advantage of hand loading in terms of cost, if you do not have your own shells to start with?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again your initial cost is fairly expensive. For instance, for the .38 Special, unprimed cases, the list price per hundred last year, was $4.60 a hundred. The primed cost $5. The primers cost 20 cents----

Mr. EISENBERG. So there is a saving even if you do not provide your own shells?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, yes--and the bullets would cost----

Mr. EISENBERG. How many primers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One hundred. And 158 grain lead, .38 Special bullets are $2.80. So $7.80 plus $2.00 worth of powder and you are in business.

Mr. EISENBERG. For $9.80?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how much would the bullets cost you if you bought them commercially already prepared?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think it is $2.50 per 50.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, that is more. $2.25 per 50, did you say?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. $2.85? I never buy any ammunition of that type. I do not know.

Mr. EISENBERG. So for a hundred that would be $5.90.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say it is closer to $8 per hundred for .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. So it is cheaper to buy them that way than to buy the components?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is cheaper to buy your components when you do not have to buy the cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, now, is it possible that a gunsmith would buy the components, including new cases, and reload together a case from Western-Winchester and a bullet from Remington-Peters?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't think that a gunsmith would buy the new cases. That is what I was saying. For instance, used .30-.06 brass, right here in town--you can buy it locally. You can buy National Match Cases, which are excellent brass. I think they are a nickel a piece; $5 a hundred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they as good as the new cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are once-fired cases. They are excellent.

Mr. EISENBERG. So in you opinion does the possibility that this discrepancy in bullets and cartridge cases can be explained in terms of reloading make much sense? Does it have a high degree of probability or a low degree of probability, would you think?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sorry.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you think it probable or improbable, in light of all your testimony, that the discrepancy between the number of recovered bullets and the number of recovered cartridge cases can be explained in terms of a reloading operation of some kind, or hand loading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I do not. It is improbable, because we found no indication of any reloading operation. And in an examination of all the cartridges that we had examined, there was no indication of a reloading operation on those. They looked like factory bullets and factory cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if you were going to reload, you would use used cartridges rather than new ones?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You would use used brass, because you usually can pick it up at ranges and places like that. You would not even have to buy it.

Representative BOGGS. By that you mean you would use these? (Referring to Commission Exhibit No. 595.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; well--these would be very difficult--in other

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; well--these would be very difficult on account of the case. They would be hard to resize on account of the fact the case is pushed out due to the rechambering. But they could be used; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say there is no indication, would there be an indication if they were resized?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; usually--unless the sizing die was extremely clean--usually you will get your resizing marks from the resizing die.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in particular you say the cartridge cases from this particular weapon show a substantial amount of bulge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They do. As you brought to my attention, there is a crack in the one case. I would not care to use this type of brass if I were hand loading. I would find brass that had been fired in a .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, by the way, the various cartridge cases, the four cartridge cases and four bullets that you have identified, and that you obtained from your Dallas Office and other sources, that is, Exhibits 594 and 602, 603, 604, and 605, are these now in the same condition as they were when you originally got them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Substantially. A small sample was taken off the noise which was run spectrographically. But the major portions of all these bullets are the same as when they were received in the laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean them in any way or alter them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we had to clean them. They were removed from the body and were bloody. You could not see the surfaces. We had to put them in haemo-sol, which is nothing more than a material that will take out the blood.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true of all four bullets? That is true of the last three bullets as well as the original bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Q-13 was cleaned of blood tissue in haemo-sol. I do not think I have anything in the notes that the last three were cleaned at all.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that indicate they were not cleaned?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say so, because I would have put it down.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the substance removed from the first bullet tested to see whether it was blood, or did you just assume it was blood?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No examination was made of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any dirt on the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't remember any.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would your notes show if you had cleaned it up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they do not show any cleaning up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said these revolver bullets were sold in boxes of how many?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Fifty.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will a storekeeper, a gun man who sells bullets, sell less than 50 usually, in your experience?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Maybe some small outfit would. But I just don't know of any around here that will.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Oswald was found with two types of ammunition, two makes of .38 Special cartridges. Would you infer than that----

Representative BOGGS. What two types?

Mr. EISENBERG. R.-P., or Remington-Peters, and Western-Winchester.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were Westerns.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you infer on the basis of your previous statement that he had probably bought a larger quantity?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The inference would be that he had at least two boxes.

Mr. EISENBERG. At some point?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; either that or he had obtained them from another individual.

Mr. EISENBERG. How about the rifle ammunition, this 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle ammunition--how is that commonly sold--the Western brand?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would depend on the surplus house, how it is sold.

Mr. EISENBERG. You think that might be sold in less than fixed minimum quantities?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many times that type of ammunition, surplus ammunition, is sold in any amount. They will give a single price, single cartridge price--or they will take off some if you buy them by the thousand or the hundred. That is a lot different than commercially made ammunition for sale in this country.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to examine this witness now on the paraffin test, if there are no further questions on the areas we have been covering up to now.

Representative FORD. Any questions, Mr. Boggs?

Representative BOGGS. I don't think so.

Representative FORD. Mr. Rhyne?

Mr. RHYNE. Yes; you said that you were positive that these cartridge cases that were found near where Officer Tippit was killed, and which are over in front of Representative Boggs now, were fired in this gun.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I stated the first time, in my opinion those cartridge cases were fired in that particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun. However, the rifling characteristics on the bullets are the same as produced by that weapon. Also, I could not identify consecutive tests obtained from that revolver, using .38 Special ammunition, and I could not identify, even though there are microscopic marks on three of these bullets for comparison purposes--I could not identify them with each other.

Mr. RHYNE. Now, based on your many, many years of experience, is this usual or unusual, that you are unable to identify bullets from such a gun under these circumstances?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual in this particular case. I have had other cases with these rechambered .38 S&W revolvers, that are rechambered to a .38 Special; it is not unusual to not be able to identify them. And especially when the barrel has been cut off 2-3/4 inches, it even cuts down the possibility a little bit more.

Mr. RHYNE. I was under the impression that you people down at the FBI could identify almost any bullet as coming from almost any gun. That is not strictly true, then?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, but it is not.

Representative BOGGS. How much has this barrel been cut off?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. About 2-3/4 inches. You measure the length of the barrel from--you see the cylinder----

Representative BOGGS. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the portion coming out from the frame, that is a portion of the barrel. And the barrel is measured from there to the muzzle. And the barrel now is 2-1/4 inches long. The original barrel was 5 inches long--or at least it is similar to the model that would have a 5-inch barrel.

Representative BOGGS. What is the advantage of reducing the length of the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two things--sales appeal and concealment.

Representative BOGGS. Does it affect the firing quality of the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It affects your accuracy inasmuch as it cuts down on your sight radius. Your longer barrel will be more accurate than a shorter barrel, due to the longer sight radius. The reason that rifles are inherently more accurate than a hand weapon is due, in part, to the longer sight radius. That is the reason the farther you can get away from the sight when you are firing a revolver, the more accurate. Lengthening your sight radius will increase the accuracy.

Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.

Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they could have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they could have been. However, no conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.

Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. There are not sufficient similarities to effect an identification.

Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, these bullets could have been fired by another weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Either this weapon or another weapon which has the same rifling characteristics.

Representative FORD. You are limiting that to the bullets now?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.

Mr. RHYNE. Yes; my question related just to the bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.

Mr. RHYNE. He was positive about the cartridge cases, but not about the bullets.

Representative BOGGS. Now, would it be likely to find these cartridge cases, which you can positively identify as having been fired from this weapon--would it be likely that these bullets which you cannot identify as having been fired from this weapon--would it be likely that they would be fired from another weapon under those circumstances?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, that, sir, depends on other extraneous facts other than my comparisons and examinations. In other words, I can only testify to what I actually found from an examination and comparison of those bullets with these test bullets from that gun. And as to anything else, I cannot testify. I mean--that would be based upon other facts.

Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying some of these questions a little bit further, Mr. Cunningham, you say that this bullet could have been fired from this gun, and was fired from a gun with these rifling characteristics?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you said were five lands, five grooves, right twist?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the widths of the lands and grooves? Did you measure those?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; they were also the same. In other words, when I say it has similar rifling characteristics--the widths of the lands and the grooves is taken into account the rifling characteristics. It has the same width and number of lands and grooves and a right twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, how many other--well, before I ask that, you have also established that the bullets were .38 Specials?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the manufacturer of each bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say they had been fired therefore from a gun chambered for a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; there was no indication that they were fired in a weapon other than .38 caliber.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the weapon was a .38 Special weapon with five lands, five grooves, right twist, and with the same dimensions for each land and each groove.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would the entire production run of this model conform to that description?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. And also there are other models.

Mr. EISENBERG. Other models also produced by Smith and Wesson?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; in .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate the number of those guns?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. May I have the NRA reprint? My estimate comes from the figures that are set forth in Commission Exhibit 593, which states that by 1942 there were a million "Military and Police" revolvers, which is the prior model to the Victory model, which they produced.

Representative BOGGS. That is this model?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. But the model has similar rifling characteristics. You could not distinguish between them. In other words, one is a commercially made gun--this is strictly a wartime gun. Also production of the "S" series continued until 1948, when the "C" series was started, including over one million "M&P" models, including the Victory model, which was this model, were manufactured between 1942 through March of 1948; and since that date, Smith and Wesson has produced over 500,000 "M&P" revolvers in the "C" series, which, when you add them up--there are over two and a half million.

Mr. EISENBERG. Two and a half million?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Over 2-1/2 million.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, apart from specially handmade or equivalent weapons, how many other types of weapons have you encountered which have these rifling characteristics?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Other than possibly a Spanish-made copy of the Smith--the Smith is the only one in .38 Special now that will have similar rifling characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say Spanish-made, you are referring to the basement type of operation?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this weapon did not produce, and does not produce--that is, the weapon 143--does not produce identical microscopic characteristics from bullet to bullet, you have testified. And you have told us that the reason might be that the weapon was rechambered but not rebarrelled, so that the .38 Special is slightly undersized for the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has not been rebarrelled.

Mr. EISENBERG. That's right. So when you fire a .38 Special, it is slightly undersized, and this might affect the barrel characteristics? Wasn't that your testimony? That the .38 Special is slightly undersized?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; approximately four-thousandths of an inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you therefore limit the number of possible weapons from which the bullets might have been fired, not only to the 2-1/2 million S&W's which you discussed, plus the possibility of Spanish homemade weapons, but also to those weapons, that subcategory of weapons within those 2-1/2 million, which does not produce microscopic characteristics such that you can identify bullets fired from them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; you cannot, due to the fact that there was also the possibility that the inability to identify consecutive tests from that weapon could be caused from an accumulation of lead or from barrel wear--the barrel was actually physically changing.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is not quite what I meant. Out of every ten S&W .38 Specials, on the basis of your experience, how many do you think would produce rifling characteristics such that you could identify bullets fired from them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, you could tell if the rifling characteristics are similar. But as far as the individual characteristic marks, that would be on an individual basis. Much depends on the imperfections in the barrel. Now, if you have some real deep imperfections in a barrel, it would be possible to pick them up each time. Even though you would have a lot of dissimilarities, the similarities would be so distinctive that there is always a possibility you could identify them. But not this weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Rhyne asked before whether it was usual or unusual to get this type of weapon not producing microscopic characteristics such that you could identify the bullet to the gun. You said it was not unusual.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I say out of every 10 such weapons, how many would you expect to be in this condition--that is, in a condition such that you cannot make an identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing that.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of your experience, the experience that led you to say it is not unusual to have this condition?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can only say that you find them, that you cannot identify them, so it is not unusual. But as to numbers, I could not say. When you go back and you take all the hundreds and hundreds of examinations I have made, it is not unusual. But I also will not say that it is usual. I will go to the negative, I will say it is not unusual.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you agree that out of the 2-1/2 million possible weapons it could only have been fired from a gun which will not produce microscopic characteristics such that you can identify the bullet to the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There is a good indication of that; yes. However, there is mutilation on all four of the bullets. But the three we are talking about, the ones that had marks for comparison purposes, now, even though the possibility is remote, it is still possible that there is mutilation in different areas of each bullet, so you would not be able to identify them. Even if the bullets--even if they had not been mutilated, you maybe still could not identify them. In other words, your mutilation on different parts of each bullet would preclude the possibility of identifying them with each other. So I cannot answer your question positively.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have one subject remaining with this witness. Mr. Cunningham, are you familiar with the paraffin test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you administered this test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the approximate number of times you have administered it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know the exact number, but I must have performed this test at least 100 times, and probably more.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will state for the record--I know you do not know of this of your own knowledge, Mr. Cunningham--but a paraffin test was performed on Lee Harvey Oswald by the Dallas Police. Three paraffin casts were made, one of the right cheek, one of the right hand, and one of the left hand. There was no reaction on the paraffin test of the right cheek. There was a reaction on the paraffin test of each of the right and left hands.

I will now hand you a sketch which was made by a participant in those tests, which shows the distribution of the blue or violet dots which constitute a positive reaction to this test on the left and right hands of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Representative BOGGS. Before you do that, Mr. Cunningham, will you describe briefly the procedure on a paraffin test? I want to understand exactly what it is.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The so-called paraffin test is the making of reinforced paraffin casts, of a person's hands, and then treating either with either one of two reagents. One is diphenylamine, and the other is diphenylbenzidine.

Representative BOGGS. Is that when the cast is on?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is definitely after it is removed.

Representative FORD. You actually make a cast of the individual's hand?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, yes.

Representative BOGGS. You make the casts. Then you take the casts off.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You slit it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how the cast is made?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. You first take warm paraffin. Each paraffin melts at a slightly different temperature. What we were using in our tests melts at about 130°. And this hot paraffin is placed on the hands. It is spread on with a brush, or it can be poured over. If you are sure that your brush is absolutely clean and will not react--and we checked all of our equipment so that we were not getting a reaction from the diphenylbenzidine--we let it pour on from the brush. Once you get a coating, you can just brush it on, because then you won't be disturbing any materials on the hands. And after you get a coat on, you take gauze bandages and lay them on top and put more paraffin on them. The gauze does nothing more than to give it reinforcement so it won't fall apart or crumble when it gets real cool. Then you cut them off the hands after they cool. Then they are chemically processed with either diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine.

Representative BOGGS. The cast?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; the portion of the cast next to the hand.

Representative BOGGS. Right. I understand now.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why paraffin is used? What is the action of the paraffin?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, the warm paraffin has the effect of opening up the pores of the skin and many times material that you cannot get off from washing will be picked up in the sticky paraffin. As it is cooling, the dirt and the foreign material on the hands will become embedded in the paraffin.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the paraffin acts as a base to pick up----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It acts as a medium in which the foreign material is picked up from the hands.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you add the reagent, what is considered to be a positive reaction?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It turns a blue color.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the cast? When you say "it," it is the cast?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, specks on the cast.

Mr. EISENBERG. Dots?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, or an area of the cast. The theory of the test is that it is a test for gunpowder residues. Now, that is the theory, and it is fallacious, inasmuch as the reagents used in these two tests are not specific for gunpowder residues. Now, it is true that the nitrates and nitrites in gunpowder residues will react positively with diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine, but they are not specific. They will react--these two reagents will react with most oxidizing agents.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us a few examples?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Urine, tobacco, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, soil, fertilizer--I have a list here of the different families or classes of compounds that will react.

In addition to nitrates and nitrites, substances such as dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorites, periodates, some oxides, such as selenium dioxide and so forth. Also, ferric chloride and chromates and chlorates. The list of oxidizing agents is so large--that will react--that you cannot specifically say it was a gunpowder residue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Supposedly it is to determine whether or not a person has fired a weapon. In actuality, in chemistry it is a good indication that an oxidizing agent is present. The reagents have a valid use in a chemistry laboratory.

Representative BOGGS. Let me put the question this way. Given a dozen ordinary people in the ordinary walk of life, what would be the chance of a positive reaction on any one of these 12 people?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has the FBI performed an experiment to determine this?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we have. The early sets of tests we ran with diphenylamine. And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands. That was the first test we ran.

The second test--we used people who had not washed their hands in any way. They were going about their duties during the day. Their hands were soiled. Nine people fired weapons out of 29--20 people just had the casts made.

The first person fired a revolver. Both right hand and left hand were positive. The second person fired a revolver. Both hands positive. A person fired an automatic pistol, where you would not expect to find residue. Both hands positive. Shooting with the right hand only, again one with a revolver and three people firing automatics, all positive. Shooting with the left hand only, one person with a revolver, one with an automatic, both hands positive.

Now, of the 20 people that had not come in contact with a gun--they definitely had just gone about their business--every one of them showed positive tests on either or both hands. A heavy smoker, for instance, would come up positive in the area of the hand where you expect to find residues from firing a gun.

Representative FORD. That is the hand that you use for smoking?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That's correct. And I noticed you with your pipe. You are also sure to react because you touch the tobacco in your pipe. You do it unconsciously. During another test we performed recently I did not know that the diphenylbenzidine was on the corner of the cast I was trying to pick up to wash off. I just touched it, and both my fingers which had touched my cigar turned a blue color. That is how sensitive it is.

Now, of these 20 people--true there were some that had one hand that did not get a reaction, but they all got a reaction, one hand or another, or both.

Now, recently in connection with the assassination we made casts--the three of us, Special Agents Frazier, Killion, and myself, for neutron-activation. However, two of the casts we treated with diphenylbenzidine. We obtained a cast of the left hand after firing this particular revolver four times and reloading. We obtained a cast of the right hand after firing that revolver four times, and reloading. We treated both casts, fronts and backs with diphenylbenzidine. This particular one was run on me. I washed my hands thoroughly with green soap--and the green soap, by the way, did not react because we checked it--the gauze used and the paraffin were all checked, to see if they would react, and they did not. We found numerous, numerous reactions on the casts of both hand. And I did not fire a weapon with my left hand. However, as I previously showed you, when I demonstrated how you ejected cartridge cases, all of those residues showed up, as well as, I am sure, other foreign material that the paraffin removed from my hands. And there were reactions on both hands, fronts and backs.

Now, theoretically, you should not find them on the backs over here, because I had my left hand behind me, and you would find it on the palm. We found reactions everywhere on the casts.

Representative FORD. It is 12:30 now. We will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.

Mr. DULLES. You are still under oath, Mr. Cunningham, so we won't swear you again. Will you proceed?

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I would like to take up a few things relating to this morning's testimony and then we will go back to paraffin test.

First, I hand you two bullets and I ask you whether you are familiar with these bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on those bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the nose; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify them to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These are two of the tests that I fired from Commission Exhibit 143, Oswald's revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. One is a----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One of them is a copper-coated lead bullet. In this case, I know that it is Western, because that was the cartridge I used, and the other one is a Winchester .38 Special lead bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted in evidence as Commission Exhibit 606?

Mr. DULLES. They may be admitted as 606.

(The bullets referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 606, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, using these bullets as demonstrations, could you tell us how you determined that the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, which you looked at this morning, and those were Exhibits 602 through 604, were respectively a Western-Winchester .38 Special and a Remington-Peters .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; however, I couldn't do it with these two bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Sure, use 602 to----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The copper-coated lead bullet. I could use and I did use it--I made a photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we discuss that further, let's see if we can mark that for identification. Can you describe what is in this photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. It is a photograph of four bullets. The first bullet starting from the left is Commission Exhibit No. 604. As you can see right on the label, it is Q-501, which would be Commission Exhibit 604. The next bullet to it is a test bullet that I fired from Commission Exhibit 143, which is a known 158-grain lead bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture.

The third bullet in the photograph is our number C-253, which is Commission Exhibit No. 603. And the fourth bullet in the photograph is this particular bullet which you have given Commission Exhibit 606. It is a copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I was present when it was taken. I compared the bullets with the negative, and I can testify that this photograph is a true representation--an accurate representation of the four bullets that were photographed.

Mr. DULLES. And this photograph is Commission Exhibit No.----

Mr. EISENBERG. If you will admit it into evidence, it will be 607.

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 607 and was received in evidence.)

(At this point Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)

Mr. DULLES. All right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, we have introduced a photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 607, which shows four bullets labeled "C-252," "R-P," "C-253," and "Western."

Are two of those bullets the bullets which you just identified as Exhibit 606?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; Commission Exhibit 606, the copper-coated Western bullet, is the same bullet that was in this photograph, labeled the Western bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you hold that up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; that is the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. The copper-coated or copper-colored bullet in 606 corresponds with the far right-hand side bullet labeled "Western" in 607?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the lead-colored bullet in 606?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is a Remington-Peters 158-grain lead bullet. I do not have that one with me.

Mr. EISENBERG. This would be similar in appearance though to the bullet which was photographed as the "R-P" bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it isn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Because this is a Winchester.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why isn't it copper coated?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Corp. loads both lead- and copper-coated bullets into their .38 Specials.

As of today, Winchester is only loading--under that brand--uncoated bullets. That is what their latest catalog says.

Only Western is loading copper-coated bullets. They are both made in the same factory--they are both made by the Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. in East Alton, Ill.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you didn't give us an R-P test bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Did you use an R-P test bullet in attempting to make your identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; you asked for our first two tests.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Okay. Can you show by use of that photograph, Exhibit 607, how you were able to determine that certain of the bullets found in Officer Tippit were of R-P manufacture, .38 Special, and certain were Winchester-Western?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

First of all, in the manufacture of these bullets, each manufacturer has his own specifications for how they are to look. By that I mean generally that both manufacturers' bullets are similar. They are similar in weight. They are generally similar in size and diameter as well as length. However, the number and the spacing between the grooves--these grooves, the cannelures, are not similar. It is actually a knurling process, you can see the knurling marks.

Mr. DULLES. What is the purpose of those?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Lubrication grooves. .38 Specials being lead bullets--in order to keep down excessive leading they put in a lubricant--Remington-Peters--they use a very dark heavy lubricant. Western-Winchester, they use a very light-colored waxy type of lubricant.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Up above you will see a small groove. It is nothing more than just a slight groove. That can be caused when the case is crimped, the bullet is crimped into the case.

Representative FORD. That is in the R-P?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On both of them, sir.

Representative FORD. That is on both?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; you see one here, that has actually been put in. They load up to that certain place and they crimp into that groove, which is known as a crimping groove.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say crimping groove, do you mean the cartridge is tightened around the case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The neck of the case is tightened around--is crimped into the bullet. The distance between the base to the first cannelure, and the width of the cannelure, the portion of the bullet between the two cannelures, and the width of the next cannelure, is individual with Remington-Peters bullets.

In other words, Western-Winchester bullets are not made with the same width cannelures and the same distances between the two of them. Each manufacturer prefers to have a certain distance between cannelures and a certain width of cannelure, and it is strictly individual to each company. By these specifications--and also another very important thing is the base shape--you can determine whether or not a bullet is of one manufacture or another.

If you will take these two, one of the tests in Commission Exhibit No. 606, you will see that the number, the width and everything about the copper-coated Western and the uncoated Winchester are the same. In other words, they put a flash coat of the gilding metal on the bullet and as I testified previously its chief value is for sales appeal, and, a secondary value to prevent leading.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record again. Continue please.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, as of November 22, 1963, how many major manufacturers were there in the United States who were manufacturing .38 Special bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Three.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who were they?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First, is the Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., East Alton, Ill., which manufactures ammunition under the trade names "Western" as well as "Winchester."

The next major manufacturer is Du Pont, and they manufacture in their Remington Cartridge Division ammunition under the trade names "Remington" and "Peters," and the third manufacturer is Federal Cartridge Co. in Minneapolis.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many manufacturers of .38 Special ammunition are there outside the United States, approximately?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing all of them. I know it is manufactured in Canada by Dominion, and Norma also manufactures it.

Mr. DULLES. What was that name?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Norma.

Mr. DULLES. N-o-r-m-a?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. In Canada too?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it is in Sweden.

DWM in Germany must manufacture it, I am just recalling these larger manufacturers that should manufacture it. Also, some English manufacturers.

Mr. EISENBERG. How are you certain that one of the bullets found in Officer Tippit was not manufactured by one of the foreign manufacturers, either one you are acquainted with or one you are not?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We maintain a Test Specimen and a Standard Ammunition File, and we have foreign ammunition in them, although I don't think we have all of the foreign. But we have never come across a foreign-made bullet with the same physical characteristics as the bullets represented by those removed from the body of Officer Tippit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you attempt to get a complete file of .38 Special ammunition?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We definitely maintain an up-to-date file in our Standard Ammunition File in the laboratory of all domestic manufactured ammunition as well as some foreign, for instance, Norma and Dominion, and we have specimens from other foreign manufacturers.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you say that of the specimens you do have which you feel are as complete as possible you have never come across two types which are similar at least to these .38 Specials?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now Mr. Frazier yesterday said that the Walker bullet seemed to be a 6.5 millimeter bullet or may have been fired from the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, had the same general rifling characteristics as was found on that rifle which is in evidence as Commission Exhibit----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; 139.

Now do you have a complete file of 6.5 or a large file of 6.5 millimeter ammunition?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have some.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel it is as complete as your .38 Special file?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I do not. However, we have never found any foreign manufacturer manufacturing 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition that was similar to this.

From its general appearance, it has all the similarities of a western-world-manufactured bullet----

Mr. EISENBERG. Now this is Commission----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the knurling is typical--the physical characteristics were similar to those of the bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is Commission Exhibit 573, which is the--as to which Mr. Frazier has testified, and which is believed to be the bullet found in the Walker residence.

Are you familiar with it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have examined it as well as Mr. Frazier?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this bullet was a 6.5-mm. Western copper-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would.

Mr. EISENBERG. As definitely as you say the bullets which we have just been looking at are respectively Remington-Peters and Western-Winchester .38 Special bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Could I see that just a moment?

What did that hit, the brick wall of the house?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have no idea, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You don't know?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know. I have no first-hand knowledge of it. It is in essentially the same condition as when we received it in the laboratory, and all I know would be what has already been furnished your Commission by report.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now given the fact that that was a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that have been fired in any other 6.5-millimeter rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it has to be a rifle that is chambered specifically for this particular cartridge. In other words, there are other 6.5-millimeter cartridges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, as I understand it, your conclusion and Mr. Frazier's was only that this cartridge, that this bullet, could have been fired from Exhibit 139 or a rifle with similar----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the basis of the rifling characteristics it could have been fired from 139. However, there are insufficient marks remaining to determine whether or not it had actually been so fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now the testimony yesterday as I recall it was that it was fired either from Exhibit 139 or from a rifle with similar, or from a weapon with similar rifling characteristics?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. But according to your testimony it would have to be similar to a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I did not so testify. You asked if you could fire another 6.5-mm. cartridge other than the cartridge----

Mr. EISENBERG. I asked if that cartridge, if a Western manufacture 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could be fired in a gun other than the 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. And you said, as I recall it, "It could only be fired from a gun chambered for that cartridge."

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. That 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could only be fired in a weapon that is chambered for that particular cartridge. Further we have never found another cartridge that this particular type bullet has been loaded into.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any reason to believe there is another 6.5-millimeter rifle manufactured that is chambered for that cartridge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None that I know of. Maybe I misunderstood you. You mean, if the weapon is chambered for a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, then that is commonly known as its caliber?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But you can rechamber weapons for another cartridge, as they do all the time with the military surplus Springfield rifles. You can have them rebarreled and rechambered.

Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from rechambering, talking just about original manufacture, do I understand that the only weapon which you have encountered, the only 6.5 millimeter weapon you have encountered which would fire the particular type of cartridge which is Exhibit 573 is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the various models of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.

Before the luncheon--are there any further questions along this line?

Before the luncheon recess we were talking about the paraffin test and we were discussing the significance of a positive result, and you had given testimony concerning two experiments which the FBI had run which indicated that positive results might be obtained even by a person who had not recently fired a weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you expect to find residues on a person who has fired a revolver such as Commission Exhibit 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again, by its design, you would expect to find something, although there are cases where you won't find it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you expect to find a residue in the case of the revolver as opposed to the rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A revolver has a revolving cylinder. There is a space between the barrel and the front portion of the cylinder.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show that by use of Exhibit 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can see when you close the cylinder, and each chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp and then into the rifling.

The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues around the entrance to the rear portion of the barrel which is next to the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself.

So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands after he fired a revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that there is no equivalent gap in the manufacture of a rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you run any kind of a test with this revolver which would indicate whether it did in fact leave residues?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; I did, or we did, three of us, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Killion, and myself. The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with green soap and rinsed them in distilled water.

Mr. EISENBERG. The purpose of this washing was what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet-recovery room, four times--and then after firing I opened it up and ejected the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the cartridge cases was in my hand at the time.

I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of diphenylbenzidine.

The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, you testified this morning that many common substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-called paraffin test.

Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this test so unreliable. Handling a recently fired weapon, that is covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and in some cases more--especially up here and around here you would.

Mr. DULLES. Does the time between the tests, between the firing and the test, make very much difference, within a few hours?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the residues are on the skin they will react. In other words, if the material has been washed off completely, then you are all through, but if it remains on the skin or is imbedded in the pores of the skin it would still react, but so will so many other things.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review for a second your testimony this morning, in the experiments that the FBI ran, a revolver or automatic pistol were used as opposed to rifles, as I recall it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any negative results following the shooting of the revolver or automatic pistol?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None of those were negative results, but they were not run under the same conditions. By the way, with an automatic pistol you shouldn't expect to find any residues, for the same reason as with a rifle--the cartridge is chamber, and the boltface comes in right behind.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you look at your notes for your first experiment, because as I recall there were some negative results on that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am talking about the first experiment now, not the second one.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The first experiment--yes; that was true. This test was a little bit different.

In other words, they were not just taking people from their work. These people had washed their hands.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, their hands were cleaned before they fired the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. But then some of them fired a revolver and still didn't get a residue, as I remember your testimony?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.

We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not tired a gun that day.

Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.

Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?

Representative FORD. Based on your testimony this morning, and what you have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted and how extensively are they?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the cast and we will process them.

However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction.

Representative FORD. Is this a test that has been conducted by law-enforcement agencies for some time. Is it a new test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the first test that I reported on here were conducted in 1935.

There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons.

Mr. DULLES. Explain that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, "We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now," and they will--it is--

Mr. DULLES. I get your point.

Mr. EISENBERG. Following up Congressman Ford's question, does the FBI run paraffin tests except on request from other law-enforcement agencies?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't, no. Basically, the paraffin test is the preparing of the cast. We don't do that. We will run the chemical processing of these casts at the request of the local law-enforcement agency.

Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.

Representative FORD. Is that because of the feeling that it is not as reliable as it should be?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon. It is positive, and diphenlybenzidine solution is very positive and very sensitive, as to whether or not an oxidizing agent is present and it is used in chemistry.

Mr. DULLES. You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here, wouldn't we?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I mentioned that this morning.

Representative FORD. He brought it out this morning.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would be willing to state right now if we processed both of your hands you would come up positive, because invariably pipe smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would get a positive reaction.

I am a cigar smoker, I also would come up positive.

Mr. EISENBERG. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any further questions?

Representative FORD. I have no questions.

Mr. RHYNE. I take it in sum and substance that these paraffin tests are practically worthless?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For the determination of whether or not a person has fired a weapon.

Mr. RHYNE. A gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Now the test is not worthless in chemistry.

Mr. DULLES. What use are they then except possibly from this psychological angle that you have mentioned?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't----

Mr. DULLES. Are they useful in other ways than but for the psychological reasons you mentioned?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As far as whether or not a person has fired a gun?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. Even with the mere handling of this weapon I could pick up residues. One could not testify that a person has fired a weapon because he had residues on his hands, which I showed you this morning, for example.

There is a spot right there on my hand, and all I have done is empty the weapon.

Representative FORD. Did the FBI conduct a paraffin test on Oswald?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the Dallas Police Department did.

Representative FORD. The FBI did not?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did not, sir.

Representative FORD. You didn't analyze it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did not. We obtained the paraffin casts and another agent in the spectographic unit took them to Oak Ridge and had them subjected to neutron activation, with which I am not familiar. But we did not do the original examination and the reporting. I don't know definitely as to what the Dallas Police Department did.

Mr. EISENBERG. It was under the supervision of the Dallas Police Department. I think a doctor performed the test, I am not sure whether it was a police doctor or not.

By the way, after the paraffin test is run, does the positive reaction stay evident on the paraffin cast?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it does not, due to the fact you have to wash it off. The solution of diphenylbenzidine is 70 percent sulphuric acid. The solution we were using in these tests was .25 grams of diphenylbenzidine to 100 ml. of 70 percent sulphuric acid, and sulphuric acid is corrosive. In other words, the majority of the solution is 70 percent sulphuric acid.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the casts as they are now don't show anything except white paraffin?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. You have no further questions?

Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. Thank you very much, sir.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH D. NICOL

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Nicol, I am presiding at the request of the Chief Justice.

Will you kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. NICOL. I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, would you state your name and position?

Mr. NICOL. Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly describe your qualifications in the field of firearms investigation?

Mr. NICOL. I began studying this field in 1941 in the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory under Charles Wilson, remained there as a firearms technician for approximately 9 years, and then moved to Pittsburgh, where I directed and set up the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Crime Laboratory, also working in the field of ballistics.

Then I went to Miami, Fla., and set up the Dade County Crime Laboratory and worked there for 5 years. I went to Michigan State and taught for 4 and now I am back in Illinois, in Springfield, as Superintendent of the Bureau.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us approximately how many bullets and cartridge cases you have examined to identify them or attempt to identify them to suspect weapons?

Mr. NICOL. This would number in the thousands, I do not have an exact figure, but our caseload in Chicago is approximately 4,000 guns annually, of which we would make approximately between 10 and a dozen comparisons, so the comparisons that would be conducted by myself or those under my direct supervision would be approximately 50,000 a year. Now this is just a rough figure.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any publications or lectures?

Mr. NICOL. I have one minor publication in the field of firearms. Most of my publication work has been with the "Journal of Criminology" in the area, of the technical note and abstract section.

I do not have any major publications in the firearms field.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your association with that Journal?

Mr. NICOL. I am associate editor of the "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology."

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you lecture on any regular basis?

Mr. NICOL. At the present time I am lecturing with the University of Illinois in criminal investigation, at the Chicago campus, and prior to that I had been on the staff at Michigan State University for approximately 4 years.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your education before you went into this field?

Mr. NICOL. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Northwestern, and during the period that I was with the Chicago Crime Laboratory I got a Master's in Physics also from Northwestern.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to take Mr. Nicol's testimony as an expert witness in the field of firearms identification.

Mr. DULLES. You may proceed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I will hand you 3 exhibits, 3 items, Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 569, which I will describe for the record as being a bullet and 2 bullet fragments, and I ask you whether you are familiar with those 3 Commission Exhibits?

Mr. NICOL. May I examine them?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, you may.

Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.

Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?

Mr. NICOL. This being 399.

Exhibit 567, this was referred to as Q-2, and also accompanied the other exhibit.

Commission Exhibit 569, this is Q-3.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on those exhibits?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, I have marked my initials on an unrifled portion of each one of these exhibits. There were also other marks on it at the time I received the specimens.

Mr. EISENBERG. I don't know whether you gentlemen have seen these. These are rifle bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that was found on the stretcher?

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit 399 is the bullet that was found on the stretcher. Exhibits 567 and 569 were found in the front portion of the President's car.

Mr. DULLES. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?

Mr. NICOL. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether they come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose portion and the other is a base.

Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that is the nose portion?

Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission Exhibit 569.

Mr. NICOL. No, that would be the base portion.

Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same bullet possibly?

Mr. NICOL. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of approximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area where one begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least I couldn't to express an opinion.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of the same bullet?

Mr. NICOL. Two parts of the same or separate bullets that is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit 572, which for the record consists of two bullets, and ask you whether you are familiar with those bullets?

Mr. NICOL. These are the two projectiles which were given to me as K-1, and were used by me as standards or tests.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say "standards or tests," could you amplify that?

Mr. NICOL. On the basis of information on the cartridge, or on the envelope, rather, it was my understanding that these had been fired from a weapon. I have not any personal knowledge of the weapon from which they were fired, but they were used as comparison standards to be compared against rifling impressions on the other three exhibits.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you obtained these four exhibits which you have just looked at?

Mr. NICOL. All these exhibits were obtained from Mr. Eisenberg on March 24, here in this office.

Mr. EISENBERG. And for the record, I obtained these items from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and transmitted them directly to Mr. Nicol for his examination.

Now, Mr. Nicol, you therefore did not fire the two test bullets which you used in your comparison?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you go into that at any length as to--do you have any reason for that?

Mr. NICOL. Well, probably two very basic reasons. One, the matter of time, and secondly the fact that I did not have facilities in the area where I was working for the collection of such tests from a high-powered weapon.

There is the other problem, as developed later, it was apparent that the weapon, even in the firing of this small sequence, was undergoing some changes, and it was my understanding that several shots had been fired since these tests were fired and there might be some likelihood of transitory changes which would make these the best specimens rather than those I might fire now after this series.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again for the record, I had been informed by the FBI that some 50 or more bullets had been fired from the rifle, and that the firing of this many bullets from a high-velocity weapon would seriously alter the characteristics of the barrel.

Representative FORD. Would that be your conclusion, too?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, it would be. It has been my experience that there is a rapid erosion with the high pressures and high temperatures that are involved in a weapon of that velocity.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399----

Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had sheen fired?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?

Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. NICOL. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take photographs of the test and suspect items?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Under the comparison microscope?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And have you brought those photographs with you?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I have.

I might say in passing that this was done in Philadelphia with equipment that I was not thoroughly conversant with, that is, a type that I have used, but each piece has some idiosyncrasy, and considering the time element I do not offer these as the best quality that could be produced under the circumstances.

Representative FORD. Does that make any difference in your judgment or opinion?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir; it doesn't, because my opinion is based upon a visual examination. That is, photography is not an integral part of arriving at the conclusion, except in one facet which I will discuss later.

Mr. EISENBERG. On that subject, have you testified in court on firearms identification?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; many times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you usually use photographs when you testify?

Mr. NICOL. No. As a matter of fact, I can't recall an instance in which I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. And why were these prepared?

Mr. NICOL. These were prepared at your request so that there would be documentary evidence of what I was observing. However--and this one, for example, will serve to illustrate the type of photography that is involved.

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me a second.

You are holding up a photograph labeled Q-1, K-1. Did you take that photograph, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was taken under a comparison microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. And Q-1 is one of the bullets which I have called the suspect bullets, and K-1 is the test bullet?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, Q-1 would be 399, and K-1 would be one of the projectiles in 572.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 608?

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 608 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Using this photograph, Mr. Nicol, could you explain some of the markings which led you to the conclusion that Q-1 or Exhibit 399 had been fired from the same barrel through which K-1 was fired?

Mr. DULLES. Before you do that, just for an amateur, would you explain what this is a photograph of, the inside of the barrel?

Mr. NICOL. No, this is a photograph of two projectiles.

Mr. DULLES. Projectiles?

Mr. NICOL. This is the dividing line of the comparison bridge actually. You see a portion of one, of K-1 on one side and Q-1 on the other.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that groove on the right a cannelure?

Mr. NICOL. There is a cannelure, that would be the position at which the projectile is crimped and held in the cartridge case.

Representative FORD. Why wouldn't that show on Q-1?

Mr. NICOL. It would be over here on the other side. You see you only see this much of Q-1, and it may show on Q-1, but it will be over underneath, and you only see this much of it--in half the field.

Representative FORD. This is an overlay in effect?

Mr. NICOL. In a sense, yes, and you are actually masking off half of each one that is represented over here, and masking off half of the K-1 over here.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of these photographs, by the way?

Mr. NICOL. These were taken on five by seven, I would estimate about 30 diameter.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is the magnification of Q-1 the same as the magnification of K-1?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; the optics are carefully matched in order that they magnify identically.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will that statement be true of all the comparison photographs that will be shown?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir. They may not be at the same magnification because I took some of the subsequent ones on a different unit which had different optics.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the left and right side of the pictures would be at the same magnification as each other?

Mr. NICOL. They will be at matched magnification, correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you continue.

Mr. NICOL. Starting up at the top you will notice a white patch which represents a land impression on the two projectiles. Immediately below that a large patch with a similarity of the contours of the edges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, do you think you could circle that and mark it "1" so that people looking at the record in the future will know what you are referring to? Circle it or make an arrow?

Mr. NICOL. All right.

Below that in approximately this position you will see a line on Q-1 that is found over in the comparable position on K-1.

Below that at a point representing an imperfection on Q-1, slight damage to the projectile, you will notice a line which continues across.

Below that a pair of lines, and then a larger line, below that a pair of fairly deep impressions, and below that another pair of single broad grooves, and then another pair, one of the lines is not in the same size, and then as one gets further down the match is--the bullets are no longer in a match relationship, simply because Q-1 is somewhat distorted as a result of having struck some hard object at the base portion, so that it is oval.

In the case here we are comparing two surfaces of different radii so that they do not--looking at them as a projection they do not match up.

But in this particular region, from approximately this fill-in in the cannelure, there is a sufficient number of points of identification to lead me to the conclusion they were both fired in the same weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that, that you mention as "2"?

Mr. DULLES. This again, at least the "Q" part of this, is the bullet that was found in the stretcher?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; this specimen here.

Mr. DULLES. That is on the left-hand side, is it?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. "Q," as Mr. Cunningham stated, is the FBI mark for "questioned," whereas "K" is the FBI mark for "known."

Mr. NICOL. I retained the same nomenclature so I would not add any unnecessary marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now do you have another photograph?

Mr. NICOL. Yes. I took three different positions of Q-1 and K-1. This would be now with the same projectiles under the comparison microscope but rotated to a new position. Each one of these positions shows a similar rotation.

Do you want to mark these?

Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph was also taken by you, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 609?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 609, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. This is also marked Q-1 and K-1.

That will be Commission Exhibit 609.

Would you discuss that photograph briefly, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. This represents a new position of Q-1 and K-1 in a match relationship. Both have been rotated simultaneously through the same angle, and looking at the bottom this time, the large broad area represents a land impression.

Then coming up to a point approximately a half inch above the land edge there is a deep groove paired up with several other deep indentations. These are worth noting because these represented very prominent index marks on both Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3. This was used as, you might say, a point of departure in lining up the projectiles. And again this shows what I would consider evidence of similarity between the rifling impressions on both projectiles.

Mr. DULLES. You wouldn't go further than that--"evidence of similarity"?

Mr. NICOL. Well, I would go so far as to say that based upon the individual characteristics that I observed, these, plus those shown on the other photograph, would lead me to the opinion that they were fired in the same gun.

When I refer to similarities, these would be individual characteristics which would be in the same category as the individual points of identification on a fingerprint. This would be tantamount to the fingerprint of that particular weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is the third photograph?

Mr. NICOL. This is a third photograph of another very prominent mark on both projectiles.

Mr. EISENBERG. Taken by you, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as Commission Exhibit 610?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 610 and was received in evidence.)

Representative Ford (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Now both Q-1 and K-1 were fired from the Commission Exhibit 139?

Mr. EISENBERG. 139, yes. The FBI fired K-1 from Exhibit 139.

Mr. Nicol has now identified Q-1 as having been fired from the same source as K-1, and, therefore, from Exhibit 139.

Representative FORD. Yes.

Mr. NICOL. This represents a third position of Q-1 and K-1, and in this third position, of course, the first two positions still are in match relationship, that is to say in a relative sense; because of mutilation of Q-1 they would not be precise, there would be some mild adjustments.

What I am illustrating here is a very prominent groove. In this particular case, Q-1 has displaced slightly in the mechanics of photography so that the lower broad shoulder that you see here of this heavy line does not match up. This should come up just slightly above.

The photographer in printing chose this negative rather than another one which would have been superior, and I apologize for this particular photograph.

But this groove, along with the other pattern shown on 609, also appear prominently on Q-2 and Q-3 as prominent index marks.

Mr. DULLES. I don't quite understand 610. This is the last one we have just admitted.

Are these ridges the same? This wouldn't be very clear for the record--this is 609 that I have here.

Mr. NICOL. No, this is not the same view.

Mr. DULLES. That is not the same view at all. It is a different part of the bullet.

Mr. NICOL. This is rotated, both of them rotated simultaneously the same amount to bring those into position here.

Mr. DULLES. Now on 610, I don't see anything comparable on the Q-1 bullet, a ridge comparable on the Q-1 bullet to the one I find on the K-1 bullet.

Mr. NICOL. The dividing line is right through here.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. NICOL. And it is this big groove gouged through there.

Mr. DULLES. It stops there at that point?

Mr. NICOL. It stops right here. This is the base of the bullet. The lead is protruding, that is what you see down here.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle the mark you are discussing now?

Mr. NICOL. That comprises the three positions of the comparison of Q-1 and K-1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also take photographs of Q-2, which is our Commission number 567?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; this particular position is a comparison of Q-2 and Q-1.

Mr. EISENBERG. You took this photograph, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 611?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 611 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Due to the extent of mutilation of these two projectiles, I found it more advantageous to compare Q-1 and Q-2 rather than comparing Q-2 and K-1.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you took Q-1, which you had already identified as having been fired through--from the same rifle as K-1, and compared it with Q-2 in the photograph?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in determining whether Q-2 had been fired from the same rifle as K-1, that is, in determining whether the suspect bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullet, did you match up Q-2 against the test bullet or against Q-1?

Mr. NICOL. I did both. But photographically, I could get a better illustration between Q-1 and Q-2 rather than K-1, because what was apparent was that the heavy groove here, which would be a projection in the barrel, and, of course, being outstanding, would be subject to rapid wear, had changed somewhat between the Q specimens and the K specimens. And so in order to get closer to the actual time of the original firing, it was advantageous to make a comparison of Q-1 and Q-2.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you arrived at a conclusion independently also on the basis of K-1?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, also on the basis of other striations which are not as easily illustrated photographically, the reason being the mutilation of the projectile. And here we are comparing a curved surface with a flat surface, or a curved surface that is flattened out, and the geometry is no longer the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you did compare Q-2 to K-1 under the microscope?

Mr. NICOL. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you arrive at a positive conclusion?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did. It is my conclusion that the same weapon that fired K-1 fired Q-2.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the photograph that compares Q-1 and Q-2 is only for illustrative purposes?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. For clarification purposes, am I correct that Q-2 is the mutilated fractured bullet that was found in the car?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. And was Q-3 in such a situation that it furnished any useful test or not?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I could use it for comparison.

Mr. DULLES. That was the other part, or separate part found in the President's car?

Mr. NICOL. Q-2 is the nose.

Mr. DULLES. Yes, I remember that. I looked at that.

Mr. NICOL. You see, what I have to work with is this flat back portion there, as against the round part, and of course the geometry is just not the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. You were pointing just now to----

Mr. NICOL. Q-2.

Mr. DULLES. Q-2 is the nose and Q-3 is the base?

Mr. NICOL. Base portion, correct.

Mr. DULLES. Of the fractured bullet.

Mr. NICOL. Or bullets.

Mr. DULLES. Or bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you had just begun to show us photograph 611.

Mr. NICOL. 611 represents, for purposes of illustration--it represents Q-1 on the right and Q-2 on the left, and the major mark that I referred to on the comparison of K-1 and Q-1 is represented by this deep gouge across the field here. There are also other smaller striations that are in the match, above it.

Mr. EISENBERG. You now show me a photograph of Q-l and Q-3?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph?

Mr. NICOL. I did.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 612.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 612 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Again I ask, Mr. Nicol, whether in arriving at your conclusion you made a comparison of Q-3 directly against K-1?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did. And the purpose here, as expressed before, is that the illustration seemed to be better between Q-1 and Q-3, as far as the photographic presentation was concerned.

We have here Q-1 on the right and Q-3 on the left. Just down at the base portion of Q-1, just the small portion visible here, there is a group of very prominent marks that are in a match relationship there. These are the same group referred to in----

Mr. DULLES. That is Q-1 and Q-3 that Mr. Rhyne is looking at?

Mr. RHYNE. Yes.

Mr. NICOL. It would be the same area as referred to in 609.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, does that complete your photographs of the three bullets in Exhibits 399, 567, and 569?

Mr. NICOL. That's right--against Commission Exhibit 572.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I hand you Commission Exhibit 573 and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, which I state for the record is a bullet found inside the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I have seen this.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on that?

Mr. NICOL. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have--one of which we have also been calling K-1?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side--that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible.

Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 672.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, we had testimony from a Mr. Frazier yesterday of the FBI Firearms Section, and he testified that the FBI does not make probable identifications, but merely positive or negative identifications.

Mr. NICOL. I am aware of their position. This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration. However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative, I think is going overboard in the other direction. And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as 573 there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns. This I could not do.

Mr. DULLES (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Would you refresh my memory as to this other exhibit--I don't remember--is 573 the actual bullet that was fired and mutilated in the Walker attempt?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And 572 is what?

Mr. EISENBERG. Those are the test bullets fired by the FBI.

Mr. DULLES. I was a little puzzled by the order.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. That is just the order in which they were introduced in evidence.

Mr. DULLES. And really 573 came before 572 in terms of time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. That clears it up for me.

Mr. NICOL. This is the condition of the bullet.

Mr. DULLES. I have seen the bullet, yes.

Mr. NICOL. It is in sad shape, to say the least.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572 and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same weapon.

Mr. NICOL. Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area, all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you say burr. This is a burr in the barrel of the rifle which produced----

Mr. NICOL. No, I believe it is the result of a displacement of metal as the land impresses into the jacket material, and actually machines up a burr along here on the driving edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. So is there an extrusion on--on the rifle barrel which would produce that?

Mr. NICOL. It may have been true at one time. It appeared at some point in the passage through the barrel, this portion of the jacket curled up and subsequently before it left the barrel was touched by the rifling, so that it is now flat and even. When I refer to it as a burr, it is not raised up. It is even with the rest of this surface. But you can see the definite outline of that burr at the land edge.

(At this point the Chairman entered the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would this be caused by an extrusion in the barrel or a concavity in the barrel?

Mr. NICOL. It is probably the result of erosion back at the chamber, back at the rear of the barrel, along the land edge here, and then as the bullet gets to the end of the barrel, pressures decrease, so erosion also decreases, and therefore there is still rifling enough left to press this down and make some impression on the projectile itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. And does this lie within a land impression, or the edge of a land impression?

Mr. NICOL. It would be actually in the groove impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the groove impression of the bullet?

Mr. NICOL. Of the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you found this same mark on the Walker bullet as you found on the bullets that were----

Mr. NICOL. All the Q specimens and the K specimens had this characteristic burr. Now, I could not honestly say that this would not be found, the burr would not be found on other weapons of similar construction, similar velocity. However, the fine lines that you can see visible in this photograph, by which an identification could be made, would be the same individual characteristics as any other fine lines on the rifling impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, was this burr in the same position in its relation to the edge of the groove on what we have been calling the Walker bullet as it was in the other bullets?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir. And, as a matter of fact, repeated in about the same extent in those land positions and groove positions which are still visible on that projectile.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you not only have the existence of the burr, but you have it at a characteristic distance from the edge of a groove impression?

Mr. NICOL. Correct. And while the contour matched, this is not as significant, because any two guns manufactured with the same rifling cutter, as perhaps a production weapon like this would be, would have the same contour characteristics. So this would not necessarily be definitive. But the presence of those individual characteristics which are referred to, although not sufficient for a positive, certainly would indicate that there is a possibility that this is fired from that particular gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to secure photographs of this Walker bullet under the microscope?

Mr. NICOL. No; I could not, because what I would be comparing would be a curved surface that is flattened out with the test bullets, which would be still in curved geometry. So that while I might get one point in match, the others, you see, would be spread out. So that--actually, an identification of that kind is made in a dynamic fashion. That is to say, one bullet is slid and the other bullet is rotated. So that it is in a sense unfolding the curved bullet so that it resembles in a progressive way the flattened out projectile.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, I now hand you Commission Exhibit--well, before I go into that, is there any further testimony you wish to give on the subject of the rifle bullets?

Mr. NICOL. No. The only other work I did on it was with respect to an examination of the nose of Q-1 to ascertain whether there was any evidence of ricochet or perhaps contact with fabric and so on.

However, although there were some fine striations on there, there was nothing of such a nature that it would suggest a pattern, like a weave pattern or anything of that nature. So that except for the nick, which I understand has been explained as a site where spectrographic tests were conduced, no further tests were run on either of those projectiles.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

For the record, the nick which Mr. Nicol refers to was in the nose of what was given to you as Q-1--and which I have been informed was a bit of metal that was taken out by the FBI to make a spectrographic test on the chemical composition of the bullet, and therefore was not produced in the process of firing the bullet.

Now, Mr. Nicol, I hand you Commission Exhibits 545, 543, and 544, which for the record consist of three shells, three rifle cartridge cases, which were found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building at the easternmost corner of the south face. I ask you whether you are familiar with those shells?

Mr. DULLES. They bear your mark?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; there is a little JDN inscribed very lightly under the Q position.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are familiar with these shells?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir. And these were given to me by you on the same day I received the projectiles.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit 557, which also consists of--which consists of two expended shells, and I ask you whether you are familiar with them.

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir. These are the specimens, the two shells which I used as standards or tests to compare against the other three fired cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you obtained those from what source?

Mr. NICOL. I obtained these from Mr. Eisenberg on the 24th of March here in this office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again for the record, I obtained these shells from the FBI and turned them over directly to Mr. Nicol, and they have been identified earlier as having been fired by the FBI from Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building.

Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the shells in Exhibits 543, 544, and 545 to determine whether they had been fired from the same rifle as fired the shells in Exhibit 557?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. NICOL. Based upon the similarity of the firing-pin impressions and the breech-block markings, as well as ejector and extractor marks, it is my opinion that all three of the exhibits, 545, 543, and 544, were fired in the same weapon as fired Exhibit 557.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you take photographs of the various shells under the microscope?

Mr. NICOL. I took photographs of the specimen which I referred to, or was referred to, as Q-48, which would be this.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. That is Commission Exhibit 545.

Mr. NICOL. These were also taken under the comparison microscope in the same fashion as the other specimens.

Mr. EISENBERG. And these were taken by you?

Mr. NICOL. These were taken by me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to introduce this as Exhibit 613.

Mr. DULLES. It may be received.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 613 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have extra copies of this photograph?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. By use of this photograph, could you explain some of the markings on Q-48, which is illustrated on the left-hand side and which is Commission Exhibit 545, and K-1, which is on the right-hand side, which is the test cartridge, which led you to the conclusion that both shells were fired from the same rifle?

Mr. DULLES. 545 is one of the shells found on the sixth floor?

Mr. EISENBERG. That's correct.

Mr. NICOL. This was the lone one that was found, I understand.

Mr. EISENBERG. L-o-n-e?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, for the record, what Mr. Nicol is referring to is that for some reason the shells were grouped into a group of two and a group of one shells by the Dallas police, apparently on the basis that two shells were very close together, and the third shell was a little further away. But they were actually all within a quite small area. And this is just an arbitrary grouping.

Mr. NICOL. Now, although this compares--is a comparison of Q-48 and K-1, Commission Exhibits 545 and 572--I'm sorry, 557--the same would apply to comparable regions on Exhibits 543 and 544.

I have placed arrows just for fiduciary marks so we can be looking at the same area.

Taking the top arrow, the area running across there is rather broad, an eroded or corroded band, a valley. Below it is a fairly distinct mark. The two small marks appear below it. And then on the projectile, at the middle arrow, there is a broad flat plane. This plane has an irregular contour, and what I have attempted to do is match a projection at the lower portion of this--you also see that the contour at the top is equivalent, insofar as the spatial area.

Below, there are at the lower arrow some additional marks. These begin to come to the edge of the primer. What we are looking at here is actually the primer of the cartridge case, and the marks are the breech-block markings as the result of the pressure of the set-back of the shell.

I have a sequence of these where the division moves across. Do you want to introduce all of them?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I think we should mark them in evidence.

Mr. NICOL. All right.

This would be the dividing line of the comparison bridge moved over a small portion. You see the entire flat area here, but the match has now shifted over slightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am holding two photographs, both marked Q-48 and K-1. You took both photographs?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if, for clarification, we could take one of those shells and see from what angle the photograph is taken and what is covered in the photograph. I am a little confused. It doesn't make any difference which one.

Mr. NICOL. All right, sir.

The area shown between this dark ring would represent the area between these two grooves right here. Actually, it is the entire primer. This is the firing-pin impression you are looking at right here.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted, these last photographs, as 614 and 615?

Mr. DULLES. 614 and 615, exhibits as described, will be admitted.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 614 and 615 and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Now, this again illustrates Q-48 and K-1 with the position now such that the division of the field is moved over approximately a sixteenth of an inch from the position we looked at previously. And again at the points indicated by the arrow, there are individual characteristics running across the dividing line of the comparison in both the top and bottom region.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, from the position of the firing-pin hole on Q-48, on this last exhibit, it appears that it is not perfectly aligned with the position of the firing-pin hole on K-1, Mr. Nicol. I am looking at the mark on the right-hand side of Q-48.

Mr. NICOL. Yes. And the purpose for the mis-alignment was in order to show these smaller marks that appear right at the edge of the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that at the top the markings on Q48 and K-1 will not run into each other, as well as on the bottom?

Mr. NICOL. If they are divergent, of course, they will not. If they are parallel, it makes no difference where the position is.

Now, this is another setting, going to the opposite side of the firing-pin impression, just translating the two cartridge cases the same distance, so that we are now looking at a division at the other side, and a comparison of the breech-block markings on the other side of the two shells.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again marked Q-48 and K-1. You took this photograph?

Mr. NICOL. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to mark this 615?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 615 and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Looking at the position of the upper arrow, there is a pair of diagonal marks, a small mark immediately below it going down to the lower part of the breech-block markings. There are a series of parallel lines at approximately a 45-degree angle to the division of the bridge. These were duplicated on both--all of the cartridge cases submitted.

Mr. DULLES. I am not entirely clear in my mind what this demonstrates.

Mr. NICOL. This is the basis upon which I arrived at the conclusion that the two cartridge cases, K-1 and Q-48, were fired in the same weapon. Actually, we could take a good match, such as shown here, or even this one, and this would be sufficient. All I have done here is repeat this by moving the two bullets, or the two cartridge cases together the same translated distance, and then taking a series of photographs at each particular position. So they represent actually the same thing in each one.

Mr. DULLES. As the hammer comes down on the cartridge, it makes a distinctive mark, is that the idea?

Mr. NICOL. No. I have not compared the firing-pin impression. What this is is the setback of the shell against the breech face, against the rear of the chamber.

Mr. DULLES. The breech face makes an impression on the shell, and that is a distinctive impression?

Mr. NICOL. Very definitely, just as individual as a fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. These are two further photographs that you took, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they both illustrate the same cartridge case, the same two cartridge cases, the one questioned and the one known?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have moved the hairline somewhat over to the right?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these as 616 and 617?

Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted.

(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 616 and 617 and were received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the interest of time, since these two photographs are merely continuations of the first series, we go on to the next.

Mr. Nicol, you have further photographs now. These are marked Q-48 and K-1, and these are separate photographs?

Mr. NICOL. Same photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is submitted as 618, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 618 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was this photograph taken to show the same point as the previous photographs?

Mr. NICOL. Not exactly. This shows the rim of the two cartridge cases. K-1 is just barely visible. Q-48 represents the other half of the picture. And what we are looking at here in the match relationship, at the point of the arrow, is a patch which represents the extractor riding around the rim of the shell at the time that the cartridge was introduced into the chamber. I might qualify that by saying this: in order to be certain of the exact factor which produced this, I would have had to examine the weapon and conducted some tests to ascertain whether this was the extractor or the bolt pushing the cartridge into the chamber when the mechanism was operated.

In any case, the same tool, whether it be the extractor or the bolt, produced this pattern of lines on both the known and the unknown cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you find that mark repeated on the cartridge case in other places?

Mr. NICOL. This was repeated on Q-6 and 7. However, what you may be referring to is another series which was only found on Q-6.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you get to that photograph you just mentioned, Q-6?

Mr. NICOL. I photographed the Q-6 in three different positions, which I designated as 1, 2, and 3.

Mr. DULLES. Have we identified Q-6 before on the record?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Q-6, I think it is stated on the record, is the equivalent of our Commission Exhibit 543.

Mr. DULLES. What is 543?

Mr. EISENBERG. 543 is a shell found in the TSBD building.

Mr. NICOL. This is a photograph I took of the head--a portion of the head of Q-6, or Commission Exhibit 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 619, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 619.

(The photograph described was marked Commission Exhibit No. 619 and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. It might be well to introduce these, too. These are the same as the ones which are mounted, except that I have cut them for the purpose of matching them.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to introduce these two photographs--also taken by you, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which are similar, or taken from this photograph. That will be 620 and 621, Mr. Reporter.

Mr. DULLES. Exhibits 620 and 621 as described will be admitted.

(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 620 and 621 and were received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Perhaps in order to illustrate this we ought to get all the three in, or at least another set, so I can show the match relationship photographically--so that this represents another position of Q-6, or 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this is a photograph which has not been admitted yet?

Mr. NICOL. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 622, please?

Mr. DULLES. 622 and 623.

(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 622 and 623, and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. Would you just briefly describe these?

Mr. NICOL. This represents another position of the cartridge case, the head of the case--you are looking at the rim, and this is the portion of the head stamp representing millimeter. This was a 6.5 millimeter. You see just a portion of the "5." And what I will be talking about is the marks down against the rim in all of these exhibits.

Now, this is the same cartridge as represented by these other two photographs, with a slight rotation.

Now, we have only one which we might have to pass around. But if the photograph 621 is placed in a position corresponding to the arrows, a match of the fine striations, the pairs of broad lines as well as the fine lines, can be seen.

The reason that this could not be taken under the comparison microscope is that because of course we cannot divide the cartridge case, so that this had to be done photographically rather than being done on a comparison basis.

Now, this illustrates the fact that the same operation occurred twice on this particular cartridge case.

Do you want to introduce the third at this time?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

This is a photograph taken by you?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the same cartridge case?

Mr. NICOL. Same cartridge case in a different position, rotated in a different position.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 624, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

(The photograph described was marked Commission Exhibit No. 624 and was received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence.

Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review this testimony, Mr. Nicol, this is a mark which occurs on the base of the cartridge case, is that correct?

Mr. NICOL. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And are you able to say definitely whether it is an extractor or an ejection mark or a chambering mark?

Mr. NICOL. It appears to me to be an extractor mark, although I was not able to identify this as similar to any extractor mark or any other marks on either Q-7 or 544 or any of the tests, 557.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did extractor marks appear on those other cartridge cases?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when you say you were not able to identify them, do you mean that they were not identical to or----

Mr. NICOL. They were absent.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were absent?

Mr. NICOL. Absent in all the other cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that extractor marks did not appear in the other cases?

Mr. NICOL. Extractor marks appeared, but these marks did not appear.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, two sets of extractor marks have been put on----

Mr. NICOL. This would be possible--perhaps the violence with which the weapon was activated in this particular incident--or it might be the result of something not associated with the internal mechanism of the weapon, but might be the result of the charger or the cartridge carrier that is introduced into--the way the cartridges are introduced into the magazine.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what led you to the conclusion that this was an extractor mark?

Mr. NICOL. Only that it appears at the location of the cartridge case where an extractor mark would normally be found. That is to say, this would be the mark where the extractor strikes the edge of the case, and then springs around as the cartridge is driven into the chamber.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you could not definitely say whether it is an extractor mark produced by the rifle through which the test bullets you were given were fired?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I could not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I am not quite clear as to why another set of marks should have appeared on the other cases, which you also think are extractor marks.

Mr. NICOL. I cannot say that this could not have been produced by another gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. That might have been produced by another gun?

Mr. NICOL. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. But it was produced by the same source, whether it was this gun or another gun, three different times?

Mr. NICOL. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?

Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case--on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?

Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark--although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark.

Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three--associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?

Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?

Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on that particular subject, I will proceed to the Tippit bullets and cartridge cases.

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you, Mr. Nicol, a group of four cartridge cases marked Commission Exhibit 594, which, for the record, are cartridge cases found in the area of the Tippit crime scene, and ask you whether you are familiar with those cartridge cases?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; these are cartridge cases which were given to me on March 26th by Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. EISENBERG. They have your mark on them?

Mr. NICOL. No; I made notes of the FBI designations, and these are the same--they have the JH and the CK and RF and the Q designations that were placed on there by the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. Those initials are initials apparently of examining agents?

Mr. NICOL. I presume so.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit 595 and ask you whether you are familiar with the cartridge cases contained in that exhibit?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; these are two fired cartridge cases designated K-3 by the FBI and marked with their identification marks--CK, JH, and RF.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, these cartridge cases were earlier identified as having been fired by the FBI in Commission Exhibit No. 143, the revolver believed to have been used to kill Officer Tippit.

Also for the record, I obtained these cartridge cases, both Exhibit 595, which are test cases, and Exhibit 594, which are cases from the murder scene, from the FBI, and transmitted them directly to Mr. Nicol for his examination.

Mr. Nicol, did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 to determine whether they had been fired from the weapon in which the cartridge cases in Exhibit 595 had been fired?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give us your conclusions?

Mr. NICOL. It is my opinion, based upon the similarity of class and individual characteristics, that the four cartridge cases in 594 were fired in the same weapon as produced the cartridge cases in 595.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you take photographs of the comparisons?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. However, you are certain in your own mind of the identification?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; the marks on the firing pin particularly were very definitive. Apparently this firing pin had been subjected to some rather severe abuse, and there were numerous small and large striations which could be matched up very easily.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by severe abuse?

Mr. NICOL. It appeared as though it had either been touched up with a file, or in the initial manufacture the finishing operation was rather crude. It was not what I would consider a well-finished firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, just to review your earlier testimony, as I recall you stated that you do not use photographs to make your identification, and usually do not testify with photographs?

Mr. NICOL. That's correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. But that the other photographs were made as an accommodation to us, at my request, so that the Commission could see them?

Mr. NICOL. The material I am just talking about could well have been illustrated. However, I ran out of time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.

I ask you whether you are familiar with this group of exhibits.

Mr. NICOL. These two are fired lead projectiles that were designated by the FBI as K-3, companions to the tests in 595.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say companions, you mean they were given to you----

Mr. NICOL. They were given to me simultaneously in an envelope, at that time wrapped in cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the other Exhibits?

Mr. NICOL. This was the projectile designated by the FBI, I believe, as Q-13.

This is a .38 Special projectile designated Q-502. That would correspond to Commission Exhibit 603.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the item you just identified?

Mr. NICOL. Q-13 would correspond with 602.

This is Q-501, corresponding to Exhibit 604.

This is Q-500, corresponding to Exhibit 605.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you familiar with all of those?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I have seen and examined all of these.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics--that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive.

However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. NICOL. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of this identified missile?

Mr. NICOL. I took a photograph of one position, and that is shown here as a comparison of K-3 and what I designated as Q-502.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted? That would be 625.

(The item described was marked Commission Exhibit No. 625 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. These arrows, Mr. Nicol, can you explain why they are different?

Mr. NICOL. This was one I made up originally and then decided that the illustration would be ample with one arrow in that one position.

Mr. DULLES. The one that is being admitted is the one-arrow photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. The arrows are placed on mechanically after the photograph is developed?

Mr. NICOL. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And therefore it can vary?

Mr. NICOL. Yes. This is not a part of the photographic process.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification here, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. It would be pretty close to 25 to 30 diameters. I cannot measure exactly the magnification.

Mr. NICOL. This illustrates some of the lines, not all of them, that I saw on a comparison of 502 and K-3. At the position of the arrow, you are looking at the top of the groove; adjacent to it in the lower portion is a land impression. And on that shoulder there are approximately five or six matching lines. They are very fine striations. These would be indicative of the fact that the same portion of the barrel had ridden on both projectiles.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, now, there seems to be significantly less markings here than on the bullets which were seen earlier, which had come from the rifle. Does that same condition pertain when the bullet is viewed under the microscope?

Mr. NICOL. Yes. Of course, we are dealing with two different types of ammunition. One is a lead projectile, and the other is a metal-case projectile. And the ability of the metal-case projectile to pick up and retain fine striations, even in spite of distortion and mutilation, far exceeds what the lead projectile will do.

Furthermore, the lead being a soft and low-melting-point material is more subject to erosion of hot gases. So that there are many more variables in the reproduction in terms of a lead projectile as over against a metal-case projectile.

Mr. EISENBERG. You found enough similarities to satisfy yourself that there is an identification here?

Mr. NICOL. I am satisfied that the two projectiles came from the same weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, we have received testimony that the weapon which is marked Commission Exhibit 143 was rechambered but not rebarreled, so that a .38 Special bullet fired through the barrel would be slightly undersized.

Mr. NICOL. Of course I have not had a chance to examine the weapon. But on the information that you gave me, this was originally manufactured for English ammunition, and has been rechambered for American domestic ammunition, is that correct?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. NICOL. The undersized bullet going through an oversized barrel of course presents some serious identification problems, because it does not go through with the same conformity as a projectile going through the proper-sized barrel, so that it is apt to, you might say, skip and bear more on one surface than on another in subsequent firings, so that the identification is made more complex and it is expected that more dissimilarities occur under those circumstances.

However, at the points where it did reproduce at the land edges, as shown in this photograph, I found sufficient lines of identification to lead me to the conclusion that they had both been fired in the same weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it consistent with the markings you found on this bullet that it had been fired in a slightly oversized barrel?

Mr. NICOL. Slight. However, due to the malleability of lead, it does accommodate itself more than a metal-case projectile, and therefore the evidence of being fired in an oversized barrel is not as pronounced as it would be if it were fired, let's say, a .32-20 fired in a .38 Special, which would be possible, and would give very distinct evidence of the difference in the size of the bullet and the barrel. However, in neither case is an identification completely precluded. What is necessary is that tests are available which have borne on the same surface. If this is true, and if the marks have not been mutilated, then an identification is still possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say the bullet will accommodate itself, you mean it will expand to fill out all or part of the lands and grooves?

Mr. NICOL. Yes. Actually, with the pressure on the base and the inertia of the bullet, it is in a sense shorter and expanded in diameter to accommodate for the larger-sized barrel.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I was not clear whether you drew any conclusion on the other three bullets--that is, did you definitely--find yourself definitely unable to identify those bullets, or did you reach a "probable" conclusion?

Mr. NICOL. I would say there was nothing, no major marks to preclude it. However, I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. So that I would place it in the category of bullets which could have come from this particular weapon, but not to the exclusion of all others.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this short of the "probable" category in which you placed the Walker bullets, or is it in the same category?

Mr. NICOL. This is in a gray area between black and white, and it is somewhat nebulous to pin it down to a precise percentage dimension.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, were you able to identify the type of bullet which is involved in each of these four exhibits--that is, the manufacturer of 603, 602, 604, and 605?

Mr. NICOL. No; I did not attempt this, because I did not have an adequate reference collection against which to make the comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. I do not have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions.

Mr. RHYNE. No questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, do you have anything you would like to add before we conclude?

Mr. NICOL. No; I think I have covered everything.

Mr. DULLES. We want to thank you very much.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is one further question I have.

When you made your examination, were you aware of the conclusions which any other examining agent or body had come to?

Mr. NICOL. No. I of course was aware of the fact that tests were conducted. However, I was not aware either through the press or any other media as to the conclusions. This represents my own personal conclusions without benefit of any other knowledge.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you know at this point what any other body has come to in the way of conclusions?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you would be willing to give us your views as to the effectiveness of paraffin tests?

Mr. NICOL. I have used the paraffin test both in case work and in experiments, as an investigative aid. However, I have a very low level of confidence in it--either as a positive or negative, as far as that's concerned.

Experimentally, as the literature well demonstrates, it is possible to fire a gun and get nothing on the hands. It is also possible to take people at random off the street and test them with the reagent which is not specific for powder and find all kinds of reactions. And while there are some "experts" who--and I say that with quotes--who allege that they can differentiate one product from another, actually the end product of the oxidation of diphenylamine is a definite quinoid structure, which has only one blue color, and I am not sure how they make this differentiation. I cannot do it.

I have used it as an investigative aid with positive results if and when I find in the cast a particle of powder that I can definitely identify as powder--not just simply the reaction, but something I can take out, put it under the microscope and I can say this is a particle of powder. Then I will say that this hand has been in the presence of the discharge of a weapon.

Mr. DULLES. You do not need a paraffin test for that, do you?

Mr. NICOL. I don't think so. I think if you actually examine the subject's hands, you probably can find that. Although as a rule in the laboratory we do not see the subject, and so this is the medium by which we get a look at the surface of the hand.

Sometime ago in Los Angeles a series of experiments was conducted whereby--and this was on shooting victims, including only those where they could be certain by other investigative means as to the exact status of the case. One of the technicians placed the paraffin on the hand. This was presented to the other technician who had no knowledge of the case whatsoever. And that I guess must have included both the controls of non-shooting victims as well as shooting victims. And the net result was if this fellow almost flipped a coin he could be in the ball park as far as whether or not this person had actually fired a weapon.

It just is not particularly accurate.

I might go further to say that there have been several cases in which I would say a fair amount of injustice was done to the defendant or the suspect in the case simply because people have gone overboard on the application of the paraffin test.

It is one of these areas in which everyone would like a nice test. It would certainly be beneficial. But it is not one in which a competent technician places much confidence.

Mr. DULLES. I understand that pipe smokers are quite likely to get caught on these, on these tests.

Mr. NICOL. Or someone who strikes a kitchen match, or in the spring, a man fertilizing his lawn. A man working in the meatpacking industry, where they preserve meats with nitrates, might also have difficulties. Certain of the common things, such as urine, I think can be discounted, because the diffused pattern can be easily determined. But as far as pinpoints of striking a match, I could not differentiate one from the other.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much.

Mr. NICOL. I realize this doesn't help.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nicol, thank you very much, sir, for helping us. You have been very helpful.

Mr. NICOL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DULLES. We will recess at this time until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be due to mispronunciations were not changed.

Some simple typographical errors were corrected.

Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.

Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.

Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.

Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of conversation?") retained.

Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.

Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed.

Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and corrected, but some almost certainly remain.

The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be available at Project Gutenberg.

Page 4: "Where is their main office?" was misprinted as "there"; corrected here.

Page 4: "No. I also visited my brother, in Yellow Springs, Ohio." was misprinted as "visited by"; corrected here.

Page 14: the name "James P. Hasty" should be "James P. Hosty"; not changed here.

Page 15: Misspelling in "It was unfortun that" not changed.

Page 15: Misspellings in "the stuip Cuban consule was at fault" not changed.

Page 16: Misspelling in "was a rather lengthly one?" not changed.

Page 25: "otherway" not changed.

Page 27: "Did she evidence any" was misprinted as "he"; corrected here.

Page 54: Possible missing word in "of the Randle home looking West Fifth Street?"

Page 95: "(Commission Exhibits Nos. 451 and 453 through 456 were received in evidence.)" "456" was misprinted as "465" but printed correctly two lines earlier; corrected here.

Page 136: "and improved my ability to converse" misprinted as "by ability"; corrected here.

Page 157: "Mr. Berlin. Well, sir, it is on one of your interviews here." was misprinted as "Mr. Brennan."; corrected here.

Page 166: "were certain books--if you" probably should be "where"; not changed.

Page 186: "In other words, there is a little difference in your memory there on this." was printed as part of a statement by Mr. Brennan, but may have been said by someone else.

Page 208: "Mr. Jarman. After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute." was printed as "Mr. Ball"; corrected here.

Page 361: The measurement in "This was a 5- by 71-cm defect" probably was misprinted; not changed here.

Page 373: "whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound," should end with a question mark instead of a comma.

Page 409: "so what when the shot was fired" probably should be "so that when".

Page 414: "Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?" probably should be "tend".

Page 428: "This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545." probably should be "This is the".

Page 477: "And then it was returned November 17, 1963." Incorrect date, should be no earlier than November 23, 1963.

Page 481: "So in you opinion" should be "your".

Page 481: "Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; well--these would be very difficult--in other" is an incomplete sentence.

Page 481: "A small sample was taken off the noise" probably should be "nose".

Page 487: "the cast of both hand" was printed that way.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us