Warren Commission (04 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15) (part 2 of 5)

Preface

The testimony of the following witnesses is contained in volume IV: Sebastian F. Latona, a fingerprint expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department; Paul Morgan Stombaugh, a hair and fiber expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; James C. Cadigan, a questioned document examiner with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drs. Robert Roeder Shaw and Charles Francis Gregory, who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital; Governor and Mrs. John Bowden Connally, Jr.; Jesse Edward Curry, chief, Dallas Police Department; Capt. J. W. Fritz and Lts. T. L. Baker and J. C. Day of the Dallas Police Department, who participated in the investigation of the assassination; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a photography expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Robert Inman Bouck, special agent in charge of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service; Robert Carswell, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; Winston G. Lawson, a Secret Service agent who worked on advance preparations for the President's trip to Dallas; Alwyn Cole, a questioned document examiner with the Treasury Department; and John W. Fain, John Lester Quigley, and James Patrick Hosty, Jr., agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who interviewed Oswald, or people connected with him, at various times during the period between Oswald's return from Russia in 1962 and the assassination.

Page Preface v

Testimony of-- Sebastian F. Latona 1 Arthur Mandella, accompanied by Joseph A. Mooney 48 Paul Morgan Stombaugh 56 James C. Cadigan 89 Robert Roeder Shaw 101 Charles Francis Gregory 117 Gov. John Bowden Connally, Jr 129 Mrs. John Bowden Connally, Jr 146 Jesse Edward Curry 150 J. W. Fritz 202, 248 T. L. Baker 248 J. C. Day 249 Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt 279 Robert Inman Bouck 294, 300 Robert Carswell 299 Winston G. Lawson, accompanied by Fred B. Smith 317 Alwyn Cole 358 John W. Fain 403 John Lester Quigley 431 James Patrick Hosty, Jr 440

COMMISSION EXHIBITS INTRODUCED

Exhibit No.: Page 142 15 364 93 626 3 627 6 628 6 629 6 630 7 631 7 632 7 633 8 633-A 8 634 10 634-A 12 635 16 636 17 637 23 638 25 639 25 640 25 641 31 642 32 643 33 644 34 645 34 646 36 647 37 648 37 649 38 650 40 651 40 652 41 653 42 654 42 655 45 656 45 657 46 657-A 46 657-B 46 657-C 46 658 46 659 46 659-A 46 659-B 46 660 46 661 46 662 55 663 57 664 60 665 61 666 62 667 62 668 63 669 63 670 64 671 68 672 64 673 74 674 85 675 86 676 86 677 90 678 95 679 115 680 115 681 108 682 108 683 115 684 115 685 115 686 115 687 115 688 115 689 115 690 119 691 119 692 123 693 123 694 125 695 125 696 125 697 131 698 131 699 142 700 142 701 159 702 202 703 202 704 173 705 184 706 202 707 202 708 202 709 194 710 194 711 194 712 241 713 241 714 241 715 273 716 273 717 273 718 273 719 273 720 273 721 273 722 273 723 273 724 273 725 273 726 273 727 273 728 273 729 273 730 273 731 273 732 273 733 273 734 273 735 273 736 273 737 277 738 277 739 277 740 277 741 277 742 277 743 277 744 277 745 277 746 280 747 281 748 281 749 283 750 284 751 285 752 285 753 286 754 290 755 294 760 317 761 317 762 300 763 317 764 317 765 317 766 317 767 320 768 320 769 320 770 323 771 349 772 349 773 360 774 360 775 360 776 360 777 360 778 360 779 360 780 361 781 361 782-A 361 782-B 361 782-C 361 783 361 784-A 365 784-B 365 784-C 365 785 365 786 367 787 368 788 373 789 374 790 375 791 377 792 377 793 379 794 379 795 380 796 381 797 381 798 382 799 384 800 384 801 384 802 385 803 386 804 386 805 387 806 389 807 389 808 389 809 390 810 390 811 391 812 391 813 394 814 395 815 395 816 396 817 397 818 398 819 398 820 399 820-A 401 821 409 822 413 823 419 824 429 826 439 827 439 828 440 829 445 830 458 831 469 832 469

Hearings Before the President's Commission

on the

Assassination of President Kennedy

Thursday, April 2, 1964

TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA AND ARTHUR MANDELLA

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 2, 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; and Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.

TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Latona, the purpose of today's hearing is to take your testimony and that of Arthur Mandella. Mr. Mandella is a fingerprint expert from the New York City Police Department. We are asking both of you to give technical information to the Commission.

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?

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

Mr. LATONA. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. Mr. Eisenberg will conduct the examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you state your full name and give us your position?

Mr. LATONA. My full name is Sebastian Francis Latona. I am the supervisor of the latent fingerprint section of the identification division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. I attended Columbia University School of Law, where I received degrees of LL.B., LL.M., M.P.L.

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you briefly outline your qualifications as a fingerprint expert?

Mr. LATONA. Well, I have been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a little more than 32 years. I started in the identification division as a student fingerprint classifier, and since that time I have worked myself up into where I am now supervisor of the latent fingerprint section.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of fingerprint examinations you have made?

Mr. LATONA. Frankly, no. There have been so many in that time that I would not be able to give even a good guess.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the figure run in the thousands or hundreds?

Mr. LATONA. So far as comparisons are concerned, in the millions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?

Mr. LATONA. I have testified in Federal courts, State courts, commissioners' hearings, military courts, and at deportation proceedings.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this witness be accepted as an expert.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you briefly outline for us the theory of fingerprint identification?

Mr. LATONA. The principle of fingerprint identification is based on the fact primarily that the ridge formations that appear on the hands and on the soles of the feet actually are created approximately 2 to 3 months before birth, on the unborn child, and they remain constant in the same position in which they are formed until the person is dead and the body is consumed by decomposition.

Secondly, the fact that no two people, or no two fingers of the same person, have the same arrangement of these ridge formations, either on the fingers, the palms, or the soles and toes of the feet. Plus the fact that during the lifetime of a person this ridge formation does not change, it remains constant--from the time it is formed until actual destruction, either caused by voluntary or involuntary means, or upon the death of the body and decomposition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do you have any personal experience indicating the uniqueness of fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I do. My experience is based primarily upon the work which I have actually done in connection with my work with the FBI. I have had the experience of working on one case in particular in which millions of comparisons were actually and literally made with a small portion of a fingerprint which was left on a piece of evidence in connection with this particular case, which was a kidnapping case.

This fragmentary latent print which we developed consisted of approximately seven to eight points. Most fingerprints will have in them an average roughly of from 85 to about 125.

This fragmentary latent print was compared with literally millions of single impressions for the purpose of trying to effect an identification. And we were unable, over a lengthy period while we were making these millions of comparisons, not able to identify these few fragmentary points.

The important thing is simply this; that on the basis of that fragmentary print, it was not possible to determine even the type of pattern that the impression was. Accordingly, we had to compare it with all types of fingerprint patterns, of which there are really four basic types--the arch, tented arch, loop, and whorl. And we are still making comparisons in that case, and we have not been able to identify these few points.

Now, that means simply this--that the theory that we are going on an assumption that people do not have the same fingerprints--and we find it not necessary to compare, say for example, a loop pattern with a whorl pattern, and as there is a possibility that, it is contended by some of these so-called authorities, that maybe the points that you find in a loop may be found in the same arrangement in a whorl--is not true. I think that that case, a practical case we have actually worked on, disproves that theory so strongly in my mind that I am convinced that no two people can possibly have the same fingerprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, you had a print with seven points, and these same seven points appeared in none of the millions----

Mr. LATONA. Of the millions that we actually compared over a period--well, since 1937. You may recall the case. It was the Matson kidnapping case out in Tacoma, Wash. That is one of only three major kidnapping cases the FBI has not yet solved.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are palmprints as unique as fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; palmprints are. They are not as useful for purposes of setting up a file in order to conduct searches, for the simple reason that there are not as many variations of patterns occurring with any frequency in the palms as occur on the tips of the fingers. That is primarily why the fingertips are used--because you have 10 digits, and there is a possibility of finding variations of the four basic pattern types which can be additionally subdivided by utilizing certain focal points which occur in those particular patterns, which enable us to actually subdivide our files into millions of groups. Accordingly, when you make a search in the fingerprint file, it can be reduced actually to a matter of minutes, whereas to attempt to set up a palmprint file to the extent of the size of the fingerprint file we have in the FBI would be a practical impossibility, much less a waste of time.

The CHAIRMAN. Approximately how many fingerprints do you have these days?

Mr. LATONA. At the present time, we have the fingerprints of more than 77 million people, and they are subdivided in this fashion: we have two main files; we have the criminal files and we have what are referred to as civil files.

As the names imply, in the criminal files are the fingerprints of criminals, people who have had a prior criminal record or whose fingerprints have been received in connection with an investigation or interrogation for the commission of a crime. In that file we have approximately 15 million sets of fingerprint cards, representing approximately 15 million people.

In our civil files, in which are filed the fingerprints of the various types of applicants, service personnel and the like, we have fingerprints of approximately 62-1/2 million people.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to palmprints, then, as I understand your testimony, they are not as good as fingerprints for purposes of classification, but they are equally good for purposes of identification?

Mr. LATONA. For purposes of identification, I feel that the identifications effected are just as absolute as are those of fingerprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are experts unanimous in this opinion, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. As far as I know, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand to you an object which I will describe for the record as being apparently a brown, homemade-type of paper bag, and which I will also describe for the record as having been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building near the window, the easternmost window, on the south face of that floor.

I ask you whether you are familiar with this paper bag?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, I am. This is a piece of brown wrapping paper that we have referred to as a brown paper bag, which was referred to me for purposes of processing for latent prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you examined that for latent prints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 626?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 626 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?

Mr. LATONA. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you conduct your examination?

Mr. LATONA. I conducted my examination on that same day.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you had received it, could you tell whether any previous examination had been conducted on it?

Mr. LATONA. When I received this exhibit, 626, the brown wrapper, it had been treated with black dusting powder, black fingerprint powder. There was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there at that particular time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you informed whether any fingerprints had been developed by means of the fingerprint powder?

Mr. LATONA. No; I determined that by simply examining the wrapper at that particular time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly describe the powder process?

Mr. LATONA. The powdering process is merely the utilizing of a fingerprint powder which is applied to any particular surface for purposes of developing any latent prints which may be on such a surface.

Now, we use powder in the FBI only on objects which have a hard, smooth, nonabsorbent finish, such as glass, tile, various types of highly polished metals, and the like.

In the FBI we do not use powder on paper, cardboard, unfinished wood, or various types of cloth. The reason is that the materials are absorbent. Accordingly, when any finger which has on it perspiration or sweat comes in contact with an absorbent material, the print starts to become absorbed into the surface. Accordingly, when an effort is made to develop latent prints by the use of a powder, if the surface is dry, the powder will not adhere.

On the other hand, where the surface is a hard and smooth object, with a nonabsorbent material, the perspiration or sweat which may have some oil in it at that time may remain there as moisture. Accordingly, when the dry powder is brushed across it, the moisture in the print will retain the powder giving an outline of the impression itself.

These powders come in various colors. We utilize a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a white print on a dark or black background.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?

Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.

The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible. And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.

That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.

The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you briefly explain the action of the silver nitrate?

Mr. LATONA. Silver nitrate solution in itself is colorless, and it reacts with the sodium chloride, which is ordinary salt which is found in the perspiration or sweat which is exuded by the sweat pores.

This material covers the fingers. When it touches a surface such as an absorbent material, like paper, it leaves an outline on the paper.

When this salt material, which is left by the fingers on the paper, is immersed in the silver nitrate solution, there is a combining, an immediate combining of--the elements themselves will break down, and they recombine into silver chloride and sodium nitrate. We know that silver is sensitive to light. So that material, after it has been treated with the silver nitrate solution, is placed under a strong light. We utilize a carbon arc lamp, which has considerable ultraviolet light in it. And it will immediately start to discolor the specimen. Wherever there is any salt material, it will discolor it, much more so than the rest of the object, and show exactly where the latent prints have been developed. It is simply a reaction of the silver nitrate with the sodium chloride.

That is all it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you frequently find that the silver nitrate develops a print in a paper object which the iodine fuming cannot develop?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I would say that is true, considerably so. We have more success with silver nitrate than we do with the iodine fumes.

The reason we use both is because of the fact that this material which is exuded by the fingers may fall into one of two main types--protein material and salt material. The iodine fumes will develop protein material. Silver nitrate will develop the salt material.

The reason we use both is because we do not know what was in the subject's fingers or hands or feet. Accordingly, to insure complete coverage, we use both methods. And we use them in that sequence. The iodine first, then the silver nitrate. The iodine is used first because the iodine simply causes a temporary physical change. It will discolor, and then the fumes, upon being left in the open air, will disappear, and then the color will dissolve. Silver nitrate, on the other hand, causes a chemical change and it will permanently affect the change. So if we were to use the silver nitrate process first, then we could not use the iodine fumes. On occasion we have developed fingerprints and palmprints with iodine fumes which failed to develop with the silver nitrate and vice versa.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?

Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect. And the light portions of the bag are where we did not process the bag at that time, because additional examinations were to be made, and we did not wish the object to lose its identity as to what it may have been used for. Certain chemical tests were to be made after we finished with it. And we felt that the small section that was left in itself would not interfere with the general overall examination of the bag itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the small section of light brown corresponds to the color which the bag had when you received it?

Mr. LATONA. That is the natural color of the wrapper at the time we received it.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining color is caused by the silver nitrate process?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does paper normally turn this dark brown color when treated by silver nitrate?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it does. It will get darker, too, as time goes on and it is affected by light.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, does the silver nitrate process permanently fix the print into the paper?

Mr. LATONA. Permanent in the sense that the print by itself will not disappear. Now, it can be removed, or the stains could be removed chemically, by the placing of the object into a 2 percent solution of mercuric nitrate, which will remove the stains and in addition will remove the prints. But the prints by themselves, if nothing is done to it, will simply continue to grow darker and eventually the whole specimen will lose its complete identity.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask a question here?

So I understand from that that this particular document that you are looking at, or this bag, will continue to get darker as time goes on?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it will.

The CHAIRMAN. From this date?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the prints themselves, you stated I believe that you found a palmprint and a fingerprint on this paper bag?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any other prints?

Mr. LATONA. No; no other prints that we term of value in the sense that I felt that they could be identified or that a conclusion could be reached that they were not identical with the fingerprints or palmprints of some other person.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify the palmprint and fingerprint?

Mr. LATONA. The ones that I developed; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to identify these prints?

Mr. LATONA. I--the ones I developed, I did identify.

Mr. EISENBERG. Whose prints did you find them to be?

Mr. LATONA. They were identified as a fingerprint and a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, what known sample of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints, finger and palm, did you use in making this identification?

Mr. LATONA. The known samples I used were the ones forwarded by our office at Dallas, the Dallas office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have those with you?

Mr. LATONA. I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, you have handed me three cards, one of which appears to be a standard fingerprint card, and the other two of which appear to be prints of the palms of an individual. All these cards are marked "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Are these the cards which you received from your Dallas office which you just described as being the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted into evidence as 627, 628, and 629. I would like the standard fingerprint card, 10-print card, admitted as 627.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 627 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the card which is--which appears to be the left palm admitted as 628.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 628 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the card which is the right palm admitted as 629.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 629 and received in evidence.)

Mr. LATONA. May I ask a question, please? Would it be possible to accept copies instead of the originals?

The CHAIRMAN. They are identical?

Mr. LATONA. These are true and faithful reproductions of the originals which Mr. Eisenberg has.

The CHAIRMAN. The originals, then, may be withdrawn, and the copies substituted for them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Shall I mark those 627, 628, and 629 in the same manner as the originals?

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do you know how the known samples we have just marked 627, 628, and 629 were obtained?

Mr. LATONA. How they were obtained?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Can you tell the process used in obtaining them?

Mr. LATONA. You mean in recording the impressions?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. LATONA. Fingerprints are recorded by the use of a printer's ink, heavy black ink, which is first placed on a smooth surface, such as glass or metal, and it is rolled out in a smooth, even film. Then the subject's fingers are brought in contact with the plate by a rolling process, rolling the finger from one complete side to the other complete side, in order to coat the finger with an even film of this heavy ink. Then the finger is brought in contact with a standard fingerprint card and the finger again is rolled from one complete side to the opposite side in order to record in complete detail all of the ridge formation which occurs on the tip of the finger, or the first joint, which is under the nail.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you received a second submission of known prints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; we did.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive those?

Mr. LATONA. Those were received in the identification division on November 29, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did this include two palms, or was this simply----

Mr. LATONA. No; it did not. It was simply a fingerprint card.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know why the second submission was made?

Mr. LATONA. The second submission was made, I believe, in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been killed, and it has the notation on the back that he was shot and killed 11-24-63 while being transferred in custody.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine that second submission?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is it in all respects identical to the first?

Mr. LATONA. The fingerprints appearing on this card are exactly the same as those that appear on the card which you have previously referred to as Commission Exhibit 627.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do you have a copy of the second submission?

Mr. LATONA. No; I do not.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could supply one to us at a later date.

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I could. If you feel it necessary, you can take this one.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, it is up to you. We will accept a copy.

The CHAIRMAN. If you wish, you may substitute a copy for it later.

Mr. LATONA. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you may withdraw it.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I mark that as 630, with the understanding that it can be substituted for by a copy?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 630 and received in evidence.)

(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald was reproduced on the paper bag, Exhibit 626?

Mr. LATONA. The portion of the palm which was identified was of the right palm, and it is a portion which is sometimes referred to as the heel. It would be the area which is near the wrist on the little-finger side. I have a photograph here which has a rough drawing on it showing the approximate area which was identified.

The CHAIRMAN. Which hand did you say?

Mr. LATONA. The right hand.

Mr. EISENBERG. That little finger, is that sometimes called the ulnar side?

Mr. LATONA. The ulnar side; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a true photograph made by you?

Mr. LATONA. This is a true photograph of one of the exhibits you have received.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, the exhibit showing the right palmprint, which is marked 629?

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted into evidence as 631?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 631 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have another photograph there?

Mr. LATONA. I have here a photograph which is a slight enlargement of the latent palmprint developed on the bag. It has a red circle drawn around it showing the palmprint which was developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a true photograph made by you?

Mr. LATONA. This is. It is approximately a time-and-a-half enlargement of the palmprint which I developed on the paper bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 632?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted by that number.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 632 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Having reference to the paper bag, Exhibit 626, Mr. Latona, could you show us where on that bag this portion of the palm, the ulnar portion of the palm, of Lee Harvey Oswald was found?

Mr. LATONA. This little red arrow which I have placed on the paper bag shows the palmprint as it was developed on the wrapper.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it visible to the naked eye?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is. I think you can see it with the use of this hand magnifier.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you mark that arrow "A"--the arrow you have just referred to on Exhibit 626, pointing to the portion of the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

The CHAIRMAN. What is the number of the exhibit that it is on?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 626.

Mr. LATONA. May I--I tell you, I am going to furnish you a copy of this, but I cannot make a copy unless I have it.

Mr. EISENBERG. We can lend it to you for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. You may have it to make the copy.

Mr. LATONA. And I will send you the copy. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I believe you said you also found a fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald on this paper bag, 626.

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us what finger and what portion of the finger of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?

Mr. LATONA. The fingerprint which was developed on the paper bag was identified as the right--as the left index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. I also have a slight enlargement of it, if you care to see it.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are showing us a true photograph of the actual fingerprint?

Mr. LATONA. As it appeared on the bag, slightly enlarged.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 633, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 633 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You are holding another photograph, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. I have here a photograph of the fingerprint card, of the one which I just took back, and it is actually a true reproduction of the front of the card. That was Exhibit 630. This one here is a true reproduction of the front of Exhibit 630.

Mr. EISENBERG. And have you circled on that, the photograph which you are holding, the left index finger?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And would you show that to the Chief Justice? That is a true reproduction, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like that admitted as 633A.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 633A and received in evidence.)

Mr. LATONA. Could that take the place of this?

Mr. EISENBERG. I think our exhibits would be confused.

Mr. LATONA. Very well.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what portion of the left index finger was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. That is the area which is to the left, or rather to the right of the index finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. On which joint?

Mr. LATONA. On the first joint, which is under the nail.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that known as the distal phalanx?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. So it is the right side of the distal phalanx of the left index finger?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct. Now, that would be looking at an impression made by the finger. If you were to look at the finger, you would raise the finger up and it would be on the opposite side, which would be on the left side of the distal phalanx.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when we were talking before about the palmprint, and you said that it was on the right side--you said it was on the ulnar portion of the palm?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is looking at the palm itself?

Mr. LATONA. Looking at the palm itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would rather----

Mr. LATONA. That would still be the ulnar side when you look at the print.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't we use ulnar and radial then when we refer to portions of fingerprints, ulnar referring to the little-finger side, and radial to the thumb side? So referring to the left index fingerprint now, that would correspond to the ulnar side of the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford, I'm going to leave now to attend a session of the Court. If you will preside in my absence, Mr. Dulles will be here in a few moments, and if you are obliged to leave for your work in the Congress, he will preside until I return.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room and the Chairman left the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you show us where on the paper bag, Exhibit 626, this left index finger was developed by you?

Mr. LATONA. The left index fingerprint was developed in the area which is indicated by this small red arrow.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put a "B" on that arrow to which you are pointing? Mr. Latona, did you make comparison charts of the known and latent or the inked and latent palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald which you have been referring to as found on this paper bag, 626?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you----

Mr. DULLES. Shouldn't you change that question a little bit? I don't think you should say Lee Harvey Oswald at this point.

Mr. EISENBERG. He has identified the print as being that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Excuse me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you show us that chart and discuss with us some of the similar characteristics which you found in the inked and latent print which led you to the conclusion that they were identical?

Mr. LATONA. Yes. I have here what are referred to as two charted enlargements. One of the enlargements, which is marked "Inked Left Index Fingerprint. Lee Harvey Oswald" is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the fingerprint which appears on Exhibit 633A. The other enlargement, which is marked "Latent Fingerprint on Brown Homemade Paper Container," is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the latent fingerprint which was developed on the brown wrapping paper indicated by the red arrow, "B."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that also corresponds to the photograph you gave us, which is now Exhibit 633?

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

Representative FORD. And the arrow, "B," is on Exhibit 626?

Mr. LATONA. That's correct. Now, in making a comparison of prints to determine whether or not they were made by the same finger, an examination is made first of all of the latent print.

An examination is made to see if there are in the latent print any points or characteristics which are unique to the person making the determination. In other words, in looking at the latent print, for example, this point, which is marked "1," is a ridge. The black lines are what we term ridges. They were made by the ridge formations on the fingers. That is, when the finger came in contact with the brown paper bag, it left an outline in these black lines on the brown paper bag.

Now, in looking at the latent print in the enlargement you notice there is one black line that appears to go upward and stop at the point which has been indicated as point No. 1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, may I interrupt you there for a second.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this chart, this comparison chart, as an exhibit.

Representative FORD. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 634.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 634 and was received in evidence.)

Mr. LATONA. Looking further we notice----

Mr. DULLES. Could I just ask a question about this? This is referring to Exhibit 634. I want to make sure what line we are talking about. You are talking about a black line that goes up as though two rivers came together there, and here is the point where this line stops.

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

Mr. DULLES. No. 1. This is the latent?

Mr. LATONA. This is the imprint. This is the print on the bag.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. LATONA. The contrast here is not as good as it is here.

Mr. DULLES. This goes up here, and these two lines come in there, so there is the point where your black line stops?

Mr. LATONA. Right at the end of the red line which is marked "1."

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. LATONA. Now, looking further we find this point that has been indicated as No. 3. And No. 3 is located----

Mr. DULLES. Why do you skip 2?

Mr. LATONA. I am going to come to that.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Mr. LATONA. I am going to tie these three in. Point No. 3 is above and to the left one ridge removed from--one black line--there is No. 3. Now looking further, we can look over to the right, or rather to the left, and we notice that one ridge removed from No. 3 are two ridges that come together and give you a point which has been indicated as No. 2.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that what you might call a bifurcation?

Mr. LATONA. That is referred to, generally speaking, as a bifurcation.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is No. 2?

Mr. LATONA. And No. 1 is what is referred to as a ridge end.

Now, keeping those three points in mind, and the relationship they have to each other, if this print here, the inked print, were made by the same finger which left the print on the brown paper bag, we should be able to find those three points in the same approximate area, having the same relationship to each other.

Now, at this point we have not made a determination of any kind as to whether they are or are not identical. Examining the inked fingerprint, bearing in mind the general formation of this print that we see here, the latent print, we would examine the inked print and that would direct us to this approximate area here. And looking, we find sure enough there is point No. 1--or rather there is a point which appears to be the same as point No. 1 here. Bearing in mind how we located points Nos. 2 and 3, we would then check the inked print further and say to ourselves, "If this print were the same, there should be a point No. 2 in exactly the same relationship to No. 1 as there was in this latent print." We look over here--one, two, three, four--there is point No. 2.

Mr. EISENBERG. That point, or that count that you are making, is of ridges between the first and second point?

Mr. LATONA. Between the points, that's right. Then we have over here one, two, three, four. And bearing in mind again how point No. 3 bears a relationship to point No. 2, we should find point No. 3 in the same relative position in the inked print that it occurs in the latent print. Counting over again--one--we find a point which could be considered No. 3.

Now, at this time we have coordinated three points. We have tied three points together. On that basis, by themselves, we would not give a definite determination. Accordingly, we would pursue a further examination to determine whether there are other characteristics which occur.

Mr. DULLES. How many times is that magnified?

Mr. LATONA. This is magnified approximately 10 times.

Then we would pick up point No. 5. We notice point No. 5 is again one of those bifurcations which occurs above and slightly to the left of point No. 3. We also notice that it envelops point No. 1--as we go down further, slightly to the right of point No. 5, we notice that bifurcation envelops point No. 1. So we would look around for such a characteristic in the latent print.

If the same finger made those two prints, we have to find point 5. And looking over here we find such a formation, we look at it, and sure enough it envelops point No. 1--exactly the same relationship to each other appears in the latent print, and in the inked print. It has the same relationship to point No. 3 that occurs in the latent print as occurs in the inked print. Then we would pick up point No. 4--one, two, three, four.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again you are counting ridges?

Mr. LATONA. Counting ridges again, from point No. 5--one, two, three, four. There is a so-called ridge end, which occurs above, above and almost slightly to the left of point No. 5, point No. 5 enveloping No. 1. Point No. 5.

Mr. DULLES. Is 5 a ridge-end?

Mr. LATONA. Five is what we term a joining, forking, or bifurcation. These two come together at point 5. Over here, together at point 5.

Mr. DULLES. Is that where the two ridges come together there and encase it?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir. From point No. 5 we pick up point No. 7, which is another one of those so-called bifurcations. One, two, three, four.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again a ridge count?

Mr. LATONA. Ridge counting from 5 to 6. That is in the latent print. We must find the same situation in the inked print. Counting from point No. 5 the ridges which intervene, one, two, three, and then we count four, the point itself. There is the bifurcation right here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, in making these ridge counts, do you also pay attention to the so-called, let's say, geographical relation, the spatial relation of the two points?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely. Now, it does not always follow that the so-called geographical position will coincide exactly the same. That would be caused because of variations in the pressure used when the print was made. For example, when you make a print on a fingerprint card: when the inked print was made, the print was made for the specific purpose of recording all of the ridge details. When the print was left on the paper bag, it was an incidental impression. The person was not trying to leave a print. In fact, he probably did not even know he left one. So the pressure which is left, or the position of the finger when it made the print, will be a little different. Accordingly the geographical area of the points themselves will not always coincide. But they will be in the general position the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, without going into detail, there are some apparent dissimilarities on the two sides of that chart. Can you explain why there should be apparent dissimilarities?

Mr. LATONA. The dissimilarities as such are caused by the type of material on which the print was left, because of the pressure, because of the amount of material which is on the finger when it left the print. They would not always be exactly the same. Here again there appears a material difference in the sense there is a difference in coloration. This is because of the fact that the contrast in the latent print is not as sharp as it is in the inked impression, which is a definite black on white, whereas here we have more or less a brown on a lighter brown.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, when you find an apparent dissimilarity between an inked and a latent print, how do you know that it is caused by absorption of the surface upon which the latent print is placed, or by failure of the finger to exude material, rather than by the fact that you have a different fingerprint?

Mr. LATONA. That is simply by sheer experience.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say, therefore, that the identification of a fingerprint is a task which calls for an expert interpretation, as opposed to a simple point-by-point laying-out which a layman could do?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely so; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much training does it take before you can make an identification?

Mr. LATONA. Well, I cannot tell you exactly how much in terms of time, insofar as what constitutes an expert. I can simply tell you what we require of our people before they would be considered experts.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, could you do that?

Mr. LATONA. We require our people before they would be----

Mr. DULLES. This is the FBI?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; this is the FBI. It would be 10 years of practical work in connection with the classifying and searching and verifying of regular fingerprint cards which bear all 10 prints. Those prints would be searched through our main fingerprint files. That means that that person would have to serve at least 10 years doing that. Of course, he would have to progress from the mere searching operation to the operation of being what we call unit supervisor, which would check--which would be actually the checking of the work of subordinates who do that work. He would be responsible for seeing that the fingerprints are properly searched, properly classified.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how long will he work in the latent fingerprint section?

Mr. LATONA. He would have to take an adaptability test, which would take 3 or 4 days, to determine, first of all, do we feel he has the qualifications for the job. Then if he passed the adaptability test, he would receive a minimum of 1 year's personal training in the latent fingerprint section--which means that he would have to serve at least 11 years in fingerprint work constantly, day in and day out, 8 hours a day in fingerprint work, before we would consider him as a fingerprint expert for purposes of testifying in a court of law.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that when you show us this chart, this is actually, or I should say, is this actually a demonstration, rather than a chart from which we could make an identification?

Mr. LATONA. That's right. The purpose is simply a hope on my part that by my explanation you may have some idea as to how a comparison is made, rather than for me to prove it to you through these charts, because unquestionably there are certain points that you will not see which to me are apparent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona----

Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question? Is this ridge formation, sort of two ridges coming together, is that one of the most distinctive things you look for? I note on these charts, Exhibit 634, the various examples you have given us have been of one type so far.

Mr. LATONA. Two.

Mr. DULLES. I did not get the two. I get the two ridges coming together with sort of the ending of a valley. You were saying there were two distinctive things. I have only caught so far one distinctive thing--that is the two ridges coming together in a kind of valley with no exit.

Mr. LATONA. Two that come together, like a fork. And the other one was the one that just ends by itself--does not join.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is an interrupted ridge?

Mr. DULLES. I do not get the distinction.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that an interrupted ridge you just described?

Mr. LATONA. What we call an ending ridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record. Mr. Latona, could you prepare a diagram which would show some of the characteristics, in broad outline, which we have been discussing, and have those labeled, and could you submit that diagram to us at a future date?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I could.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will append it to your testimony, so that your testimony may be more easily followed in the record--with the permission of the Chairman.

Representative FORD. It will be prepared and submitted and included in the record.

(The item referred to was later supplied and was marked Commission Exhibit No. 634A.)

Mr. LATONA. Well, if you could give me your indulgence, I could do it right here as fast as I did it on the board.

Representative FORD. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative FORD. Back on the record.

Mr. DULLES. These, I understand, are the particular distinguishing points, the points that you would look for to determine whether the latent print----

Mr. LATONA. Not so much the looking for the points, as to finding points having a relationship to each other. It is the relation that is the important thing, not the point itself. In other words, all of us would have to a certain extent these points.

Mr. DULLES. They have to be in the same relation to each other.

Mr. LATONA. That is correct. For example, on the illustration I have here----

Mr. EISENBERG. This is an illustration on the blackboard.

Mr. LATONA. The mere fact that this is an ending ridge and bifurcation and another ending ridge and a dot in themselves mean nothing. This is a type of pattern which is referred to as a loop, which is very common. These comprise approximately 65 percent of pattern types. It has four ridge counts, for example. You can find hundreds of thousands and millions of four-count loops. But you would not find but one loop having an arrangement of these characteristics in the relation that they have. For example, the enclosure is related to this ending ridge. This ending ridge is related by one ridge removed from the dot. This bifurcation is next to the so-called core which is formed by a rod, the ending ridge.

The points themselves are common. The most common type of points are the ending ridge and the bifurcation. Those are the two points we have covered so far.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, I see that you have marked nine characteristics on your chart. Are these all the characteristics which you were able to find----

Mr. LATONA. On this particular chart; yes. They were the only ones that bore--actually, there is still one more characteristic--there could have been 10.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is there any minimum number of points that has to be found in order to make an identification, in your opinion?

Mr. LATONA. No; in my opinion, there are no number of points which are a requirement. Now, there is a general belief among lots of fingerprint people that a certain number of points are required. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption that they have taken, because of the fact that here in the United States a person that qualifies in court as an expert has the right merely to voice an opinion as to whether two prints were made by the same finger or not made. There are no requirements, there is no standard by which a person can say that a certain number of points are required--primarily because of the fact that there is such a wide variance in the experience of men who qualify as fingerprint experts.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, you said that not all experts are in agreement on this subject. Is there any substantial body of expert opinion that holds to a minimum number of points, let's say, 12?

Mr. LATONA. In the United States, to my knowledge, I know of no group or body that subscribe to a particular number. Now, quite frequently some of these departments will maintain a standard for themselves, by virtue of the fact that they will say, "Before we will make an identification, we must find a minimum of 12 points of similarity."

I am quite certain that the reason for that is simply to avoid the possibility of making an erroneous identification. Now, why they have picked 12--I believe that that 12-point business originated because of a certain article which was written by a French fingerprint examiner by the name of Edmond Locard back in 1917, I think--there was a publication to the effect that in his opinion where there were 12 points of similarity, there was no chance of making an erroneous identification. If there were less than 12, he voiced the conclusion that the chances would increase as to finding duplicate prints.

Now, today we in the FBI do not subscribe to that theory at all. We simply say this: We have confidence in our experts to the extent that regardless of the number of points, if the expert who has been assigned to the case for purposes of making the examination gives an opinion, we will not question the number of points. We have testified--I personally have testified in court to as few as seven points of similarity.

Mr. DULLES. But you would not on two, would you?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir; because I know that two points, even though they would not be duplicate points, could be arranged in such a fashion that it might possibly give me the impression that here are two points which appear to be the same even though they are are not.

Mr. DULLES. But it is somewhere between two and seven--somewhere in that range?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Where that is, I do not know. And I would not say whether I would testify to six, would I testify to five, would I refuse to testify to four.

Mr. DULLES. You say you would--or would you?

Mr. LATONA. I don't know. That's a question I could not answer. I would have to see each case individually before I could render a conclusion.

Now, going outside of the United States, we have been approached--I mean the FBI--have been approached by other foreign experts in an attempt to set a worldwide standard of 16 characteristics, a minimum of 16, as opposed to 12, which is generally referred to by people in this country here. Now of course we would not subscribe to that at all. And I think----

Mr. DULLES. That would be 16 on the fingerprint of the same finger?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. DULLES. Obviously, if you have two fingers that would alter the number--if you had three on one and two on the other, would you consider that five?

Mr. LATONA. We would.

Now, whether the foreign experts would not, I don't know. In other words, if we were to go along with this European theory of 16 points, we would not testify to this being an identification. That is really what it would amount to. Yet to me, in my mind, there is no question that these prints here----

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is what exhibit?

Mr. LATONA. The enlargements in Exhibit 634--are simply reproductions of the left index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Representative FORD. There is no doubt in your mind about that?

Mr. LATONA. Absolutely none at all. The fact that there are only the nine points charted--and I feel this way, it is purely a matter of experience. They simply do not have the experience that we have in the FBI. The FBI has the world's largest practical fingerprint file. We receive on an average of 23,000 to 25,000 cards a day which are processed within a 3-day period.

Mr. DULLES. In a 3-day period?

Mr. LATONA. In a 3-day period.

Mr. DULLES. And by processed do you mean they are filed according to certain characteristics?

Mr. LATONA. They are. At first they are recorded as having been received from a particular agency, as to the number that we have received, as to the type of the card. Then they are checked to see if the impressions which are on the fingerprint card are complete and legible, that they are placed in their proper sequence, that is they are properly classified.

Then they are checked through our files to see if the person has or has not a prior criminal record. Then a reply is prepared and forwarded to the contributor. That is done in a 3-day period.

Mr. DULLES. How old is the art, roughly?

Mr. LATONA. Insofar as this country is concerned, I would say back to 1903, when the first fingerprint file for purposes of classification and filing was set up in this country in New York.

Mr. DULLES. Did it start in France?

Mr. LATONA. No. Really, I daresay the English were probably as early as any, or even down to South America--you have in Argentina the setting up of fingerprint files as early as 1891. For a long time we never recognized the fact that Argentina had a fingerprint file. I think it is primarily because all of the works on fingerprinting were written in Spanish, and it was just a question of finding somebody to take the time and effort to translate it into English.

The French are credited with the so-called Bertillon system, which is a measurement of the bone structure of the body. Alphone Bertillon was a French----

Mr. DULLES. Didn't Bertillon go into fingerprints later?

Mr. LATONA. Very reluctantly. He was very reluctant to accept it. He was a sort of diehard. He felt that his method, the measurement of certain bones of the body, would not change after a person reached the adult stage. But we know that that is not true. There is a change--because of age, disease, dissipation. A person that was once 6'2" may, because of the fact he is getting older, hump down a little more and instead of being 6'2" he might be 5'11". Certain bone structures over the years make certain changes--plus the fact that his system was not a good system in that certain allowances had to be made because of the way that people were measured.

Sometimes one operator might measure the bones of the arm, for example, too tight, and another too loose. And they used the metric system of measurement, which in terms of their measuring might sometimes mean that the same person would not measure the same bone the same way twice.

We have the celebrated case here which we refer to as the Will West case, here in the United States, in which a man was sentenced to the penitentiary in Leavenworth. He was a colored man by the name of Will West. The operator there, going through the mechanics of taking the various measurements and his photograph, said, "I see you are back here again." The man said, "No, this is the first time I have been to Leavenworth." The operator was certain he had measured and photographed this man before. He went to check his records and he came up with a prior record which disclosed a Will West who had practically the same Bertillon measurements as the man currently being examined.

He said, "Isn't this you?" And he showed him a picture. He looked at the picture and recognized the picture as being one of himself. He said, "Yes, that is me, but I have never been here before."

They checked the records and found still there in the penitentiary was another Will West who looked almost exactly like a twin. But they were not even related. Their features were the same, their measurements were the same, but then their fingerprints were completely different.

If they made that error that one time, how many other times could the same error have been made? And accordingly, we here in the United States, around 1903--the Bertillon method was slowly put out of use. It became obsolete.

Bertillon, before he died, conceded that fingerprints was a good means of identification, and he very reluctantly conceded that the two systems, his method and fingerprints together, would be an absolute means of identification.

We completely did away with the Bertillon system. In fact, the FBI never used it. We started our fingerprint work years after all that had been resolved, back in 1924.

On July 1, 1924, that is actually when the FBI went into the fingerprint business.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much. I found that very interesting.

Representative FORD. Go ahead, Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing a comparison of the latent and known left-index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on the paper bag, Exhibit 626?

Mr. LATONA. The left index finger. That is the one we just discussed.

Mr. EISENBERG. I'm sorry--the right palmprint.

Mr. LATONA. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And before we go any further, I should state for the record that the exhibit we have been referring to as 626 was earlier introduced as 142, and it is 142.

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. Also, before we get to the palmprint----

Mr. DULLES. Just a moment. It seems to me it would be well to have for the files of the Commission copies of the earlier fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald that were taken, and the time that they were taken.

Mr. EISENBERG. I agree, sir. Mr. Latona----

Mr. LATONA. Do I understand you are asking----

Mr. EISENBERG. I will develop this on the record.

Mr. Latona, you had earlier submitted to us, and we had marked as an exhibit, copies of fingerprint cards and two palmprint cards which were made up by the Dallas police and forwarded to you, received by you from your Dallas office; is that correct?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in addition, did the Federal Bureau of Investigation have in its files prints of Lee Harvey Oswald which it had received at some earlier date, prior to November 22?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I believe there is a Marine Corps print.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would these prints have been taken by the FBI?

Mr. LATONA. No; they would not.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were taken by----

Mr. LATONA. The regular service.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to the FBI?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare the 10-finger card which you received from the Dallas office of the FBI and compare it with the Marine fingerprint card?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were they identical?

Mr. LATONA. They were the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were the palmprints taken by the Marines?

Mr. LATONA. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you submit to us a copy of the 10-print card which you received from the Marine Corps?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I could.

Mr. EISENBERG. With the Chairman's permission, that will be appended as an exhibit to Mr. Latona's testimony.

Representative FORD. Do you wish to identify it by a number at this time?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. If we could give it a number in advance of receiving it, I would like to give it Commission Exhibit No. 635.

(The item referred to was later supplied and was marked Commission Exhibit No. 635.)

Representative FORD. It will be admitted.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether any fingerprints were taken after Lee Harvey Oswald returned from the Soviet Union?

Mr. LATONA. Those after he was arrested in connection with this particular offense.

Mr. DULLES. Apart from the fingerprints obtained in connection with the assassination.

Mr. LATONA. I do not.

Mr. DULLES. Do you have a right to go to anybody and demand their fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. DULLES. Under law?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir; only persons taken into custody for Federal violations as such. Now, the FBI has actually no authority at all, except in cases of making an arrest.

Mr. DULLES. There is nothing done in connection with the census or anything of that kind?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir. Some persons are ordered, by virtue of being aliens, to be fingerprinted--those that are domiciled here in the United States must register under the Alien Registration Act.

Mr. DULLES. And fingerprints then are taken of aliens in connection with their registration?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. DULLES. Otherwise there is no general procedure for the taking of anybody that you may happen to want to take?

Mr. LATONA. The Services, of course, require it. Applicants for certain positions are required by law. For example, all civil service, Federal civil service applicants must be fingerprinted. Locally, there are certain local cases. For example a man may in some localities, if he even applies for a chauffeur's license, has to be fingerprinted. If he desires a gun permit, he has to be fingerprinted. In some places, if he applies for certain jobs he must be fingerprinted.

Mr. DULLES. As I recall, I gave a fingerprint when I got my automobile license. Is that general throughout the United States?

Mr. LATONA. What State was that?

Mr. DULLES. Here in the District. Didn't I give that?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir. To my knowledge, there are none that require it--fingerprinting--for an automobile license. In California I believe it is voluntary--to place the finger, if you desire to, on your card.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, Exhibit 630, which is one of the known 10-print cards submitted by the Dallas office, is marked "Refused to sign" in the box with the printed caption "Signature of person fingerprinted." Do you recall whether Lee Harvey Oswald signed the Marine Corps card?

Mr. LATONA. Offhand, I do not.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think it would be interesting, for the record, to see if that is signed, and, of course, as we read the record and get the card, we will be able to note that information.

We were discussing whether you had made a chart of the known and latent right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on Exhibit 142, as I will refer to it from now on.

Mr. LATONA. I believe I have already furnished you smaller photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; you have. Those have been marked into evidence.

Mr. LATONA. This is the inked--the right inked palmprint, a photograph of the right inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. You say "this." Can you identify that exhibit? It is 631.

I am handing you Exhibit 632.

Mr. LATONA. Exhibit 632 is approximately a time and a half enlargement of the latent palmprint which was developed on the brown wrapper.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 142.

Mr. LATONA. Exhibit 142--which is indicated by the red arrow A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare this chart, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Not personally, no. This was made under my personal direction and supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate reproduction of the known and latent prints which were earlier introduced into evidence?

Mr. LATONA. It is. It is a true and faithful reproduction of these areas, enlarged to approximately eight times the originals.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced into evidence as 636, Mr. Chairman?

Representative FORD. It will be introduced.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 636 and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. May I ask whether this was discovered immediately after the assassination--at what time did you discover this particular palmprint?

Mr. LATONA. It was on the 23d of November, the day after.

Mr. EISENBERG. Using this chart, 636, Mr. Latona, could you demonstrate to us some of the points which led you to the conclusion that the latent palmprint on 142 was the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. The procedure in making this comparison was exactly the same as the procedure followed in connection with making the prior examination of the fingerprint. Now, the area which shows in approximately an eight-time enlargement, and is marked "Latent Palmprint Developed on Brown Homemade Paper Container," which is Exhibit 636, is roughly outlined on Commission Exhibit 631 in red, which is a photograph of the inked right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This area below the little finger, or what we referred to as the ulnar portion of the palm--now, in making the examination or comparison, here again--first of all I would like to point out that there is a black line that goes right through--in an upward fashion--through the enlargement of the latent fingerprint. That line is caused by virtue of the fact that the palmprint which is developed is partially on a piece of tape as well as the wrapper itself. In other words, a part of the print is on a piece of tape and the other part is on the paper itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you show how the palm lay on the paper to produce that impression?

Mr. LATONA. The palm lay in this fashion here.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Here again, in making the comparison, a check is made for the location of certain points.

Now, we notice here that the points appear to be much closer than they were in the fingerprint, and that is probably because of the pressure which was exercised, possibly in holding the object which was in this paper container.

Now, you notice this point No. 1 here, which we term the ending ridge. Point No. 2 is also an ending ridge. And you notice in between these points there is a ridge. Point No. 2 is to the left of point No. 1.

Then we find there is a point No. 3 which is a point which is similar in character to point No. 2 and is almost directly below, but there are two intervening ridges. Then there is a point No. 4 which is below point No. 3, and going in a direction opposite from point No. 3.

If we bear those four points in mind--and if the latent palmprint was made by the same palm that made the inked palmprint--then we should find these four points in that position over there.

Now, in order to first of all find the particular area where we would look to see if those points exist, we would bear in mind the general formation of the print itself. We notice the so-called looping formation in the inked print. We see that there is a looping formation here. Definitely it is not as pronounced in the latent print as it is in the inked print. But to the experienced eye, it is right here.

Accordingly, bearing in mind where these points would occur, we would generalize in the area to the extreme right of the enlargement, and find that there is a point which is somewhat similar to the point which appears in the inked impression, which momentarily we would say appears to be the same point as No. 1.

Now, bearing in mind how No. 2 is related to point No. 1, does such a point appear in the latent print? And making the check, exactly in the same fashion and relationship that occurred in the inked print, we find that there is such a point.

Does a third point appear in the same relationship to point No. 2 as it appears in the inked print?

Counting down one, two, and then the three point being the point itself. And in the same general flowing direction we count here, one, two, three--there it is.

Bearing in mind again that we found point No. 4 is what we refer to as a bifurcation going in the opposite direction from No. 3, which was directly below and to the left, do we find such a point here? Sure enough, there it is.

Now, an additional test would be this: At this point here we notice there is an abrupt ending of a ridge at this point here. It was not even charted. The fact is, it also occurs here. You see this point here, through which there is no line drawn, here it is right here----

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing above 4?

Mr. LATONA. Directly above 4 to a ridge going--what we term flowing to the right. Now, at this point here, to a fingerprint examiner of any experience at all, he would start saying these prints were probably made by the same fellow. To satisfy himself, he would continue to point No. 5--one, two, three, four--there is point No. 5. Then there is No. 6, and there is No. 6 here, having exactly the same relationship to each other.

On the basis of those six points alone, I would venture the opinion that these palmprints were made by the same person. But for purposes of carrying it out further, here is point No. 7. Point No. 7 is obliterated to a certain degree to the inexperienced eye by virtue of the fact that it almost coincides with that line there. You probably do not see that.

And here is point No. 8, which is related to point No. 7 by the separation of those ridges in the same way. One, two, three, four--one, two, three, four. In its relationship to No. 9 here--just above and to the left, flowing in the same general direction. Here it is here.

Then your point No. 10, which is tied into point No. 11 in this fashion here, and 12 and 13. All of them have the same relationship insofar as the intervention of ridges is concerned, the same general area, plus the fact that they all flow in the same general direction.

Picking up No. 14, which is going upward, to point No. 15, which stands out rather easily--15 here. To throw in just one point extra--see this little point here, that ends here?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the upper right of 15?

Mr. LATONA. To the right and upward of 15.

Mr. DULLES. So you really have 16 points there?

Mr. LATONA. Actually, there are more than that in here, which I have not even bothered to chart. The opinion here, without any question at all, this latent print, which was developed on the brown bag marked "A"--142--was made by the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. And in my opinion, this identification is absolute. There is no question at all that only the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald made this print, or could have made it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions on the prints appearing on this bag?

Representative FORD. Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. May I suggest this, Mr. Chairman? Since the print on the bag may become obliterated, and since members of the Commission have already seen it, it might be advisable to put on the record that they have seen it, because in time to come it may not be visible to anybody.

Representative FORD. Well, I for one would be willing to state that I have personally seen that fingerprint through a glass on the bag--both the finger and the palm.

Mr. DULLES. I would be glad to concur that I also have seen the fingerprint and the palmprint to which Congressman Ford refers.

Mr. EISENBERG. In that general connection, Mr. Latona, do you commonly make your fingerprint identifications on the basis of the object on which the latent print appears, or on the basis of a photograph of that object?

Mr. LATONA. Normally it is made on the basis of photographs. We work more or less like an assembly-line basis, and we do not have the time or the opportunity to work from the originals, as was done in this case--this being quite an exceptional case. So the usual identification would be made--this was made on the basis of the bag itself, rather than to wait and get finished photographs from our photographic laboratory.

If I recall correctly, this was on a Saturday--the 23d?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; it was.

Mr. LATONA. We did not have our full staff there. We were called in to handle this case specially. There were no photographers available at that time for that particular purpose. Frankly, under the circumstances it would not have made any difference whether they were available or not. This had a priority over everything we were working on and naturally we had to proceed as fast as we could, in a sense, to render conclusions and opinions at that time.

Accordingly, the original comparisons were made directly from the wrapper, rather than a photograph, which was prepared subsequently to this.

Representative FORD. The suggestion has been made, Mr. Murray, that perhaps you would like to look at that palmprint and the fingerprint on the wrapping, and you might make a statement the same as Mr. Dulles and I have made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you point out to Mr. Murray, Mr. Latona, the two prints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir. "A" is the fingerprint.

Mr. DULLES. And the witness certifies that these are true photographs of the fingerprint and the palmprint that you have exhibited?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURRAY. May I say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I definitely and clearly saw what appeared to me to be a palmprint in the part of Exhibit 142 which was designated with a "B," and less clearly, but nevertheless I did see, the fingerprint on the other portion of the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona----

Mr. LATONA. "B" is the finger, and "A" is the palm.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes; that's correct. And the palm "A"--there I definitely saw what appeared to be a palmprint, and more faintly I saw a fingerprint in the portion marked "B."

Mr. DULLES. And these are exhibits----

Mr. EISENBERG. This is Exhibit 142.

(At this point Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)

Mr. DULLES. Both the palmprint and the fingerprint are on Exhibit 142.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes--marked "A" and "B" respectively.

Mr. Latona, one further question on this subject. When you testify in court, do you frequently testify on the basis of the photographs rather than the original object?

Mr. LATONA. If the originals are available, I would prefer that they be brought into court. If they are not, then photographs are used--plus the original negative of the latent prints which were photographed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139 which, for the record, consists of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building, and which was identified yesterday as the rifle--and the day before yesterday--as the rifle which fired the fatal bullets, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this weapon to test--did you examine this weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints on it?

Mr. LATONA. I examined the weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent prints on the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the weapon?

Mr. LATONA. On the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you proceed to make your examination?

Mr. LATONA. I proceeded to make my examination that same day that I received it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us what techniques you used?

Mr. LATONA. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. The trigger-guard area?

Mr. LATONA. The trigger-guard area.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon.

Mr. LATONA. That's correct. There had been placed over that area a piece of cellophane material. My attention had been directed to it, to the effect that a prior examination had been made of that area, and that there were apparently certain latent prints available--visible under that area.

I first examine most prints to see----

Mr. DULLES. Who placed the cellophane material there, in your opinion?

Mr. LATONA. Well, I was told--my information was simply that the Dallas Police Department had done so. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it, other than information that the Dallas Police had examined the weapon and they had found these visible marks on there, that they had developed the prints.

Now, by what means they did it, I do not know, but I would assume they used a gray powder.

Mr. DULLES. What was the purpose of putting the cellophane there?

Mr. LATONA. To protect the prints while the rifle was intransit to the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?

Mr. LATONA. Closest to the trigger area.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?

Mr. LATONA. Left side.

Mr. EISENBERG. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?

Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.

Now, I did not stop there.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those been developed by the powder method?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; they had.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a gray powder?

Mr. LATONA. I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them what little contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and sidelighting with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things discernible at all.

Representative FORD. As far as you are concerned.

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

Mr. DULLES. Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper bag, which I received on the 23d--there had also been submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the photograph.

So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for me, an experienced photographer--I called him in. I received this material in the Justice Building. My office of operations is in the Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas Police Department.

Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom--we could not improve the condition of these latent prints.

So, accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there.

After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any significance or value--any prints of value--I would not know what the significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. I completely covered the rifle. I also had a firearms man----

Representative BOGGS. What do you cover it with?

Mr. LATONA. Gray fingerprint powder.

Representative BOGGS. What is that powder?

Mr. LATONA. It is usually a combination of chalk and mercury, or possibly white lead and a little bit of resin material to give it some weight.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you testified earlier that that adheres----

Mr. LATONA. To the moisture that was left by the finger, the fingers or the hands, when it came in contact with the surface.

Representative BOGGS. How long will that condition remain?

Mr. LATONA. Going from one extreme to the other, it may remain for years; under other circumstances, it may not even last for 15 or 20 minutes.

Representative BOGGS. Why the difference?

Mr. LATONA. Because of the amount of material which was left and the condition of the material which was left. Basically, the material may be made up of protein material and salt and water--primarily water. If it is totally water, with very little salt or oily material, when the evaporation is effected, then it is complete--there will be nothing left.

Representative BOGGS. You mean that it is gone?

Mr. LATONA. Right. On the other hand, if there is an oily matter there, we know that latent prints will last literally for years on certain objects.

Representative BOGGS. Well, just for purposes of information, if I make fingerprints there on the table, how long would they normally last?

Mr. LATONA. I don't know.

Representative BOGGS. Well, would there be any way to know?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. It depends on temperature, on the amount of moisture involved?

What does it depend on?

Mr. LATONA. First of all, I saw him touch it, but I am not even sure he left a print there.

Representative BOGGS. Well, I can see it.

Mr. LATONA. As to the quality of the print, there again it is simply a matter of what material you have in your hands that made that print, as to how long it will last, how long it will take for it to evaporate.

Actually, when it dries out, it may, in itself, leave a print with such clarity that it would not--even though it would not accept the powder, still by highlighting it, the way you did to see that the print was there, we could photograph it so it would come out just as clear as though it were black on white.

Representative BOGGS. Does the material that one touches have any effect?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely. It depends on how hard or smooth the material is.

Representative BOGGS. Now, does a weapon lend itself to retaining fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. This particular weapon here, first of all, in my opinion, the metal is very poorly finished. It is absorbent. Believe it or not, there is a certain amount of absorption into this metal itself. It is not finished in the sense that it is highly polished.

Representative BOGGS. So this would be conducive to getting a good print, or would it?

Mr. LATONA. It would not.

Representative BOGGS. I see--because it would absorb the moisture.

Mr. LATONA. That's right. Now, there are other guns--for example, Smith and Wesson, which have exceptionally nice finishes, the blue metal finishes are better surfaces for latent prints. Where you have a nickel-plated or silver-plated revolvers, where it is smooth--they are much more conducive to latent prints than some of these other things, say like the army type, the weapons used in wartime that are dull, to avoid reflection--things of that type--they are not as good.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you would like to look at the fingerprints we have gone over. They are quite apparent there with the glass.

Representative BOGGS. I would like to look at them. That is all I want to ask right at the moment.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to ask a general question.

Mr. LATONA (addressing Representative Boggs). This is one of the fingerprints developed on the brown wrapper. It is this print here.

Mr. DULLES. You can see these prints quite clearly, and the palmprint.

Representative BOGGS. This is a photograph of that?

Mr. LATONA. This is approximately a time and a half enlargement. This is the left index finger. Here is the palmprint that was developed.

Representative FORD. Mr. Boggs--each of us here, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Murray, and myself, have said on the record that we have seen the prints on the wrapping. We did this because, as Mr. Latona has indicated, such prints may disappear over a period of time. We thought it might be well for the record to indicate that we saw them. If you wish to do the same----

Representative BOGGS. I would like to do the same, having just seen it.

Mr. DULLES. The witness has certified to the fact that these are true photographs of the prints that we have seen.

Representative BOGGS. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?

Mr. LATONA. No; I cannot certify to that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?

Mr. LATONA. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?

Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?

Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139 was that you could not produce an identifiable print?

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question? Does the Secret Service do fingerprinting work, or do they turn it over to you--turn to you for all of that?

Mr. LATONA. I think they do some of their own, and on occasion we will do some for them, too. Primarily I think they do their own. I am not too familiar with the Secret Service as to how elaborate their laboratory is.

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?

Mr. LATONA. This exhibit or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?

Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we go any further may I have this admitted into evidence?

Representative FORD. It will be. What is the number?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be No. 637.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 637, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?

Mr. LATONA. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a backing, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder----

Mr. LATONA. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the impression actually is removed?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Representative FORD. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.

Representative FORD. In the fingerprinting business?

Mr. LATONA. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?

Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.

Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?

Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such--even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----

Mr. LATONA. Completely.

Mr. DULLES. The original print?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.

Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination.

And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?

Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?

Mr. LATONA. Yes. Here again I have a photograph that will show the approximate area involved, which is on the ulnar side of the lower portion of the palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. The ulnar----

Mr. LATONA. Down near the base of the palm toward the wrist.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is the right palm?

Mr. LATONA. The right palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. As it was in the case of the paper bag, Exhibit 142?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you display that photograph, please? This is a photograph which you took of the inked print which was furnished to you by the Dallas office?

Mr. LATONA. I didn't personally prepare the photographs. They were prepared at my personal direction.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it prepared under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it an accurate reproduction?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 638?

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 638, and received in evidence.)

Mr. LATONA. I might point out that you have the original of this which has been previously admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; but this photograph shows a red circle around the portion which you identified----

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. As being the latent found on the lift, is that right?

(Discussion off the record.)

(The reporter read the last question.)

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, now you are showing me another photograph which appears to be a photograph of the lift itself, Exhibit 637, but an enlargement thereof?

Mr. LATONA. Slightly enlarged; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. It was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And there is a red circle around this, on this photograph, that is around the print, the latent print?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted as 639?

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 639, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing an enlarged portion of the inked and latent palmprint?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Illustrating some of the points which you used in making your identification?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. This was prepared under my direct supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 640?

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 640, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement of this chart?

Mr. LATONA. Approximately an eight-time enlargement of the latent print which appears on the lift, Commission Exhibit----

Mr. EISENBERG. 637?

Mr. LATONA. 637. And the inked right palmprint enlargement is approximately eight times an enlargement of the Exhibit 638.

Mr. EISENBERG. The inked print?

Mr. LATONA. Which is encircled in red, a portion of that area.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could put that up on this easel here so that we can all see it, and explain to us some of the points which led you to your conclusion.

Mr. LATONA. Here again the approach insofar as making a comparison is concerned is exactly the same. That never changes. In making a comparison of fingerprints or palmprints, the mechanics are exactly the same.

First to look for what might be considered as points which are easy to see to the fingerprint man.

Representative FORD. May I ask first was the lift a good print for technical purposes?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; to the extent that the identification was made. There is no question as to the identity.

Now, insofar as quality is concerned, I believe that is what you have in mind, we don't, in fingerprint circles, don't say that this is a good latent as compared to a bad latent. If it is valuable for purposes of identification, so far as we are concerned it is good.

Now, that may not appear to the inexperienced eye possibly as being as clear as some of those others which you have already seen, but for the purpose of identification the points are here. That is the main thing.

Now, in making the comparison here it is easy to see the inked print. There is very little question here. This print was made on purpose for purposes of recording the ridges. This was made more or less incidental or possibly accidental.

Mr. DULLES. How does the left one differ? I thought you told us before it was 10 times.

Mr. LATONA. No; those were the others.

Mr. DULLES. That was the fingerprint that was 10 times?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. And the palm has always been eight times?

Mr. LATONA. That is right, because of the fact to make it 10 times it would have been enlarged to the extent that maybe you wouldn't be able to see the significance as to what it purports to be.

If you enlarge a fingerprint too much, it loses its identity. I have seen them where they were enlarged so big that you couldn't tell what they were, and if somebody would tell you it is a fingerprint you would say, if you say so it is, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Now, in some other sciences, for example, like handwriting and things of that kind, you can enlarge them pretty good size, typewriting and things of that type, but a fingerprint because of the poorness in contrast plus the fact that in themselves these black marks have no particular significance, they might lose their identity, you won't reconcile a palmprint with a palmprint.

So, actually for purposes of making comparisons we never make a comparison from an enlargement. The best way to make a comparison, the more complete, is to make it from the actual size, utilizing a regular fingerprint glass which enlarges approximately four diameters.

We would never think of enlarging the prints for purposes of making our initial comparison. We make them on the basis of the actual size, just like you see it here, utilizing a fingerprint, which gives you a better picture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Fingerprint glass, you mean?

Mr. LATONA. Fingerprint glass, because you get a much better view of the impression than you do where it is enlarged because in enlarging you have a tendency to distort the dissimilarities, to exaggerate what may be considered as dissimilarities.

Now, looking at these marks here again, which are very apparent here in the ink print, this No. 1 which is a black line which flows over to the right, then one ridge directly below it and off to the left is this point No. 2. Then by counting down 1, 2, 3, 4 we come to this portion, a short-ending ridge, which is similar to this short-ending ridge in the illustration drawn on the board, is No. 3.

Now, here again the fingerprintman simply mentally says to himself, "If these palmprints were made by the same palm I should be able to find three such points in approximately the same area of this palmprint as was found here."

The manner of isolating the area is by virtue of the fact that you see this looping formation, the looping formation is right in here, rather vague but it is there.

Looking in that approximate area, you notice faintly this black line that comes over to this area and stops at the point there. Now, is this point No. 1 the same as this point No. 1? If it is, then there should be a point No. 2 in the latent print which is in the same relative position as point No. 2 occurs in the ink print. By looking in such a position by this one ridge removed and to the left, there is this point No. 2.

Then looking down to point No. 3, we notice one, two, three, four, there is this so-called short-ending ridge which to me shows up very clearly here in the enlargement of the latent print.

Point No. 4 is this black line which is coming toward point No. 3, and right within the same area or line, there is point No. 4.

Point No. 5 is picked up in this position over here, which is another one of these short-ending ridges. It is removed by one ridge or rather to the left of point No. 6 as is seen here.

Then we pick up point No. 7, which is this point showing a cluster of ridge formation here.

Point No. 8 is tied in. You can tie in point No. 8 to point No. 4, point No. 5 to point No. 7, and that coincides with point No. 8 here. In that way we pick up point No. 9, showing the relationship of one, two, three and over here one, two, three, always the same formation, the same general area, the same relationship to each other. In that way we pick up point No. 10, point No. 11, and point No. 12, which have exactly the same formation.

Here is point No. 10 coming this way, point No. 11 going that way, these two ridges are in between. It checks perfectly. The same way with point No. 12 which is just below point No. 11, and having the same relationship to point No. 10, the same general areas, identically the same type of characteristics, and exactly the same relationship to each other.

On the basis of those points, the obvious conclusion to an experienced fingerprintman is simply that the same palm made both of these prints. Only one palm could have made it, and that palm is the one which is alleged to be of Lee Harvey Oswald, his right palm.

Representative BOGGS. Is it true that every fingerprint of each individual on earth is different?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; that is my sincere belief. I say that not only on earth but all those that have died before and all those to come. There will never be duplication.

Mr. DULLES. The same is true of palmprints, isn't it?

Mr. LATONA. Absolutely; yes, sir; fingerprints and palmprints and footprints.

Representative BOGGS. Can they be distorted, destroyed?

Mr. LATONA. They can be destroyed in the sense that----

Representative BOGGS. Cut your finger off, that is right?

Mr. LATONA. Sure, you can cut your finger off. You can resort to what is known as--they can be transferred. You can slice off a pattern from one finger and place it on another but you will see the scar. They can have what is known as surgical planing.

Representative BOGGS. That is what I was thinking about.

Mr. LATONA. That can be done, too.

Representative BOGGS. What happens then?

Mr. LATONA. What happens is that you lose the ridge area and you will simply have a scar. There will be no more pattern. Now, the pattern is formed by what are known as dermal papilla, which is below the epidermis or outer layer of skin. As long as you only injure the outer surface the ridge formation will grow back exactly the same as it was before. If you get down to the dermal papilla, which lay like this----

Mr. EISENBERG. You are drawing an illustration on the board which shows short, broad, downward strokes.

Mr. LATONA. If you destroy or injure these to the extent that there is actual bleeding, you will get a permanent scar.

Fingerprints can be destroyed or scarred in such a fashion that we would not be able to successfully classify them.

Mr. DULLES. Do criminals do that?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; they do. We have had one case, probably the most successful was known as the so-called Roscoe Pitts case. This was a fugitive who in order to avoid identification went to an unscrupulous doctor who performed an operation and he did so by virtue of first cutting five slits on one side of his chest. Then he removed the pattern areas, what we call the pattern areas, which would consist of removal of the whole core area down to the delta area, sliced that off.

Representative BOGGS. How much would that be?

Mr. LATONA. He would literally have to draw blood. He would have to get down and just slice that off completely. He did that with five fingers. Then he taped the five fingers to the side of his chest and he kept them there for about 2 weeks. The same procedure was gone through with the other hand, and at the end of that time they were taken down and bound up individually. When they finally healed, all he has now is scar tissue for his pattern areas; but all we did in order to identify him was to drop down to the second joint. We made the identification from the second joint.

Now, at that particular time----

Representative BOGGS. After all that business.

Mr. LATONA. It didn't do him any good. Literally, the easiest person in our files to identify is Roscoe Pitts. He is the only one that has scar patterns like that. As soon as they see anything like that, everybody that knows anything about our files knows--Roscoe Pitts.

Representative BOGGS. Develop, if you will, please, that point that no two human beings ever have similar prints. Why is that, in your opinion?

Mr. LATONA. Well, earlier we went through a case which we have in the FBI, in which we literally have compared millions, millions of single prints with a fragmentary latent print which we developed on a demand note in a kidnapping case, one of our major kidnapping cases which occurred back in 1937, and we have compared this fragmentary print.

Now, ordinarily in fingerprints there are four basic pattern types. You have an arch, tented arch, a loop, and a whorl.

Now in making a comparison, naturally if you can tell the type of pattern you are going to restrict your comparison to the particular type.

In this instance we cannot tell what type of pattern this fragment that we developed is. We know that it is from a finger. And in attempting to identify the subject of this kidnapping case, we have compared it literally with millions of cards.

Now, existing in this fragmentary print there are only about seven to eight points that can be found, it is so fragmentary. We cannot determine the pattern. Accordingly then, when you compare it, you have to compare it with a person's 10 fingers regardless as to the pattern types. Bearing in mind that the average fingerprint has from 85 to 125 points--identifying characteristics--we have literally made millions of comparisons with only a portion of a finger, and we have failed to identify these 8 points in all types of patterns.

Isn't it sufficient to say then that people simply will not have the same fingerprints? Yet you have authorities, so-called authorities, who say that it is possible to find all 10 prints duplicated in 1 chance out of 1 followed by 60 zeros, if you can figure out what that figure is.

Representative BOGGS. Who are these authorities?

Mr. LATONA. They are really in my opinion mathematicians who on the basis of the so-called characteristic points have said 5 points times 125 times 125 times 125 to about the 10th power and wind up something like 1 followed by 60 zeros. They are mathematicians but they are not fingerprint people.

Mr. DULLES. What is your card system like? If this is too confidential I don't want to get anything in the record here that is too secret.

We can take it off the record.

Mr. LATONA. Nothing is secret about our files.

Mr. DULLES. How many characteristics do you file on a card so that when you find these characteristics you can go to the right cabinet and the right filing drawer and then pull out the right card in time?

Mr. LATONA. Literally they can break down into hundreds of thousands of groups.

Representative BOGGS. How many do you have on file?

Mr. LATONA. We have the fingerprints of 77-1/2 million people?

Representative BOGGS. That includes all of those who were in the Army, Navy----

Mr. LATONA. 15 million criminals and about 62.5 million what we call civil. I explained earlier that our files consist of two main files, it is criminal files and the civil files. In the civil files are the fingerprints of individuals, those prints that we have retained, who have been fingerprinted in connection with some civil affair like the services, for example, security, sensitive jobs, all types of applicants, alien registrations. Then we also will accept the fingerprints of just a private citizen who would like to have his prints on record for simply identification purposes.

They are in the category of 62.5 million. Criminal prints, 15 million.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative FORD. I have to leave, Mr. Dulles, will you take over as Chairman for the rest of the time that you can be here?

Mr. DULLES. I will do so.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question which is not particularly pertinent to this particular witness, but how many prints on various things like these boxes and other paraphernalia that the Commission may now have in its possession have been identified as those of Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. Six all told.

Representative BOGGS. Six altogether?

Mr. LATONA. Six.

Representative BOGGS. That includes these?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Representative BOGGS. How many, three?

Mr. LATONA. Three so far.

Mr. DULLES (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). You have dealt with three so far?

Mr. EISENBERG. Three so far. We should modify this. We are only introducing this morning evidence associated with the crime, directly with the crime. Now, there were many papers submitted to the identification division. I believe you did identify----

Mr. LATONA. Personal effects, wallet, pictures, papers, and things of that kind which in themselves bear Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask another question in this connection. A weapon of this type, in your examination do you find a lot of other prints on it as well? You do not?

Mr. LATONA. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that----

Representative BOGGS. Is what?

Mr. LATONA. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.

Representative BOGGS. Was this weapon picked up first by the police?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Did anyone touch it as far as you know?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, no. It was picked up by a police officer attached to the Dallas police force first.

Mr. DULLES. It came to you directly then from the Dallas police and not through the Secret Service?

Mr. LATONA. No; the FBI turned it over to me, the Dallas office of the FBI flew it up here.

Representative BOGGS. What I am trying to determine is, the average police officer when he would pick up a weapon of that kind would take steps to secure whatever prints might be on that and also prevent the addition of prints, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. I would assume so.

Representative BOGGS. I mean this is part of his training, isn't it?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; especially if he is--yes; I would say so. That is almost elementary today. There are so many schools today going that an officer that doesn't give some thought to latent fingerprints, he hasn't been to school.

Representative BOGGS. Of course not. But do you have that problem in your normal examination?

Mr. LATONA. Well, a lot of times that all depends. Sometimes they don't realize the significance of a latent examination, and it is unavoidable that an object has been contaminated. And then a lot of times it is simply because of the circumstances. Sometimes possibly in an instance of this kind because of the crime itself which was involved, I dare say there must have been a lot of panic there at that time. That is just pure conjecture on my part. I don't know whether they were thinking in details as to the examination. I don't think they sat down and just figured very calmly what they were going to do.

Representative BOGGS. Of course not.

Mr. LATONA. I imagine everybody just poured into that room where they found the thing, somebody would say, "Was this the gun?" and he handed it to someone else and then he would look at it. Lord knows what went on down there.

By the time the gun got there--on the other hand, if the right officer was there he would have protected it from the beginning and that is unquestionably what happened here.

Mr. DULLES. I have to make a telephone call. I will be right back.

Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that the print showing in the lift was taken from an area which had been covered by the wooden stock so that it was protected even against----

Mr. LATONA. Promiscuous handling, yes. If that were on the underside, if that was covered by the wood then very obviously those people there never did touch that.

Mr. EISENBERG. At any rate, we are going to find out exactly what they did.

Representative BOGGS. Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to elaborate on some questions which Mr. Boggs was asking earlier, Mr. Latona, referring specifically to this weapon, do you believe that a determination could have been made as to the age of the print found on the weapon which you have identified as being Oswald's print, and a lift of which is Exhibit No. 637?

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.

Mr. EISENBERG. You don't?

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are experts unanimous in this opinion?

Mr. LATONA. No; they are not. There are some experts who contend that they can determine from the way the print develops, and they will use the term "fresh."

Now, on the other hand, so far as the definition of "fresh," then it resolves itself into an hour, a day, a week, a month. What is "fresh" as aside from an "old" one? And my opinion simply is this. That on the basis of the print itself, on the basis of the print itself I cannot determine how old it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. At least specifically on this type, or in particular focusing on this type of weapon?

Mr. LATONA. Particularly on that weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 139?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on Exhibit 139, Commissioner Boggs, I will move on to another exhibit.

Mr. Latona, I hand you now a small cardboard carton which has written on it "Box A" in red pencil and has various other marks which I won't go into, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this box, this carton?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this carton, Mr. Latona, to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints present?

Mr. LATONA. I did not personally process this box, but I was present at the time that the box was, and I had occasion to examine that during the course of its being processed while it was being done.

Mr. EISENBERG. It was processed in your presence?

Mr. LATONA. In my presence and under my direction.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like this admitted as a Commission exhibit with your permission.

Representative BOGGS. It will be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 641.

(The box referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 641, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, when you received this box which is now 641, did it bear any evidence that it had been dusted or otherwise tested for fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. No; it had not, just a plain cardboard box.

Mr. EISENBERG. So far as you could tell then it had not been?

Mr. LATONA. That is right; it had not been processed.

Mr. EISENBERG. How was it processed in the FBI laboratory?

Mr. LATONA. First by the iodine fume and subsequently by chemical means.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the iodine fume develop any identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. It did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the chemical means?

Mr. LATONA. The silver nitrate did develop a latent fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one?

Mr. LATONA. A latent fingerprint; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one identifiable print?

Mr. LATONA. One identifiable print; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to check your notes on that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. There was another print identified on that. There were two prints, one palmprint. There was developed on Box A, Exhibit No. 641, one palmprint and one fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were those the only identifiable prints, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. No; there were other fingerprints developed on this box.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many there were?

Mr. LATONA. On Box A, in addition to these two prints there were developed eight fingerprints and three palmprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, a total of 13?

Mr. LATONA. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Thirteen identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. Could I just get caught up. What is this box we have here?

Mr. EISENBERG. This is a box which was found near the window in the TSBD from which the assassin apparently fired, that is, the easternmost window or the south face of the TSBD. Yesterday, cartridge cases--and the day before--cartridge cases were discussed which were also found near that window. This box is labeled on there, I believe----

Mr. LATONA. "A."

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; and I think it also says "top box": yes; it says "top box."

Mr. DULLES. This is the "Rolling Reader?"

Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. The Rolling Reader has played quite a role in our testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; now, this particular box is labeled "top box," and I believe this particular box was on the top of the three boxes, two of which were Rolling Reader boxes, which were found near the window and which may have been used as a rest by the assassin for his rifle.

Mr. DULLES. As I recall, previous testimony indicates that the Rolling Reader box had been moved from its normal place----

Mr. EISENBERG. Apparently so.

Mr. DULLES. With the other Rolling Reader boxes, and put in a position near the window from which it was alleged the shot was fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Apparently so, and, apart from the two boxes--the two Rolling Reader boxes which were found near the sixth floor window--the regular storage area for the Rolling Reader boxes was a distance away from the sixth floor window.

Mr. DULLES. Yes; I recall that testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. LATONA. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. And whose prints were they?

Mr. LATONA. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the palm?

Mr. LATONA. The palmprint was identified also as Harvey Lee Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again you used, did you, the known print which was marked into evidence earlier?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you used those in all your identifications, I believe?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, can you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald is reproduced on this box, this carton 641, as a latent print?

Mr. LATONA. I have here a photograph of the palmprint which has an area indicated by a rough red circle showing the approximate area, which is the ulnar area of the left palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the area closest to the little finger?

Mr. LATONA. On that side; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is a true photograph which was prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. A true reproduction of the original, which you already have.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 642, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question. Apparently the red mark on this exhibit on the palm is in a different place, isn't it, a slightly different place?

Mr. LATONA. It is a different palm. This is the left palm.

Mr. EISENBERG (addressing Mr. Dulles). This is the left palm. The other two are right palms.

Mr. DULLES. Good, that straightens me out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Actually they were both on the ulnar side of the palm?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they were both taken on what is commonly called the heel of the palm?

Mr. DULLES. This is a different hand. This is the left hand, and what we have had so far is the right hand on the palmprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. LATONA. Previously we had two palmprints on the right hand. This third one is from the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. May this photograph be admitted as 642, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. This will be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 642, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do you have another photograph in your hand there?

Mr. LATONA. Here I have another photograph, a slight enlargement time and a half, which is a latent palmprint found on the cardboard box marked "A," which is the Commission's Exhibit 641. This is indicated by a red arrow.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's hold that just a second and get the photograph admitted.

Representative BOGGS (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Where did these boxes come from?

Mr. EISENBERG. These boxes were located in front of the window from which the assassin apparently fired. There were three boxes stacked immediately in front of the window, of which this Exhibit No. 641 was the topmost box, and these were apparently used as a rest by the assassin for positioning his rifle.

As you can see, there are several other boxes in the room which will be introduced shortly.

Mr. DULLES. I may say that there was testimony, I don't recall whether you were here at the time, about some boxes called Rolling Reader, Hale. Do you recall the testimony on the Rolling Reader?

Representative BOGGS. No.

Mr. DULLES. These boxes were moved from a place on the sixth floor room where a great many Rolling Reader boxes were placed, and they were put near the window, and a Rolling Reader--apparently these are cubes, and they are for small children and they roll them out on the floor and they learn how to read the letters of the alphabet and other things from these Rolling Readers.

These boxes, because of their nature--do you know what the blocks are made of?

Mr. EISENBERG. No; I don't.

Mr. DULLES. They weren't solid wood but they were light cubes and therefore presumably these boxes were moved because they were a good deal lighter and easier to handle than other boxes. Is that consistent with the testimony as you recall it?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. Were they full when you got them?

Mr. EISENBERG. You will have to ask Mr. Latona.

Mr. LATONA. They were empty. They had been opened and the books removed or the contents, whatever it was.

Mr. DULLES. The contents were apparently these cubes, as we were told, and small children use them and roll them on the floor and then they got the A's and the B's and the C's.

Representative BOGGS. In the opening process, this would not have any effect on the fingerprints or the palmprints?

Mr. LATONA. It could. I mean in the sense that somebody else's prints, the people opening them if they didn't take the time and effort to protect themselves, they could have left their prints there. I don't know how that was done.

Mr. DULLES. Do you recall whether the testimony shows whether the boxes were presumably filled when they were originally moved from their normal place in the Book Depository to the window?

Mr. EISENBERG. I think they were, although I haven't read the testimony.

Mr. DULLES. I am not sure there is testimony on that point but I think that is the general assumption.

Mr. EISENBERG. Based on reproduction photographs we have seen----

Mr. LATONA. That is the understanding that we have, that this was the depository for new material. I think there was new material in these boxes. They were simply stored there.

Representative BOGGS. They wouldn't have acted as a very good rest had they been empty.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.

Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph of the latent palmprint admitted as 643?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 643, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you show us where on the box, the box 641, this latent palmprint appears?

Mr. LATONA. The latent palmprint appears on box A, Commission's Exhibit 641. It has been indicated by a red arrow.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you mark that arrow with an "A"?

Mr. LATONA. The red arrow is being marked "A."

Mr. EISENBERG. That points to the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald--identified by you as being Lee Harvey Oswald's, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs and Mr. Murray are looking at the actual print marked "A," or marked with an arrow next to which is written the letter "A."

Mr. MURRAY. I see what appears to be a print; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs?

Mr. DULLES. I also see what appears to be a print.

Representative BOGGS. I see the same thing.

Mr. DULLES. And it is too big in my opinion to be a fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG (addressing Mr. Latona). Did you prepare a photograph also of the fingerprint which appears on this box----

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. 641, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is this a true photograph of that fingerprint?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 644?

Mr. DULLES. This is a fingerprint now?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; which also appears on the box that Mr. Latona just testified as to, 641.

Mr. DULLES. Has he identified what fingerprint?

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you testify that this was the fingerprint----

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify this fingerprint as belonging to a given individual?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that individual was?

Mr. LATONA. Lee Harvey Oswald, and it is the right index fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman----

Mr. DULLES. The right index finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 644.

Mr. DULLES. Admitted.

(The fingerprint referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 644, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You also have a photograph of a 10-finger card showing that print encircled?

Mr. LATONA. I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. It is a red circle, and you are handing that to me now?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 645?

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 645, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What portion of the finger of Lee Harvey Oswald does that print represent?

Mr. LATONA. It represents what is referred to as the distal phalanx of the right index finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the phalanx or the tip furthest away from the wrist?

Mr. LATONA. The palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. Or from the palm?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a full or partial print of the distal phalanx?

Mr. LATONA. That is a partial print.

Mr. EISENBERG. And does it take on the center, or the ulnar or the radial portion of the phalanx?

Mr. LATONA. No, that takes actually the central portion of the print.

Mr. EISENBERG. The central portion?

Mr. LATONA. The so-called pattern area is disclosed by the latent print.

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us, Mr. Latona, on 641, where the fingerprint impression that you have just identified is?

Mr. LATONA. That appears on one of the ends of the box indicated by a red arrow.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that arrow, "B"?

Mr. LATONA. Marked "B."

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Dulles, would you care to take a look at that?

Mr. LATONA. Here you are going to see several clear prints but it is only one that we have identified, and that is the one directly under the arrow.

Mr. DULLES. I see four there, or five.

Mr. LATONA. It is the little one here in the middle, right here.

Mr. DULLES. Is it this one here, right there?

Mr. LATONA. No; the one next to it.

Mr. DULLES. That one there?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. What are all these other fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. They are all other fingerprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. There were a total of 13 identifiable prints on the box, did you say?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Those are not Oswald's prints.

Representative BOGGS. Those may have been other people opening the box?

Mr. DULLES. The box was carried around probably.

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. When it was first put there and moved.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put your finger on that box, Mr. Latona, in the way that the finger was placed?

Mr. DULLES. How do you think he was carrying that box?

Mr. LATONA. I don't know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your finger now placed in the way the finger was placed to create the impression? It is pointing with the fingernail towards the arrow and in the same line as the arrow, with just the tip of the finger on the box.

Mr. DULLES. Everybody seems to have held that box.

Mr. LATONA. It is a little one right there.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Murray, do you want to take a look?

Representative BOGGS. You have not identified any of these others?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that Commissioners Dulles and Boggs and Mr. Murray are looking at that fingerprint, and have apparently satisfied themselves----

Mr. MURRAY. The portion shown to me appears to be part of a fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. They have satisfied themselves that the print is on the box.

Now, therefore, to recapitulate: You found on this carton 641 the left palmprint and the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. One other thing. Getting back to the palmprint, marked "A," could you show us how a hand would lie to produce that print?

Mr. LATONA. In the position of the palm pointing towards the arrow.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pointing towards the arrow, that is, in the opposite direction that the arrow points?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. But in the same line as the arrow. Your hand is parallel with the line but covering that completely?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And although it covers it, I would say that the arrow would fall in the midline of the palm, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, did you prepare a chart showing some of the points which led you to the conclusion that the latent palmprint found on 641 was identical with the inked palmprint submitted to you by the Dallas police?

Mr. LATONA. I had charts prepared; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. These were prepared under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. They were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that chart admitted as 646?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 646, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. LATONA. Approximately eight times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the magnification equal on both sides?

Mr. LATONA. Both sides; the inked palmprint and latent palmprint both the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true of all of the charts that you have submitted and will be submitting this morning?

Mr. LATONA. That is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you point out some of these points? I think in the interest of time it would be better if you took several of the points instead of all 13 points you have marked.

Mr. LATONA. I believe you will find this will be a little bit more difficult to see in view of the fact that the ridge formations are cut up a little bit more. However----

Mr. DULLES. Would you put that over there. You have identified 13 points of similarity?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; 13 have been drawn but there are quite a few others.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have marked 13 in other words, is that it, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Sir?

Mr. EISENBERG. You have marked 13?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. On this exhibit?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Here, for example, is an easy one to show up, this point No. 1 as compared to point No. 1 here, and its relationship to point No. 2, the relationship of point No. 2 to point No. 3.

Looking over here we find that there is a relationship between points Nos. 1 and 2, one, two, three, four, five, one, two, three, four, five.

Then there's a relationship of one ridge between point 1--or rather between point 2 and point 3, both points going in the same general direction.

Point No. 3 is below point No. 2. Also the point No. 2 is what is referred to as a short ending ridge. We look over here and we see that point No. 2 is a short ending ridge.

Point No. 3 is below that. Then we notice that there is another point which is one point removed--one ridge removed--from point No. 3 which we have not charted, which shows up very definitely in that position there. Then there is point No. 4, which is another piece of a ridge, point No. 4 here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, when you testify in court do you generally discuss every marked point?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just the more salient points?

Mr. LATONA. Just to give a general idea as to how these comparisons are made, more or less for demonstration purposes, because the actual comparison is the same, the relationship is a determination of the relationship with the others, and just by an examination, that would be borne out if each and every point was gone into in detail.

Mr. EISENBERG. With you permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on to the next chart since we do have witnesses waiting who have to return to New York.

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare a chart, Mr. Latona, of the fingerprint----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which was found on the carton 641?

Mr. LATONA. Here is the chart, which is of the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. They were. The enlargement here is approximately 10 times both in the inked print and in the latent print.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 647?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 647, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you discuss again just a few of the more salient points, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Here, starting first of all with the apparent pattern type itself, it is readily discernible. You can see that these are what we term whorl-type prints. This point No. 1, for example, is a small ridge which terminates at this point which has been indicated by the figure No. 1.

It is related by being joined onto point No. 2, which is the end of the black line going upward. Then one ridge to the left, one ridge removed and to the left and a little bit above is point No. 3. Here the same thing occurs in the inked print.

Point No. 4 is related to point No. 3 by one ridge removed and is upward and one ridge to the left.

Mr. DULLES. And similarly you have identified up to 10 points of similarity?

Mr. LATONA. These you can see rather easily that they appear.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the carton 641 I will move on to another exhibit.

I now hand you a carton, somewhat larger in area than the 641 which we were just discussing, with various markings on it which I won't discuss, but which is marked Box "D" in red pencil at the upper left-hand corner of the bottom of the box.

Are you familiar with this carton, Mr. Latona?

Mr. DULLES. Has that been admitted?

Mr. EISENBERG. It has not so far been admitted.

Mr. LATONA. This Box D, I received this along with Box A for purposes of examining for latent prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that examined by you or under your supervision for that purpose?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. When was that received?

Mr. LATONA. That was received on the 27th of November 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 648?

Mr. DULLES. What date?

Mr. LATONA. 27th.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 5 days after the assassination?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 648?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The box referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 648, and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. Can you identify it in some further way? I think there are some markings on here.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is "Box D." It is a little hard to read. It says "1 40 N TH&DO"----

Mr. DULLES. "New People and Progress."

Mr. EISENBERG. Apparently referring to the name of the textbook. This is not a Rolling Reader carton.

Mr. DULLES. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, when you received this box, could you tell whether it had been previously examined for latent fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. A portion of it had.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what portion had been?

Mr. LATONA. The bottom evidently, because a piece had been cut out.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to a place on the bottom of the box which is to the left of the point at which I have affixed the sticker "Commission Exhibit No. 648," immediately to the left of that point?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that portion of the box given to you?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. With the box?

Mr. LATONA. At the time we got the box.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think I have that.

I now hand you what appears to be a portion of a cardboard carton and a piece of tape with various writings, included among which is "From top of box Oswald apparently sat on to fire gun."

Do you recognize this piece of paper, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, I do. This is a piece of paper that evidently had been cut from the box.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that fit into the box?

Mr. LATONA. It does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 649?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 649.

(The piece of carton referred to was marked commission exhibit no. 649, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you find any identifiable prints on the cardboard carton 648?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; in addition to this one which has been cut out and which had been covered by a piece of lifting tape, there were two fingerprints developed in addition to that one.

Mr. EISENBERG. Two Identifiable Fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Palmprints?

Mr. LATONA. No; they were fingerprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. I mean were there any palmprints?

Mr. LATONA. There were no palmprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you process this box?

Mr. LATONA. By the use of iodine fumes and silver nitrate solution.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find evidence of processing prior to your receipt apart from the exhibit which is now 649?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; this particular area which has been cut out had been processed with powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there powder on other areas of the box?

Mr. LATONA. I don't believe there was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of the prints on the carton 648 as belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. LATONA. The two fingerprints which were developed on commission exhibit 648 by silver nitrate are not identified as anyone's, but the print which appears on the piece which was cut out has been identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 649?

Mr. LATONA. Of exhibit 648--which is exhibit 649----

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. LATONA. Which came from exhibit 648 has been identified as a palmprint of Harvey Lee Oswald, the right palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, can you tell how this was developed, this print on 649?

Mr. LATONA. The appearance is it was developed with black powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. You testified before concerning the aging of fingerprints. Considering the material on which this print was developed, 649, do you think you could form an opinion, any opinion at all, concerning the freshness or staleness of this print?

Mr. LATONA. Bearing in mind the fact that this is an absorbent material, and realizing, of course, that a print when it is left on a material of this type it starts to soak in. Now, the reason that we in the FBI do not use powder is because of the fact that in a short period of time the print will soak in so completely that there won't be any moisture left.

Accordingly when you brush powder across there won't be anything developed.

Under circumstances, bearing in mind that here the box was powdered, and a print was developed with powder, the conclusion is that this is comparatively a fresh print. Otherwise, it would not have developed.

We know, too, that we developed two other fingerprints on this by chemicals. How long a time had elapsed since the time this print was placed on there until the time that it would have soaked in so that the resulting examination would have been negative I don't know, but that could not have been too long.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.

Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?

Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.

Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?

Mr. LATONA. We have run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.

Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. LATONA. Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there--between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

Mr. EISENBERG. You identified that, I believe, as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. What portion of the right palm was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. It happens to be the center part of the palm close to the wrist.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you show how the palm must have lain on the 649, the part of the 648 carton, to produce that print?

Mr. LATONA. It would have been placed on there in this fashion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you are pointing so that your hand is parallel with the long axis of the box, and at right angles to the short axis?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And just the bottom of the palm rests on the box, isn't that correct?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, before going to this fingerprint or this palmprint rather, Mr. Latona, we have palmprints, a palmprint here on this 649, and a finger and a palm on 641, and those are the only identified prints on these two objects.

Is it possible that Lee Harvey Oswald could have touched these two cartons at other places without leaving identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. He could have.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how would that come about?

Mr. LATONA. Simply by the fact that he did not have any material on his finger at the time he touched the box.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you can touch a carton at one point and leave a print, and at another point not, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely, that is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when you say he doesn't have any material, how would that come about? Will he have used his material up, or not produced material with the particular finger?

Mr. LATONA. He could have used it up and failed to produce it fast enough to have left anything at the time he touched that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it uncommon or common for you to find an object which a person has touched more than once but only left one identifiable print?

Mr. LATONA. It is very common.

Mr. EISENBERG. It is common?

Mr. LATONA. Especially in, for example, the reading of a letter, a long letter where the person would run his finger and index finger down the edges. You might find prints at the top and then you don't find any at the bottom.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of course. I am not asking you to draw an inference whether or not Oswald touched the box in more than one place, but I just want to explore whether he could have touched the box in more than one place----

Mr. LATONA. Yes; he could.

Mr. EISENBERG. And not left a second imprint?

Mr. LATONA. He very definitely could have and not left one.

Mr. DULLES. May I add for the record, Commission Exhibit 648 apparently contained books of Scott Foresman and Co., from Scott, Foresman & Co., "Building for Today, Pioneering for Tomorrow."

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you take a photograph of the lift, or the print rather, which we see in 649?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this is an accurate photograph?

Mr. LATONA. It is, it is a true reproduction of the print which appears on Commission Exhibit 649 and it is enlarged about a time and a half.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 650?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 650, for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the known palmprint and make a red circle around it, as you had in previous cases?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. To show what portion of the palm of Oswald that was?

Mr. LATONA. Showing a portion of the right palm.

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

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as 651.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 651, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, Mr. Latona, on 649 there seems to be a scotch tape or cellophane tape over the fingerprint, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, apparently there was no attempt at a lift being made here?

Mr. LATONA. No. This evidently was a print which was developed directly on the paper itself. The employing of that adhesive material like scotch tape was to protect the print itself.

Had they tried to lift that up I am afraid they would have spoiled that because they would have lifted the fibers of the cardboard along with it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that why, you think, they didn't lift it?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, did the Dallas police take photographs of the lift which we had earlier, the lift which was apparently taken from Exhibit 139, or to put the question--actually I am not interested in whether they took photographs of the lift; do you know whether they took photographs of the print?

Mr. LATONA. I don't know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it normal to take a photograph of a print before it is lifted?

Mr. LATONA. If it is fairly visible, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the purpose of the lift, as opposed to a photograph reproducing the print?

Mr. LATONA. The purpose of the lift is simply to insure the probability of getting a good record of the print, because a lot of times when you photograph a print, you have to go through the process of having it developed and then printed and at the same time by lifting it you may, that would be an additional security that you are getting the best results.

Then you take your choice as to which result turns out the best.

Mr. EISENBERG. So these are alternative routes?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Lifting and photographing?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Well, primarily our recommendation in the FBI is simply every procedure to photograph and then lift. Then you choose the one which you feel gives you the best results in your final photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the palmprint on 649, taken from the carton 648, did you make up a chart showing some of the points----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which led you to your conclusion that that print was the print of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, I did.

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

Mr. LATONA. Prepared by me--under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this chart admitted as 652?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Exhibit 652.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 652, for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, without going into detail, Mr. Latona, could you show us some of the more salient points which led you to your conclusion that the print on 649 was the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. The easiest points visible here, right offhand, point No. 11 which is a black line that goes upward and its relationship to point No. 10. This is known as the short ending ridge as is seen here. Its relation to point No. 8. Point No. 11 is a black line going upward. Point No. 8 is a black line going downward and there are one, two, three, ridges which are between the two. Over here in the latent print you find No. 11 which is a black line going upward. It is a short line to the other end of the point No. 10, and three ridges intervene between that and point No. 8, which is going downward.

One ridge to the right and going in an upward direction is point No. 7--7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Mr. DULLES. And you identified 11 points of similarity?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. Between the inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald and this palmprint taken from this cardboard carton?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. What is this white line that goes up through each?

Mr. LATONA. This is a crease in the center of the palm, a flexure crease of that area.

Mr. DULLES. The palm did not touch the carton at that point?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. And those two creases are in approximately the same location in the photograph and in the latent palmprint?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, I now hand you two further cartons, which are labeled Box B and Box C, the B box being a 10 Rolling Reader, and the C box being also a Scott, Foresman box with printing on the back, "The Three Pre-primers," apparently the name of the book contained in this box.

Mr. DULLES. Primers.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you examine Box B, which I have handed to you, to determine whether it had on it any identifiable latent fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like that box admitted as 653.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 653 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?

Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?

Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.

(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?

Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive cartons 653 and 654?

Mr. LATONA. I received cartons 653 and 654 November 27.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, with the earlier cartons, Boxes A and D, which have received Commission exhibit numbers?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Had they been processed? Could you tell whether they had been processed for latent fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. I couldn't tell whether they had been or not.

Mr. EISENBERG. You could not tell?

Mr. LATONA. Could not tell. They had the appearance of not having been processed.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you process them in your laboratory, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Iodine fumes and chemicals.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the prints react to the iodine fumes at all?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to the chemicals?

Mr. LATONA. The silver nitrate prints which were developed.

Mr. DULLES. Do you mean that the prints were of such a caliber and character that you couldn't make anything out of them, or that you couldn't identify them with any known----

Mr. LATONA. They are not identical with those that they have been compared with.

Mr. DULLES. But the prints themselves were perfectly good prints?

Mr. LATONA. Oh, yes; the prints are good but they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. EISENBERG. At any subsequent time have you attempted to identify any of these prints on the boxes as belonging to any person other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how did you proceed with this attempt?

Mr. LATONA. An effort was made to locate the fingerprints of all people employed in that building in which these cartons were found, on the basis of the names and birth dates which were furnished, and we located the fingerprints of 16 of those people who work in that building.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. LATONA. And the fingerprints of those 16 employees were compared with all of the latent prints which were developed on these boxes. They do not belong to any of those 16 people.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask for my information here, Mr. Eisenberg, were all of these cartons, including the last two admitted in evidence, were they found in the general area of the sixth floor of the building from which it is believed the shot was fired?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; Mr. Chairman. I believe that the two boxes which were just admitted into evidence as 653 and 654 were two of the three boxes which were apparently used as a rest by the assassin. They were apparently either the two bottom boxes, or there might have been an arrangement such as that one was stacked on top of the other, and the box earlier admitted into evidence was some evidence of that.

Mr. DULLES. And in any event, does our evidence indicate that these boxes were moved from their normal position on the sixth floor to a new position near the window?

Mr. EISENBERG. Again I believe it does indicate that at least the 10 Rolling Reader carton was moved. There was some other movement of boxes that morning, and I think they are still in the process of tracing down all of the movements.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have a letter, Mr. Latona, from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Rankin, the general counsel of our Commission, setting forth the names of the employees of the TSBD whose prints were compared in this recent attempt you mentioned. Would you recognize the names?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I would because I believe that report is based on my report.

Mr. EISENBERG. If I read the name could you verify whether these individuals were the ones whose prints you checked out against the latents?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Haddon Spurgeon Aiken?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Jack Charles Cason?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Warren Cason?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Jack Edwin Doughterty?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Charles Douglas Givens?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mary Madeline Hollis?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. James Earl Jarman?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Spaulden Earnest Jones?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Herbert L. Junker?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Billy Nolan Lovelady?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Joe R. Molina?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Edward Shields?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Joyce Maurine Stansberg?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Roy Sansom Truly?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Lloyd R. Viles?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Troy Eugene West?

Mr. LATONA. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now as I understand it, these employees were not selected because any particular suspicion fell on them, but merely because of all the employees, those were the ones whose cards you knew you had in your files?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And it was just accidental----

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That those employees were picked?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is no inference that there was any suspicion whatsoever attaching to any of these employees?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. We believe all these employees had access to the sixth floor of the building?

Mr. EISENBERG. We are still looking into that question. This is a recent effort on your part?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Is that letter to be admitted as evidence or not?

Mr. EISENBERG. I think not----

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Since I don't think the witness could identify the actual letter.

Mr. DULLES. It will be in the files, though?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; it is a Commission document in the files.

Mr. Latona, I believe that out of the total number of six prints you have identified today as being Lee Harvey Oswald's, four were palmprints, is that correct?

Mr. LATONA. Three.

Mr. EISENBERG. Three?

Mr. LATONA. Three, two rights and one left, three palms and three fingers.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was a palm on----

Mr. LATONA. The bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. A palm on the weapon?

Mr. LATONA. One on the gun and on this box.

Mr. EISENBERG. Four and two then?

Mr. LATONA. Three.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was a palm on each box?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is two palms?

Mr. LATONA. One off the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is three palms, and the palm on the wrapping paper bag. Here is the wrapping paper bag.

Mr. LATONA. One palm and one finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is four palms all together?

Mr. LATONA. Four palms, okay.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that correct?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the proportion of recovered fingerprints here an unusual one in your estimation? That is, we usually hear about fingerprints rather than palmprints, whereas here we have four palm and two finger prints. Is there anything unusual in this?

Mr. LATONA. Well, in that manner there is because--well no, I guess not. It is just as logical to assume that a person will leave a palmprint as a fingerprint. It depends upon primarily the way he handles it. Objects of this type being so large you can probably expect to get a palmprint.

Mr. DULLES. And what he is handling?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. On the other hand, if the object is small there is probably no reason for the palm to touch it. For example, in a rearview mirror; ordinarily on a rearview mirror of these stolen cars we process you get mostly fingerprints.

On the other hand if you get back into the trunk, the chances of something of a large nature, a stolen wheel, or something of that type, you will get finger and palm prints. Cartons like this, where you have to use both hands to pick it up because of its weight, the probability is that you will get a palmprint as well as a fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the same thing be true of a heavy rifle?

Mr. LATONA. Sure, very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if the bag contained a heavy object inside?

Mr. LATONA. That is right, it would take more than just the finger area of the hand to hold on to it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you prepare at my request a series of photographs for transmission by me to the New York City Police Department--photographs of finger and palm prints found on some of the evidence we have been looking at?

Mr. LATONA. I furnished you photographs of all of the remaining unidentified latent prints from these cartons.

Mr. EISENBERG. And also did you furnish me a photograph--just of the remaining unidentified prints?

Mr. LATONA. No; including the ones which I identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also furnish me with a photograph of the two prints you identified--which parenthetically were the only two identifiable prints--on the brown wrapping paper bag?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is Exhibit 142. And of the lift from the weapon 139?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you also furnished me with photographs of the finger and palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. As transmitted to you by the Dallas office of the FBI?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify these as the photographs you furnished to me?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you identified the envelope marked "two photos Box D"?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted as 655?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 655 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. I think there ought to be some cross-identification inside the envelope. Because obviously if you take that envelope and put anything in it, we ought to have the others identified properly.

Mr. EISENBERG. There are two photographs within this. Let the record show there are two photographs within this envelope, marked "7" and "13," and I believe these are the only photographs so marked. Each photograph is marked with an individual number, so these are the only two photographs in the entire set marked "7" and "13."

Mr. DULLES. Excellent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now I have an envelope marked "10 photos Box A." Have you identified these photographs Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have these photographs admitted as group 656?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be.

(Commission Exhibit No. 656 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. How many enclosures in that?

Mr. EISENBERG. There are 10 enclosures and numbered as follows: 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.

Mr. DULLES. There is no 33?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit----

Mr. EISENBERG. 656.

Mr. DULLES. That is 656 with the enclosures as noted and identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have here photographs--an envelope--labeled "Photographs, Fingerprints, and Palmprints, Lee Harvey Oswald." These are accurate reproductions?

Mr. LATONA. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will later put subnumbers on these.

Mr. DULLES. Seven numbers with seven enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; three enclosures.

Mr. DULLES. With three enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. And I will number the 10-print card--first may I have the envelope with the photographs admitted as 657?

Mr. DULLES. The envelope shall be admitted with----

Mr. EISENBERG. I will subnumber the cards with your permission at a later time.

Mr. DULLES. How many enclosures in it, three?

Mr. EISENBERG. Three. I will subnumber the 10-print card 657-A, the right palm 657-B, and left palm 657-C.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 657-A, 657-B, and 657-C were marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I have an envelope with photos marked "one photo of lift 'underside of gun barrel.'" Is this a photograph which you provided me?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 658, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. 658 with how many enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one.

Mr. DULLES. Just one enclosure.

(Commission Exhibit No. 658 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, an envelope marked "two photos brown bag (wrapping paper)."

This is the two photos, Mr. Latona, which you gave to me?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 659, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 659 with one enclosure in the envelope. Is it one or two?

Mr. EISENBERG. There are two enclosures.

Mr. DULLES. With two in the envelope.

Mr. EISENBERG. One has printing on it and with your permission I will mark that "659-A," and the other has no printing and I will mark it "659-B."

Mr. DULLES. It will be so admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 659-A and 659-B were marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now an envelope marked "eight photos Box B." This is, Mr. Latona, the photographs you provided me?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as Exhibit 660, Mr. Chairman, collectively?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 660 with----

Mr. EISENBERG. With eight enclosures----

Mr. DULLES. Eight enclosures.

Mr. EISENBERG. Marked "15"--the next one has 17 scratched out and also 18 appearing on it--19 for the third enclosure, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Mr. DULLES. With the numbers as indicated in the record.

(Commission Exhibit No. 660 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. And finally an envelope of the same size, marked "three photos, Box C." Mr. Latona, these are the photos you gave me?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have these admitted as 661, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Exhibit 661, with how many enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. There are three enclosures.

Mr. DULLES. And the three enclosures; are they identified in any way?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; they are subnumbered 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. DULLES. With the subnumbers 10, 11 and 12.

(Commission Exhibit No. 661 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Are all these photographs accurate reproductions of the prints appearing on the objects whose name is on the front of the envelope in which the photographs are stored?

Mr. LATONA. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. They were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify by number, Mr. Latona, the photographs of box A which contain prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. I will have to do it in a negative fashion and tell you that it is not 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, or 35.

Mr. EISENBERG. Then it would be No. 25 which is in that sequence?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you mention 34?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. So 34 would also be an identified print in that sequence?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you print anything on the back of these photographs, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. At the time I gave you the photographs I marked nothing on them.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that any printing here would have been put on subsequent to the time you prepared them?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Referring specifically to a photograph I take at random, which is No. 35, is this your handwriting?

Mr. LATONA. It is not.

Mr. EISENBERG. None of the printing appearing on the back of that photograph?

Mr. LATONA. It is not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record state that, as will be dealt with later, this printing was put on by Mr. Mandella of the New York Police Department. Now in the case of box D, of which there are two photographs, 7 and 13, could you state which was the photograph of Oswald's print?

Mr. LATONA. Thirteen.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to reiterate, in no case did you put writing on the back of these photographs?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did anyone else in the FBI examine the objects which you have been discussing today----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald appeared on them?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was that person's name?

Mr. LATONA. His name is Ronald G. Wittmus.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was his examination conducted independently of yours?

Mr. LATONA. It was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who conducted the examination first?

Mr. LATONA. In the case of the wrapping paper, I did. In the case of the boxes I believe he did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the rifle?

Mr. LATONA. I conducted the examination of the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. The lift from the rifle?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; directly.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the----

Mr. LATONA. Brown wrapping paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. In any case when you conducted your examination first did you tell Wittmus of your conclusions?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. When Mr. Wittmus conducted his examination first did he tell you of his conclusions?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were his conclusions the same as yours?

Mr. LATONA. Ultimately, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "ultimately"?

Mr. LATONA. When the whole thing was completed.

Mr. DULLES. There was no difference of views between you at any stage?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone who examined these various objects--as to which you have testified--in the FBI laboratory come to a conclusion different from the one you did?

Mr. LATONA. They did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any identifications of fingerprints as being Lee Harvey Oswald's in addition to the ones which you have given us?

Mr. LATONA. There were a number of identifications effected with latent prints developed on personal effects.

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; on the material you have testified as to today.

Mr. LATONA. No; there were no others.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were any prints found--were the three fragmentary prints found on the rifle, which were not sufficient for purposes of identification, in any way inconsistent with the prints of Oswald which you found?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely, no. I might point out that actually what was visible was consistent, in the sense that even though there were no ridge formations available for purposes of making a positive conclusion, the indications were that the pattern types were there, were consistent with the pattern types which were on the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. As far as you know the conclusions of the Texas police authorities who examined these objects, were your conclusions the same as theirs, or was there any differences between you on this subject?

Mr. LATONA. Frankly, I don't know what there conclusion was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. Have you any questions, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I have not.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Latona. You have been very helpful. I have learned a great deal myself.

Mr. LATONA. Thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR MANDELLA, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. JOSEPH A. MOONEY, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Mandella, will you raise your right hand.

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

Mr. MANDELLA. I do.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, could you give us your full name and position?

Mr. MANDELLA. Arthur Mandella. I am a detective on the New York Police Department and I work at the bureau of criminal identification in that department.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly outline your qualifications as a fingerprint identification expert, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. In 1945 to 1948 I was a fingerprint technician in the U.S. Navy. My principal duties were the classification and filing of fingerprints, the developing and photographing of latent fingerprints found at crime scenes, the comparison of latent fingerprints with suspects, and the searching of fingerprint files in general.

From 1948 to 1953 I was employed by the U.S. Government as a criminal investigator. However, my principal duties were the lifting and developing and identification of latent fingerprints, also the preparation of fingerprint exhibits for court presentation. From 1955 to the present I have been employed by the New York Police Department and assigned to the bureau of criminal identification as a fingerprint technician and performing the same duties that I just outlined. During these past 17 years I have been examining not only fingerprints but palmprints and infant footprints as well.

I graduated from the following fingerprint schools: in 1945, the U.S. Naval Air Station; in 1948 I graduated from the Institute of Applied Sciences, which is a fingerprint school, fingerprint and identification school; in 1955 I graduated from the New York Police Fingerprint School at the police academy; and in 1958 I attended an advanced latent fingerprint course conducted by the FBI at the New York Police Academy.

I am a fingerprint instructor for the New York Police Department Bureau of Criminal Identification and lecture at various hospitals relative to the proper techniques involved in footprinting the newborn.

I am a qualified fingerprint expert and have testified in New York State and Federal courts, including court-martials, relative to all phases of fingerprints, palmprints, and footprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you venture a guess as to how many identifications you have been called upon to make in the course of your work?

Mr. MANDELLA. General identifications, I suppose, it runs into many thousands. It is hard to pick a number. But it is certainly well into the thousands of examinations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be permitted to testify as an expert witness on the subject of fingerprints?

Mr. DULLES. Yes; he may.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, did you at my request examine certain photographs of latent prints and compare them with photographs of inked or known prints to determine whether there were identities between the known and latent prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibits 656, 658, 659, 655, 657, 661, and 660. Could you briefly look through these and determine whether these are the photographs which you examined? As you finish an item, could you take a look at the Commission number and verify that you looked at the photographs in that Commission envelope?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I have examined the photographs contained in Commission Exhibit No. 656.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you would just state the number, in each case, in each envelope?

Mr. MANDELLA. In Commission Exhibit 656 there are 10 photos, 10 photographs. And I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 658, which is one photograph. I also examined Commission Exhibit No. 659, which is two photographs. I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 655, which is two photographs. I have examined Commission Exhibit No. 661, which contains three photographs. I have examined Commission Exhibit No. 660, which contains eight photographs. I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 657, which contains three photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. 657 contains photographs of inked prints, is that correct?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. The standard 10-finger chart and a right and left palmprint?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you have been informed by me and you see on the writing on these charts are the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any other knowledge that these are the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; none whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining prints are photographs of what you would call latent prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make markings on the backs of these prints, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; on quite a few of them I did. However, not all of them.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you made those markings on the basis of--in your own hand printing?

Mr. MANDELLA. My own hand printing, for certain observations I wanted recorded.

Mr. DULLES. What is the nature of the marking?

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's take a sample. I will pull one out at random from Commission Exhibit 660. The topmost card says "Box B," which corresponds to the label or the envelope 660--and that is No. 17.

Mr. DULLES. Will you show those to the witness and see if he identifies his own writing?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I have made these notations. Yes; I do recognize these.

Mr. EISENBERG. The next one says "Box B" and "Negative--same as box 'D' No. 7."

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have seen these as you flipped through to identify that these are the same photographs?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that these photographs are photographs of latent prints taken by or under the supervision of Mr. Sebastian Latona, and he has just testified that these photographs were taken of objects which were identified earlier in Commission proceedings. Mr. Latona transmitted these photographs to me directly, and I in turn transmitted them to Mr. Mandella and Mr. Mooney, who is also present in this hearing room.

Mr. Mandella, do you know what total number of identifiable latent prints were contained in these exhibits that you just identified--exclusive of 657, which contained the inked or known finger and palm prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; but I have this outline here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just approximately would you say how many identifiable prints there were?

Mr. MANDELLA. Thirty.

Mr. EISENBERG. Some 30 odd prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Some 30.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you identify certain of those prints as being the finger or palm prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us which of those prints you so identified?

Mr. MANDELLA. There was a photograph, a photograph of the underside of the gun barrel, Commission Exhibit No.----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Commission Exhibit No. 658, and I will hand you that photograph now. You are referring to this photograph?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you read the writing on the back of that?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Right palm Oswald underside gun barrel."

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that in your handwriting?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is in my handwriting.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you determine what portion of the right palm that was, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is the right side of the right palm, this area right here.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the ulnar portion?

Mr. MANDELLA. Pardon?

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that sometimes called the ulnar portion?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; the ulnar side, or the small-bone side; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make any other identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give the next one, please?

Mr. MANDELLA. The photo marked "brown bag wrapping paper" Exhibit No.----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 659, and that exhibit contains two photographs which I now hand you, which are marked 659-A and 659-B?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you identify the prints in those photographs?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; on photograph No. 1----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you refer to the print on the back, 659-A or B?

Mr. MANDELLA. On 659-B, as I called it, photo 1, is the No. 7 finger which is the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have a note on the back of that picture?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you read us that?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Left index, Oswald brown bag wrapping paper."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is in your handwriting?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say what portion of the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald that is?

Mr. MANDELLA. It is the bulb of the finger, a little to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, by bulb you mean the central portion of the distal phalanx?

Mr. MANDELLA. The central portion to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the distal phalanx?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; the flesh joint; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And 659-A?

Mr. MANDELLA. Commission Exhibit No. 659, as I call it, photo No. 2, is a palmprint and I identified this as the right side of the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. The right side would again be the ulnar?

Mr. MANDELLA. It would be the ulnar side, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. The little finger side?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. That also has writing on the back of it, does it?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you read that to us?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Right palm, Oswald brown bag wrapping paper."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is in your own handwriting?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any handwriting when you got any of these prints, by the way?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; there wasn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. All the prints were blank on the reverse side?

Mr. MANDELLA. They were blank on the reverse side. There was handwriting within the photographs but not----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the face of the photographs?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you proceed, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Box A, photo No. 25.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Commission Exhibit 656, and I will hand you photo No. 25.

Mr. MANDELLA. What was that number, 656? Numbers 25 and 34.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Nos. 25 and 34. Could you identify No. 25 first Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. No. 25, Commission Exhibit No. 656, contains three identifiable fingerprints, one of which, located in the center in a whorl-type pattern, is the No. 2 finger or the right index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald. The fingerprints on the right and the left do not belong to Lee Harvey Oswald but the one in the center, the whorl-type pattern, is his No. 2 finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is that now again, the right-hand index finger?

Mr. MANDELLA. The No. 2 finger, which is the right index finger, and again the first joint, the bulb of the finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bulb of the distal phalanx?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the right index finger?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. For clarity, where were these taken? What were these taken from?

Mr. EISENBERG. This was taken from box A----

Mr. DULLES. Box A?

Mr. EISENBERG. Which I believe is a 10 rolling reader carton. Is there printing or handwriting on the back of that photograph 25?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you read it to us?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Center impression No. 2 finger Oswald from Box A photo--latent on left unidentified--Photo Nos. 25 and 27 identical--Negative with Oswald unidentified."

Mr. EISENBERG. "Negative with Oswald," are you referring now to two of the three photographs--two of the three prints appearing on the photograph?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, two prints, exactly, the one in the center, of course I am not in reference to the one in the center, which is his. The two on the right and left are unidentified.

Mr. EISENBERG. And No. 34, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. No. 34, Commission Exhibit 656, is a palmprint from the left palm of Lee Harvey Oswald, the left palm section of course, the ulnar side again of the left side of the left palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have a note on the back of that?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I do. "Oswald's left palm--left side."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that again is in your own handwriting, is it Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any other identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there is one more on box D, photo No. 13.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 655, which contains two photographs, and I will extract the photograph labeled "13."

Mr. MANDELLA. Commission Exhibit 655, photo No. 13, the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. The section here is at the heel of the palm in the center.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the center of the palm?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You were just pointing to the lower portion of the palm, which you refer to as the heel?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; this is the portion of Oswald's palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there handwriting or printing on the back of that photograph?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there is. "Right palm--Oswald--heel of hand."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is your handwriting, is it, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you made a total of six identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now when you made these identifications--or, I should say, when you received the photographs and when you made the identifications, did you have any knowledge of any kind as to how many, if any, prints of Oswald's were found among the many impressions which were given to you?

Mr. MANDELLA. I had no idea, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you aware in any way of the conclusions of any other body concerning these impressions?

Mr. MANDELLA. I knew nothing about any examination by anyone.

Mr. EISENBERG. At an unofficial level, had you seen anything in the newspapers which would indicate any information on these?

Mr. MANDELLA. In the newspaper several months ago there was reference to a--I don't even recall whether it was fingerprints or palmprints or both but there was some reference in the newspaper I had seen, and that is all.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is all you recall about it?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is all I recall.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you pay any attention to that in making your identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; it didn't affect me at all, nothing to do with the identifications.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your general attitude toward items you see like this in the newspapers, by the way?

Mr. MANDELLA. In the newspapers? It doesn't mean a thing. Attitude relative to fingerprints?

Mr. EISENBERG. I am trying to determine how far this might influence you in your evaluation, and I wonder as a police officer what your opinion is when you read accounts in newspapers of evidence in crimes.

Mr. MANDELLA. No; it doesn't affect me other than for general information purposes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did I transmit to you any information whatsoever concerning these prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. You did not, other than giving me the photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did I tell you that any of these prints might be Lee Harvey Oswald's?

Mr. MANDELLA. You made no indication as to that it could have been his.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know now, apart from your own identification, have you acquired any information at this point, subsequent to your identification but prior to your appearance here, as to these prints, other than your own identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. I have no knowledge as to what has been done with these prints at all by anyone.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you absolutely sure as to each of these identifications, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. I am positive.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, are you familiar with the contention of some persons that 12 points are needed for identification of finger or palm prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. No I am not, no. Positive identifications are effected by the expert himself; 12 points are not necessary. A sufficient amount determined by the expert is the important factor.

Mr. DULLES. About how many? Have you any test as to how many points?

Mr. MANDELLA. I can't give a definite number, but I'd say in generalities five or six or seven points certainly should be enough, depending on their uniqueness and frequency.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the lowest number to which you have testified in court, Mr. Mandella.

Mr. MANDELLA. The lowest that I can recall I testified to, five points.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there a conviction secured in that case?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there was. Of course, I don't recall if the fingerprint was the thing that caused the conviction, but it was part of the testimony.

Mr. DULLES. In most of these cases where you have made an identification, have there been more than five points of identity?

Mr. MANDELLA. Well, it seems to run between, somewhere between 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and in some cases more. It depends on how much of the finger or palm that you have, how many characteristics are contained in that area.

Mr. DULLES. My question was directed to the specific prints that you have, photographs of prints that you have examined.

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it usually verges on 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. DULLES. In the cases of these identifications that you have made?

Mr. MANDELLA. Oh, no. Some--we have many more characteristics in some of these identifications here today.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think Commissioner Dulles is referring to cases previous to this.

Mr. DULLES. I was referring to both. First I was asking you in general how many do you consider are necessary, and secondly how many did you find in these particular cases that you have examined in the Oswald case?

Mr. MANDELLA. Oh. Would you like me to----

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have that information?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Fine.

Mr. MANDELLA. Of course these characteristics that I point out are the ones that I see and in some cases there is a few more, but these are the ones that are very definite and outstanding.

On the gun barrel, I forget the Commission exhibit number, there was 11 points of identity.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 658?

Mr. MANDELLA. Commission Exhibit 658. There was 11 points of identity on that particular palmprint.

Mr. DULLES. That is exactly what I wanted.

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; now the brown wrapping paper bag, Commission's Exhibit 659----

Mr. EISENBERG. There is 659-A and B here. The one you have marked "left index Oswald"?

Mr. MANDELLA. Is that A?

Mr. EISENBERG. That is what I have marked "B." That is Commission Exhibit 659-B.

Mr. MANDELLA. Then No. 2, 659-A is the palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is marked "right palm"?

Mr. MANDELLA. Right palm, and there is 18 points, 18 characteristics that are very outstanding and in this case possibly more too.

Now in Commission's Exhibit 659-B----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is marked "left index Oswald"?

Mr. MANDELLA. It is the left index finger--Lee Harvey Oswald, there is 11 points of identity and possibly a few more. In Commission Exhibit 656 which is the No. 2 finger or the right index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald, there is 11 points, that is the whorl-type pattern.

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me a second Mr. Mandella. That is No. 25 center impression, marked by you "center impression No. 2 finger--Oswald," is that correct?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; that is correct. And there is 11 points of identity or characteristic.

Mr. EISENBERG. On No. 34?

Mr. MANDELLA. No. 34, the palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is marked by you "Oswald left palm--left side"?

Mr. DULLES. Palmprint on the box is it?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; box A.

Mr. DULLES. Box A?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; 18 points of identity I found on that particular exhibit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you check your notes on that?

Mr. MANDELLA. I can explain this. On the reverse side I have 13 to 16 points.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the reverse side of number----

Mr. MANDELLA. It is the reverse side of Commission Exhibit 656. However, after going over this and looking at it again I found several more. Of course in this case it is still more than 18. But 18 that can be readily seen and recognized. And then Commission exhibit finally----

Mr. EISENBERG. 655?

Mr. MANDELLA. 655.

Mr. EISENBERG. Box D.

Mr. MANDELLA. Photo No. 13, the right palmprint of Oswald, and there is eight points of identity on that one.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, do you have any opinion concerning the ability to determine the freshness of a fingerprint?

Mr. MANDELLA. It is very difficult to tell. However, you can determine if it was left within say a few days, but certainly you can't pinpoint it. You can't say it was there so many hours or so many days. How many days I don't know, but in the developing of fingerprints we will say on an ashtray on this Commission desk here, if we just touch it now, as opposed to a fingerprint being left there several days ago, the impression that we recently left, as we applied powder to it to bring it about would naturally come out sooner because of the freshness of the oils on our fingers.

The others would come out, if we kept processing or powdering it with a brush. They would later come out too. So this is the only indication to me then, that the first ones that appear then were recently left. And in this you can't even say this definitely either. It is very difficult because at certain times it could be a little more oil on someone's fingers and this could last longer and appear to be fresher. So it is very difficult to tell positively.

Mr. EISENBERG. What you are describing is freshness, relative freshness, between one print and another, rather than absolute freshness of any given print?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; that is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now I give you Commission Exhibit No. 139, which is a rifle, and ask you whether you think if you developed a print on a steel portion of the rifle you could testify as to whether this was a fresh or a stale print?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell especially on steel or on wood here whether it is fresh or not. By itself of course too, with nothing around it, you couldn't tell. It is impossible, as a matter of fact.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 649, which consists of a piece torn off of a cardboard type of box, and appearing on that is a powder impression under a tape, of which you have seen actually a photograph, Mr. Mandella.

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. If you had developed that impression, do you think you would testify as to relative freshness?

Mr. MANDELLA. In this case, with this cardboard, in my own experience--I assume the medium used here is powder----

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I believe so.

Mr. MANDELLA. To develop it. If it comes out this fresh, I would have to assume that it was left there recently. But how recently I can't pinpoint that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Within 3 days?

Mr. MANDELLA. Oh, definitely I would say within 3 days.

Mr. EISENBERG. Within 2 days?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I would say within about a day, a day and a half, because the cardboard is very porous and it would normally draw the oils, the perspiration, and it would disappear.

However, we do have an impression here with powder. That means that it was quite fresh, in my own opinion anyway.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, I can see that you have taken notes, numerous notes on the fingerprints, including those you didn't identify. I wonder whether we could introduce those as a Commission exhibit, rather than going through those one by one. Would you part with those? We could supply you with a copy later.

Lieutenant MOONEY. I have the rough. It will only take us a couple minutes to----

Mr. DULLES. We would be very glad to give you a photograph copy of it.

Mr. MANDELLA. That is all I need. That is fine. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing me two pages, and these contain your original notes concerning the fingerprints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. These contain your notes not only as to the fingerprints you identified, but those which you did not identify against a known print which you were given?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is right. There were quite a few fingerprints that didn't belong to Oswald. However, they belonged to one another.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, you found two prints which were identical to each other?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Two latents which were identical to each other?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, but to whom they belong I have no idea.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these notes admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 662?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Exhibit 662.

(Commission Exhibit No. 662 was marked for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, is there anything you would like to add to your testimony here?

Mr. MANDELLA. Nothing other than what I already mentioned.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. We thank you then Mr. Mandella, very much. I didn't catch your name.

Lieutenant MOONEY. Lieutenant Mooney. Glad to have been of service.

Mr. DULLES. Would you please express to the Commissioner on behalf of the Chief Justice and the Commission our grateful thanks to you for the work that you have done, and it is greatly appreciated, and also express on my own personal behalf--I know the Commissioner--my appreciation for the cooperation he has given to the Commission.

Lieutenant MOONEY. Thank you, sir. We are glad to have been of service.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I say that these two gentlemen both interrupted their vacation to come here, and they have been working practically night and day in order to meet with our time demands for testimony.

Mr. DULLES. We deeply appreciate that.

Mr. MANDELLA. Glad to have helped in any way.

Mr. DULLES. The Commission will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)

Friday, April 3, 1964

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH AND JAMES C. CADIGAN

The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m. on April 3, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, member.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; Melvin Aron Eisenberg, Assistant Counsel; and Charles Murray, Observer.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. The purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of Paul Stombaugh and James C. Cadigan. Mr. Stombaugh is a hair and fiber expert with the FBI, and Mr. Cadigan is a questioned documents expert with the FBI. They have been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work.

This is just to advise you of the nature of the interrogation today.

Will you rise: Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. Mr. Eisenberg, you may proceed with the examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you state your full name and your position?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Paul M., for Morgan, Stombaugh. I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the hair and fiber unit of the FBI laboratory as a hair and fiber examiner.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Furman University, Greenville, S.C., and I received a 1-year period of specialized training in the hair and fiber field in the laboratory under the supervision of the other experts.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been in the hair and fiber field?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Since 1960.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of examinations you have made in this field?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have made several thousand hair examinations and about twice as many fiber examinations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I have testified in approximately 28 States, both federal and local courts, as an expert.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to examine the witness as an expert in this area.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 140, which for the record consists of a blanket which was found in the garage of Mr. and Mrs. Paine, and a piece of string marked Paine Exhibit No. 2, and I ask you whether you are familiar with these items?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I am. My mark is here on the blanket, and when this was received in the FBI laboratory this string was around a portion of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us what your mark is exactly, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Due to the fact this was a piece of fabric and hard to mark, I put a piece of evidence tape on the blanket, stapled it to the blanket, and put my initials "PMS" with the date 11-23-63 thereon.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the shape of the blanket and the position of the string, Paine Exhibit 2, when you received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. May I use this?

Mr. EISENBERG. What you are holding up is a piece of paper which--will you describe it, please?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a piece of kraft paper approximately the same shape as this blanket. When I received the blanket, it had been folded together with both ends even; a slight triangle had been folded into one corner of the blanket, and another fold had been taken into the blanket thus.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "thus," you are folding the piece of kraft paper, and is the paper now folded into approximately--in a manner approximating the way the blanket was folded when you received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to introduce the piece of paper which the witness has so folded?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be so admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Commission Exhibit 663.

(Commission Exhibit 663 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. There is a safety pin inserted into Exhibit 663, Mr. Stombaugh. Was there an equivalent safety pin on the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; there was a much larger safety pin attached to the blanket in approximately the same place as the small pin in the piece of paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the blanket is folded so as to approximate approximately a right angle triangle, and the safety pin is at one angle of that triangle opposite the right angle, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The safety pin would be at the vertex of the right angle----

Mr. EISENBERG. Now----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the triangle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any distinctive creases in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there were. There was one crease at the base, which would be the base of the right triangle, a very slight crease.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that with the letter "A" please, on the Exhibit 663?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is opposite--this is the side facing the angle at which the safety pin is inserted, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. It would be the base of the triangle.

Mr. EISENBERG. The base of the triangle----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There was also another crease I found upon removing the safety pin and opening the blanket; I found that one end of the blanket had been folded in approximately 7 inches.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the relationship between that and the end which you have just marked "A," is that the opposite side?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That would be the opposite side of the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that "B"?

What was the relationship between the amount which the blanket was folded on the side "A" and the amount which it was folded on side "B," that is, were the folds approximately equal, or if different, how different, in length?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The one, the fold marked "A" was not as great as the fold marked "B." The fold marked "B" was approximately 7 inches, the fold marked "A" was less than 7 inches.

Mr. EISENBERG. Proceed.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There was one other crease in the blanket which was more or less a hump approximately 10 inches long, located approximately midway between the blanket, between--it is very difficult to describe the location.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you point to it, and maybe we can describe it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Approximately in this area.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is, approximately midway between the side at which the fold marked "A" appears and the side at which the fold marked "B" appears?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct, approximately midway.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that fold or crease "C"? Was this a fold or a crease, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was a very slight crease. It appeared as a hump in the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any item in the blanket, any object in the blanket, which might have been causing that hump?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Not when I opened it, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you form an opinion as to what might cause that hump to exist in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it would have had to have been a hard object, approximately 10 inches in length, which protruded upward, causing the yarns in the blanket to stretch in this area, and it would have had to have been tightly placed in the blanket to cause these yarns to stretch.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say the object was 10 inches long, do you mean that the object itself was 10 inches long or that there was an object 10 inches--an object protruding at a point 10 inches from the place you have marked "A"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; the object itself would have had to have been approximately 10 inches long to have caused this hump.

Mr. EISENBERG. It couldn't have been longer than 10 inches?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Not at this point; no, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could it have proceeded past that point marked "C," that is, could the object have been placed so that its base was at "C"--so that its base was at "A"? Is it possible that the object as it lay in the blanket passed "C" but with a protrusion at "C"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; this is quite possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is possible?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is quite possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other folds or creases, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

At the upper, call it the upper portion of the triangle, there were some creases in the blanket which had been caused by a piece of string which had been securely wrapped around the blanket at this point.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark the area "D," where those creases occurred?

Is the string you are referring to the Paine Exhibit 2 which you earlier identified?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that wrapped around the blanket when you received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; this was loosely wrapped around the blanket at this point. From an examination of the blanket itself and these creases, it was apparent that this string had been tied around the blanket while something was inside this blanket, and the string had been tied rather tight in order for these creases to have remained in the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, the creases remained in the blanket although there was no object in it when you received it----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which would account for the creases, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you therefore deduced there had been an object in the blanket preceding your examination?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice anything else about the blanket which you would like to relate, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The blanket exhibited much wear.

Mr. EISENBERG. We are just talking now about the shape, of course. We will be getting into composition later.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I cannot think of anything else at this time.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the blanket have made a secure package wrapped in the way and manner that it appeared to you?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it would have. With the crease at fold "A," had it been folded down, it would have made a very snug and secure package containing some type of item in it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, was there anything about the string, Paine Exhibit 2, which would make an identification possible?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; the string is just common white cotton string. It is found in most stores throughout the country, and used for, well, many uses. There is nothing distinctive about the string itself which could be traced as to manufacturer or any definite use it was made for.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any distinctive accidental markings on it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I found none.

Mr. EISENBERG. What kind--was it tied in a knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was tied in a granny knot, and also a bow knot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you illustrate that for us? You are holding up a piece of string?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is another piece of string, not the original.

Mr. EISENBERG. Not the original.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. A granny knot is a common knot, tied with two simple thumb knots. It is a very hard knot to open as opposed to the boy scout knot, or the square knot rather, which is tied in this manner. This knot is very easy to open because all one has to do is to pull one free end of it and the other free end slides out.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to the so-called "boy scout" knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is actually not a boy scout knot but a square knot.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you tie that left over right, right over left, is that the formula?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; left over right and right over left.

Mr. EISENBERG. How do you spell that, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. G-r-a-n-n-y.

Mr. EISENBERG. The granny knot, Mr. Stombaugh, is this a common or an uncommon knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is a very common knot. I believe that knot is tied more than any other knot because it is right over right, right over right, and it is usually used by people wrapping packages who want it tied securely so the package will not come open.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you say there was also a bow knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you illustrate that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the type of knot we use when we tie our shoe strings. It is made by forming a loop with the one free end, and wrapping the other free end around it and pulling it through.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a hard or an easy knot to slip out, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is very easy, because you just take one of the loose ends and pull it and the knot falls apart.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was the relationship between the granny knot and the bow knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I don't know. I have seen this numerous times, on numerous different occasions when one would either tie a granny knot or a square knot and follow it up with a bow knot. The granny knot would be to secure the package so it would not come loose. The bow knot is a temporary knot tied by one who wants the string to come off easily.

Now why they would tie a granny knot and follow this up with a bow knot I don't know, unless they had some long loose ends which they wanted to slacken up, shorten up, rather, so as they would not be hanging down.

Mr. EISENBERG. The Exhibit Paine No. 2 is tied into a knot at this point. Can you tell us what kind of a knot that is?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was a simple bow knot which I put into it.

Mr. EISENBERG. You put it into it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the knot does not reproduce the knots as you found them originally?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they do not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I wonder if you could tie the demonstration piece of string you have been using into the granny knot and bow knot, in the manner in which you received it.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is the granny knot and here is the bow knot.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are not here trying to approximate the diameter or the circumference of the string, but only the knots?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I admit this string as an illustrative exhibit?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be done.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 664, Mr. reporter.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 664, and received into evidence.)

Now, Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine its composition?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The blanket is composed of a very small percentage of brown and green woolen fibers; an average of about 30 percent to 40 percent of brown and green cotton fibers, and the remaining portion brown and green delustered viscose fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "a very small portion of brown and green woolen fibers," could you be more specific; was it in the neighborhood of 1 percent or 10 percent?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was unable to obtain a definite percentage. This is a rather long, involved, and inaccurate method of determination because one would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis.

However, in the samples of the fabric that I made, I found approximately 1 to 2 percent woolen fibers, 20 to, I would say, 30, 35 percent cotton fibers, and the remainder of it viscose fibers. This is just an approximation from the microscopic slide that I made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you have any reason to believe that the approximation was not made from a fair sample of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I wouldn't. I took the sample myself.

However, the blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off. Now, whether or not this same percentage of composition is missing from use or not I wouldn't be able to determine, but I would say that the approximation that I had given is fairly accurate for the blanket in its present condition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you explain to us briefly how you were able to distinguish the three fibers, cotton, wool, and viscose?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. This chart shows the difference in the textile fibers when one observes them under a microscope. A cotton fiber appears to be, or rather, might be compared with an ordinary soda straw which has been flattened. You can see here that the fiber is hollow. The hollow is known as the lumen in cotton. The fiber is flattened and twisted much as teenagers do to soda straws in drug stores when they twist and crush the soda straws.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Stombaugh: this chart is a chart labeled "Textile Fibers," and having three illustrations labeled "Cotton," "Wool," and "Viscose"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

A woolen fiber actually is a hair which originates from an animal and is composed of three basic parts, the outer part being the scales which are the rough area on the outside of the hair, the inner portion known as the cortex, and a center portion known as the medulla. Microscopically this is what you would look for to identify wool.

Viscose is a synthetic fiber that is made by man. It is composed of chemicals, and is very rough around the outside area, having many striations running through it. The viscose fiber I have drawn here is what we would term a lustrous fiber. It does not have the delustering agent added to it, to cut down the luster. If this were a delustered fiber then we would have millions of small spots on the outside of this fiber which have been placed there chemically so as to cut down the luster of the fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the viscose in the blanket that we have been examining lustered or delustered?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was delustered.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce the chart which the witness has been discussing as 665?

This chart was prepared by you or under your supervision, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was prepared by me.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the number?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 665.

(Commission Exhibit No. 665 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine whether any debris was present?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. I scraped the blanket and removed all the foreign textile fibers and hairs and placed them into a pillbox.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us how this scraping was performed?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. We suspend the blanket from a rack in the laboratory, place a clean sheet of kraft paper on a table directly under it and, using a spatula, thoroughly scrape it down. This knocks all the foreign material adhering to the blanket from the blanket, and it falls down to the paper. After we have thoroughly cleaned the blanket, then we scrape up all the debris and place it in the pillboxes for a microscopic examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you use this scrape method, as opposed to a fine-filter vacuum cleaner?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. We have found that the fine-filtered vacuum cleaner pulls all of the dirt and old debris from a blanket which are embedded on the inner portion of the fabric. We are not interested in this material. We are interested only in what is adhering to the top surface, which has been put there most recently. Through experience in the laboratory we have found this method to be the best so far.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that by use of the scrape you gathered the more recent debris, as opposed to the older debris?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what type of debris did you find, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, as well as a number of limb and pubic hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you draw any conclusions as to those hairs upon your initial examination of them?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. They all had originated from a person of the Caucasian race and I compared these hairs with hair samples obtained from Harvey Oswald----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I found that of the limb and pubic hairs I removed from the blanket, several matched Oswald's in all observable microscopic characteristics and could have originated from Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said these hairs were from a person of Caucasian race. Can you explain how you can tell the difference between hairs of the various types of races?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. Going back to my charts, I have a chart here which contains a diagram of a hair. This isn't any particular hair, this is a type of hair that could be animal or human. I am just using this to give one an idea of what a hair looks like.

First, we have the root, which is the portion of the hair embedded in the scalp or in the skin, whichever type hair it might be.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And from the root, extending out and growing, is the shaft of the hair, and the very distal end of that is the tip.

If we were to take this hair and place it under a microscope, this is what we would see. We find that the hair basically consists, in the shaft area, of scales composing the outside portion of the hair. Directly under the scales is the cortex. Now the scales vary in size and shape among animal and human hairs. The cortex also varies. Running through the center of the hair shaft, much as the lead in the center of a lead pencil, is what is known as the medulla.

The medulla is nothing more than air cells running through the center of the hairshaft.

In the cortex of the hair are small granules which appear under a microscope like tiny grains of sand. These are known as the hair pigment. This is the part of the hair that gives the hair its color, whether it is blond, dark brown, black, or what-have-you.

Also present in the cortex you will occasionally find air spaces located among the pigment granules which are known as cortical fusi. These will vary in size, shape, form, and location on the hair. Many hairs do not have any.

Basically that is what a hair looks like, and the basic component parts of the hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 666, this diagram of the hair?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 666 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Now, keeping the diagram of the hair on the side where we can refer to it, our first differentiation in the hair, of course, would be separating the human from the animal hairs. These are photomicrographs of human hairs which I took through a microscope.

Here are the animal hairs.

The first thing we look for, of course, would be the color, length, and texture of the hair. This comes from experience from looking at thousands of hairs, and we can usually pick one up and tell by the naked eye whether it is animal or human.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me. You are referring to a chart which has on the upper right, "Human Hairs" and on the upper left, "Animal Hairs" as captions?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

However, when we place these hairs under a microscope we find that animal hairs vary from human hairs in many different aspects.

One, the medullary structure. In animal hair the medullary structure is much wider than that in a human hair. You will find that it exceeds more than one-third of the width of the hair shaft.

Secondly, the shape of the medulla, as in this rabbit hair, varies greatly. You can see the individual medullary cells very distinctly. In this chart I have some photographs of human hairs in which a medulla is not present. But the medulla in a human hair would look just about like this, very thin.

We move down to the pigmentation of the hair, which is located in the cortex. In the human hair the pigmentation is very fine and granular, and in this animal hair it is very coarse and elongated.

The size and shape of a root on the animal hair differs from the size and shape of the root in the human hair. Here we see the root of a dog hair which is very long and very thin. The root of a human hair is more or less shaped similar to a light bulb. The scales of animal hairs are very large. The scales of the human hairs are much smaller.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this chart which the witness has been using introduced as 667?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 667, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You are looking at a new chart called "Racial Determination of Hairs" with the subcaption "General Appearance of Shaft"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Once we have separated the animal hairs from the human hairs, our next problem is determining the race of the individual from whom the particular human hairs in which we are interested originated.

Looking at the hair under low power--under a low-power microscope--we find that a Caucasian hair differs from the hair of the Negroid or Mongoloid race in diameter fluctuation. The hair shaft varies in width through its entire length. I might take, for instance, this yellow or this black pencil. Here we find that the diameter of the pencil is uniform through the entire length. Now, if we would twist this pencil we would change the diameter of the pencil slightly. This would be so in a Caucasian hair, where there might be slight fluctuations in a hair, such as a person with wavy hair would have a slight fluctuation. The person with straight hair has hair shafts which for all practical purposes, are uniform in diameter the entire length.

In Negroid hair, there is great fluctuation. Their hair is very curly and kinky. This is caused by the great fluctuation present in their hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean in the diameters?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; diameters.

In Mongoloid hair, which includes Asiatic and North American Indians, there is little or no fluctuation present in their hairs.

Going back to the Caucasian hair, the color of the Caucasian individual's hair differs from black to blond and, of course, white.

Negroid hairs are dense black usually; some are white. There are a few exceptions here where we find some redheaded persons of this race. The Mongoloids are always black, but not quite as dense black as those of the Negroid race.

The texture of the hair: Caucasian head hairs, are very soft, flexible; Negroid hairs are very stiff and wiry; and Mongoloid hairs are flexible, but not as soft and flexible as the Caucasian.

Now, as to the general width, or rather diameter, of the shaft, we find Caucasian is medium, the Negroid is medium, the Mongoloid hairs are much larger than either the Negroid or the Caucasian.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this chart which the witness has been discussing marked as 668, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Commission's Exhibit No. 668 was marked, and received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. May we take a recess at this time just for a few moments.

(Short recess.)

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Eisenberg, would you proceed?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. Stombaugh, you were discussing the characteristics of Caucasian as opposed to Negroid and Mongoloid hair. Could you proceed with that discussion?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have another chart here.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is labeled "Racial Determination of Hairs" and unlike chart 668 it has no subcaption under that general caption, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. In the previous chart I used I had taken some photographs of hairs under relatively low power, 100 diameters.

In this chart I have enlarged the hairs, taking them under approximately 400 diameters, so we can look into the hair. Here we begin to see the real differences between the hairs among the various races.

In the Caucasian race, the cuticle, in other words, the layer of scales around the outside of the hair, is medium to thick.

In the Negroid hair the cuticle is very thick. In the Mongoloid hair the cuticle is very thick.

Pigmentation in the cortex, which gives the hair the color, in Caucasian hair is very fine to coarse and is very evenly distributed throughout the cortex of the hair. In Negroid hair the pigment is medium to coarse, but the big difference is that the pigment granules are clumped together, leaving large white-gapped areas throughout the cortex of the hair.

In the Mongoloid hair, the pigment is medium to coarse but it is very heavily distributed throughout the hair. As you can see, in the Caucasian hair the cortex is relatively light. In Negroid hair it is clumped, and in Mongoloid hair it is dense.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this chart admitted as 669?

Mr. DULLES. It is admitted as 669.

(Commission Exhibit No. 669 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You have a chart here "Racial Determination of Hairs," and no subcaption, is that right?

Mr. DULLES. You haven't asked for this other to be admitted, have you?

Mr. EISENBERG. No; I will ask after he has finished with it.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Occasionally we will run into situations in hairs, where we cannot determine with any certainty whether or not the hairs are of the Caucasian or Negroid or Mongoloid race, by examining it longitudinally, and we have to make a cross-section of the hair. If we make a cross-section of the hair it is the same as taking a banana and cutting off a very thin slice of the banana and placing it under a microscope and examining it. We find in the Caucasian race the hairs are oval in shape. In the Negroid race the hairs are flat, and have a flattened appearance, and in the Mongoloid race they are perfectly round. This is another characteristic which we use in determining the racial origin of hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this chart admitted as 670?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 670 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it definitely established in your mind as a result of the various characteristics you have explained that the hairs found in the blanket were Caucasian hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; they were all Caucasian hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine those hairs and compare them with any known samples to determine whether they might have come from any specific individual?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion on that score?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I examined the hairs found on the blanket and determined that most of them were limb and pubic hairs. In other words, they originated either from the leg or the arm or from the pubic area. I found several head hairs on the blanket also.

These hairs I compared with known hair samples from Lee Harvey Oswald. I found several of the limb hairs from the blanket and several of the pubic hairs from the blanket matched in all observable microscopic characteristics, and concluded these hairs could have come from Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Where did you get the known sample, Mr. Stombaugh, of Lee Oswald's hair?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These were obtained and were sent to the laboratory by the FBI office in Dallas.

I do not know whether the agent in Dallas personally took the samples or had a member of the Dallas Police Department take the samples.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these hairs taken from one area or were they a representative sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was a fairly good representative sample.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you review the microscopic characteristics which led you to your conclusion, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This chart contains a photomicrograph of Oswald's pubic hairs. This is just a very small area taken of a glass microscope slide containing the hairs. There were numerous other hairs. The photograph on the right shows one of the hairs I removed from the blanket, and one of the hairs from Oswald, showing, generally, the match.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you take these photographs on the left and right side yourself?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. This chart is captioned on the left "Photomicrograph of Oswald's Pubic Hairs" and on the right "Hair from the Blanket" and "Hair from Oswald"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have it admitted?

(The item referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 672, and received into evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question? The one on the right seems darker than the one on the left, the hair itself.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This one and this one?

Mr. DULLES. What is it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Are you referring----

Mr. EISENBERG. The hair shown on the right appears darker.

Mr. DULLES. There are two specimens there or two----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Two.

Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You are thinking this hair looks darker than this one?

Mr. DULLES. No; I was thinking that both the hairs on the right, which I understand were taken from Oswald----

Mr. EISENBERG. One hair was actually from the blanket, one from Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Seems darker than the ones taken from the blanket. Is the left the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This portion here is one separate hair. This was taken from the blanket.

Mr. DULLES. That was taken from the blanket. The right-hand is taken from the blanket and the left-hand hairs were taken from Oswald himself?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; these are from Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a comparison shot. This photograph was taken through two microscopes simultaneously showing how this portion of a pubic hair from the blanket matched a pubic hair from Oswald, which is this portion of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to the right side of the chart 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this photograph was taken at 100 diameters and this photograph was taken at 400 diameters. There is a difference there also.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state that again please?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The photograph on the left was taken approximately at 100 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Oswald's pubic hairs, a known sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this is a general shot of his known sample.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the one on the right?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The one on the right was taken at approximately 400 diameters.

Mr. DULLES. This is the blanket sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a hair from the blanket compared with Oswald's.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have three photographs on this chart, of which two are known Oswald hairs, the photograph on the left and one of the two photographs on the right?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Actually, this is one photograph taken through a comparison microscope. We are looking at two different hairs at the same time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Well, when you say this is one photograph you are pointing to the one on the right but, as I understand it, the photograph on the right shows two different hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. One of which is Oswald's hair, a known sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the other of which was obtained from the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the photograph on the left shows known samples of Oswald's pubic hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. So we have in effect two views of Oswald's pubic hairs, one on the left and one half of the composite photograph on the right?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Following up on Mr. Dulles' question, the photograph on the right seems to have a much coarser and somewhat darker structure in both the known and the questioned sample than the photograph on the left, which is simply a known sample.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you said that was because of the enlargement?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The difference in the enlargement. The photograph on the left was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 100 times. The photograph on the right was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 400 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph on the right does not seem to show a hair four times larger, so I don't understand it.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was on the enlarging of the photograph itself.

Had these two prints been enlarged at the same enlarging factor, the hairs on the left, would be much, much smaller than the ones on the right. This was just blown up to this size so the hairs could be seen.

For instance, had we not blown these up, here we see them magnified 400 times, and this other photograph is a natural shot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, here you are pointing to photograph 669, and the second shot which you call "natural" is 668?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. You can see the difference in the diameter and the difference in the detail of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were those photographs of the different magnifications?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was 669, do you recall?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I believe it was approximately 400.

Mr. EISENBERG. And 668?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Approximately 100.

Mr. EISENBERG. So it corresponds to the difference in the right- and left-hand portions of 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; it would.

Now, the characteristics we look for in making a hair match. First would be the color.

The matches I found in Oswald's hairs. His hairs vary from light brown to a medium brown shade.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you talking about the known samples now?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is his known sample. In this particular match the color was medium brown, and looking at the hair throughout its entire length, it ranged from a medium brown, and this color remained constant to the tip, where the color changed to a light brown and the very tip of it was transparent, it was clear, had no color at all. There were no color pigments in the tip of the hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you referring now to the pubic hair which you illustrate on the right-hand side of 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am referring to the pubic hair.

This is the gross appearance. I looked at it under low power where I could see the entire length of the hair.

Next, the thickness of the hair, or the diameter of the hair shaft. I found this diameter to be rather narrow for pubic hairs. Pubic hairs ordinarily are rather thick. Oswald's hairs were relatively narrow. Pubic hairs also have what we term nobbiness. You can see a nob right here, it is twisted----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on chart 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Here we see that it twists and it is very uneven. The shaft of the hair is generally very uneven in pubic hairs.

However, in Oswald's pubic hairs we had very little of this. The hairs were very smooth. They lacked this nobbiness. The upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs. This was an unusual characteristic.

The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. They had a very sharp tip and very clear. Ordinarily pubic hairs are rounded at the tips, and not pointed--this is from wearing against clothing--at all. This would indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher than the average persons.

The cuticle, in other words the very thin layer of scales covering his hairs, is very thin for pubic hairs. The scales exhibited a very small protrusion on the outside. The distance they protruded from the shaft of the hair is very slight.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you talk about the protrusion, do you mean the distance between the point of the scale and the balance of the cuticle, the center of the cuticle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Some hairs will have a sawtooth effect, will look just like saw teeth do when you look at the blade of a saw.

Mr. EISENBERG. From the protrusion of the scales?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the protrusion of the scales. Others will be very small, have a slight protrusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. How was Oswald's?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was a very small protrusion. The gapping of Oswald's hair was very slight. In other words, between the cuticle and the cortex, the cortex of course containing the color pigment in the hair, occasionally you will find hairs where there will be no color pigment in areas up near the cuticle. There will be a gap there.

Oswald's hairs, as you can see here, have some gapped areas in there but not too many. They are very irregular, and the gapping does not go down too deeply into the cortex.

Pigmentation of his hairs was very fine, equally dispersed, and there was some chaining together of the larger pigment granules noted. In other words, three or four of the pigment granules were chained together. Instead of being dispersed such as they are in Exhibit No. 666, you would have five or six of them chained together, forming a slight irregular-appearing streak.

Cortical fusi, the air spaces present in the hairs such as I have drawn here on Exhibit 666, were for the most part absent in his hairs. I found very, very few of them, and would term them absent in his hairs.

The medulla in the hairs, those that contained a medulla, was constant. It was a continuous streak for the most part. There were some slight broken areas in it. The hairs of Oswald, that did not have a medulla, there was not a trace of one present. It was completely absent. This is unusual. Usually, you will find that the hairs will contain a medulla and if not in the ones that appear not to, you can find traces of a medulla present. In his I didn't find any medulla at all in several of the hairs.

The root area of his hairs was rather clear of pigment and there was only a fair amount of cortical fusi present. As in drawing No. 666, in the root area, you ordinarily would find a large amount of cortical fusi which rapidly diminish as you proceed out the hair shaft, and in his there was just a relatively few cortical fusi in the root area. I found this characteristic also in some of the hairs removed from the blanket.

Basically, that is the--those are the characteristics I used in matching Oswald's pubic hairs with pubic hairs from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have been discussing the characteristics of Oswald's pubic hairs. In each case were the characteristics of the pubic hairs you found in the blanket the same as those you have noted as being present in Oswald's pubic hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; they were all identical.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is as to protrusion of scale, absence of cortical fusi, chaining together to some extent of pigments, and so forth?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without going through every item, every item you have named was identical?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Every item I have found in hair from the blanket?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go on, please?

Mr. DULLES. Just one second, off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have presented at this point a chart labeled "Microphotograph of Oswald's Limb Hairs" on the left, and on the right two subcaptions, "Hair from Blanket" and "Hair from Oswald," and do these--were these photographs taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were taken by me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they accurate reproductions of the material which according to the captions they are photographs of?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like this admitted as 671, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as 671.

(Commission Exhibit No. 671 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly discuss this exhibit?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Exhibit 671 is similar to Exhibit 672 in that both contain two photographs. The photograph on the left is an overall shot of Oswald's limb hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the known?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is the known from Oswald.

The photograph on the right contains photographs of two hairs, in this same photograph, the hair on the right being a limb hair from Oswald, and the hair on the left being a hair removed from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification there, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The magnification of these is approximately the same as in the previous submission, the one on the right being approximately 400 diameters and the one on the left 100 diameters.

Now, the one on the right is a limb hair. A limb hair is much smaller in diameter than a pubic hair. That is why there will appear to be some slight change in the size of these hairs.

I compared the limb hair from the blanket with the limb hair from Oswald which matched in all observable microscopic characteristics. The characteristics I found in this match were the color of the hair was light brown through its entire length, and the width of the hair shaft or the diameter was very fine. There was no fluctuation that one could readily see. The diameter of the hair shaft remained constant to the tip, where it diminished down to a point.

The tips of the hairs were very sharp and no abrasion was noted. In other words, the tips of these limb hairs were not rounded as one ordinarily finds. This would indicate the hairs were very tough, the same as the pubic hairs were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you describing now the known hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These are known hairs and the match I made; both.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The scales were of medium size, had very slight protrusion, and there was very slight gapping in the pigmentation located in the cortex right against the cuticle of the hair. There was a fair amount of cortical fusi equally distributed throughout the hair shaft.

This is not unusual in itself, but the amount of cortical fusi that I did find present is unusual.

The medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and very uneven. It was not a constant, smooth straight line such as one might find over here in this pubic hair on 672.

There was nothing unusual noted about the root area of these hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. And again you are describing the characteristics of both hairs, and they were identical in all these characteristics?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any characteristics in which they were not identical?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; not on the limb hair, as I found it matched. I did find limb hairs and pubic hairs and head hairs in this blanket which were dissimilar to Oswald's and definitely did not come from him but the hairs I have talked about here matched in all microscopical characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. The other hairs, Mr. Stombaugh, could you make a determination as to race?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all Caucasian.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to sex or age?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it is not possible to determine sex or age from an examination of a hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to the number of individuals who had contributed these hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't. You would have to have a hair sample from any suspected person, and hairs vary tremendously. Even on the same individual head hairs from the same individual can vary from one head area to another.

I have found as many as 12 to 15 different types of hair on the same person's head.

So, therefore, it would not be possible to estimate the number of different people whose hairs have appeared on this blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, are you able to say that the limb hairs and pubic hairs which you found in the blanket and which you have matched with Oswald's in observable microscopic characteristics came from Oswald to the exclusion of any other individual?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't say that. I could say that these hairs could have come from Oswald. I could not say they definitely came from him to the exclusion of all other Caucasian persons in the world.

In order to say this, one would have to take hair samples from all of these people and compare them and this, of course, is impossible.

Mr. EISENBERG. What degree of probability do you think there is that these hairs came from Oswald? And without putting a precise number on it, let's suppose you took head hairs from 100 Caucasian individuals, how many matches would you expect to find among those hundred different hairs on the basis of your experience?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the basis of my experience I would expect to find only one match.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say that the 100 hairs would be different from each other?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your experience, therefore, that the hairs of different individuals do not match in observable microscopic characteristics--within the basis of your experience?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Within the basis of my experience, I have examined thousands of hairs and I have never found Caucasian hairs from two different individuals that match.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say that, Mr. Stombaugh, have you been presented with hairs in your laboratory from Caucasian individuals which you knew before the examination came from two or more individuals?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

We have obtained samples of hairs from a hundred different people, and would select one hair, give it to an examiner and ask who it originated from, and invariably he would be able to find in the hundred different samples the individual the hair originated from.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when a specimen comes into your laboratory, does it frequently come in--and I am talking now about specimens that come in from a crime--does it frequently come in such, so that you have two specimens, two or more specimens, which you know before you begin are from two different people?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are told before you begin that they come from two different people?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; ordinarily a case such as a murder or a rape, you will obtain the clothing of the victim, the clothing of the suspect in the case, as well as hair samples from the victim and hair samples from the suspect.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many types of cases like this do you think you have processed?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Processed approximately 500 a year.

Mr. EISENBERG. For how many years?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Four years--no, three years.

Mr. EISENBERG. In any of these approximately 1,500 cases, have you found a case involving Caucasian hairs in which the hairs from the known two different individuals matched in observable physical characteristics microscopically?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I have never found hair from two different Caucasian persons that matched.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you found any in non-Caucasian hairs, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have found several cases in which hairs from two different persons of the Negroid race, although the hairs did not match completely, the characteristics were such that I felt that I could not go further with the examination because I could not exclude the hairs. The hairs were too similar. When I make a hair match. I know that any case might go to court, and of course I want to be absolutely certain in my mind.

In these cases I am referring to right now, the hair sample from the victim and the hair sample from the suspect were pubic hairs. They were so similar to each other that I could not find any pubic hairs that I could match with the suspect's pubic hairs, and be certain in my mind that these hairs came from him rather than her. I couldn't do this.

So, therefore, I sent the evidence back without further conclusion. This has happened in approximately three cases. However, I would like to point out that I could not take his, the suspect's pubic hairs, and the victim's pubic hairs and completely match them up under a microscope slide such as the match shown in the chart. They did not absolutely match, but they were too similar for a good determination to be made.

Mr. EISENBERG. What proportion of the 1,500 cases that you have described--approximately 1,500 cases--have involved Negroid as opposed to Caucasian hairs, just roughly?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I would say about approximately a third. Of course, a lot of these cases we don't know the race. They don't list the race, but in examining the hairs I can tell the race----

Mr. EISENBERG. So in 1,000-odd cases of the Caucasian hair examinations you haven't 2 matches between hairs from different individuals?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in the 500-odd cases of Negroid, 500-odd cases involving hairs from two different Negroid individuals, you have found three cases where although the hairs were not identical they were so close that you felt you didn't want to go further in your examination, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a fair recapitulation?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Could I just ask a question here?

There is a distinction then, as I gather from your testimony, an understandable one, between the comparison of hairs and, say, the comparison of fingerprints, because obviously the hair that you find on the victim has left the assailant and, therefore, you are not looking at the same hair but you are looking at a different hair?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. And that, therefore, distinguishes testimony in regard to hair, we will say, with regard to fingerprint examination?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; that, and also a fingerprint will remain the same throughout one's life. It will never change. A hair will.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You can see my hair, I am starting to get white at the temples. Mine is changing characteristics.

Mr. DULLES. We all do.

But is there--let's say you examine 100 hairs, let's say, that are found on the victim, and 100 hairs that are different hairs that are found on the assailant; let us say that there are certain characteristics common to all of these hairs.

Do you get my question? Let's say 10, not 100, whatever number you want to take.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Ordinarily, you would find one or two.

Mr. DULLES. That have certain characteristics. You have pointed out on exhibit--on the left-hand side of Exhibit 672, the circle you have made on 672, circle A.

Is there a common characteristic that you have marked on one of the other hairs? I believe the hair marked with the "A," was taken from Oswald himself, the hair on which you have marked that particular characteristic.

Is there any corresponding characteristic that should be marked or indicated on a hair that was found on the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, I testified as to all the characteristics I found.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Now, the difficulty in using a photomicrograph, you are trying to photograph a round object and as a result of this all of these characteristics just won't appear in focus.

Mr. EISENBERG. To be more specific, Mr. Stombaugh, that circle marked "A" was to show a nobbiness in Oswald's hair. As I recall, you testified there was very little nobbiness present in that pubic hair, as opposed to the normal amount of nobbiness of pubic hair?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the right-hand side of 672, I suppose we don't see much or any nobbiness in either the known or----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; there is none present here.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that would correspond with the point you made as to "A," that there was very little nobbiness?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Very little.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is why there is no corresponding mark for nobbiness characteristic on the right-hand side, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. The right-hand side of 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Oswald's hairs, where the nobbiness did appear was in the lower third, in other words, the area from the root out on the shaft approximately one-third. The remaining two-thirds of the hair shaft all the way out to the tip was relatively straight, no nobbiness at all present. This was characteristic. Ordinarily a pubic hair will have this nobbiness two-thirds to three-fourths of the way up. So this was a characteristic which exists in Oswald's pubic hairs which is different from the ordinary or average.

Mr. DULLES. And you found that both on the hairs taken from Oswald himself and on the hairs found in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, on this general point, when you make your comparison examination, do you come to your conclusions on the basis of what you see under the microscope, or on the basis of the photographs you take?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the basis of what I see under the microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you usually take photographs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you took them--can you explain why you took them here?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I took these at your request as an exhibit just to show what the hairs looked like. In a photograph it is very hard to try to point out the characteristics of hairs because they aren't clear. Under a microscope you can see each of these points by focusing up and down. If I am looking at the pigment on the hair, I can focus the comparison microscope up and down and see exactly the same characteristics, the pigment is exactly the same size, dispersed about the same, and there is approximately the same amount of pigment in a given area.

Also, the cuticle is of the same thickness. I can line the hairs up longitudinally and see that the tips of the scales match equally as far as protrusion and distance goes.

This you couldn't show in the photographs. In order to show each and every characteristic in photographs, I would have to take 500 or 600 different photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. So these photographs are just as a general illustration of the kind of thing you see, rather than being given to the Commission as photographs from which the Commission is to make an identification?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. If I were to look at these photographs myself, I couldn't make an identification on them because I wouldn't be able to see enough and I would say this looks like this and this looks like this, but so what?

What about the size of the pigments, what about the size of the scales, what about the thickness of the cuticle? I see a medulla here, I don't see a medulla over here. So you just couldn't see all the characteristics in a photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. But these characteristics you do see as you change the focus on the microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; these appear by looking through different areas of the hair shaft itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, getting to the microscope itself, suppose a person without experience looked through the microscope directly at the hairs. Would he be able to directly interpret the hairs--a known and a questioned hair--to see if they are probably identical, or does it take experience even to interpret what you see through a microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This takes experience to interpret what you see.

We get quite a few people through the lab on tours and every now and then I will set up some hairs. I had one man making a match with a dog hair and a human hair, and he said they came from the same person, because he couldn't interpret what he saw. He just thought he saw something which he didn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell from these hairs that you found in the blanket, and let me add parenthetically we sometimes have been calling this blanket a rug but we have been talking about the object----

Mr. DULLES. You call it a blanket, technically.

Mr. EISENBERG. Technically a blanket, and it is Exhibit 140. This Exhibit 140, Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell whether these hairs had been pulled out or had fallen out?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These hairs had fallen out naturally. They have died and fallen from the body. This is a very normal occurrence. When one combs one's hair, ordinarily you will find one or two strands of hair on the comb, because hair is constantly being replaced in most people.

Mr. EISENBERG. How can you tell it had fallen out?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the shape of the root.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the difference of the shape of the root where a hair falls out and the shape of the hair of a root where it has been taken out artificially or unnaturally?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In Exhibit 667, I have a photomicrograph of a root of a human hair. Now, this hair has died and has fallen out naturally, you can tell by the shape of it here. The follicle has just come right along with it. It is starting to shrivel. If this hair was a healthy hair and had been forcibly removed, this root would have been collapsed and twisted. It is very characteristic, it is easy to tell whether a hair has been forcibly removed or whether it fell out naturally.

Mr. EISENBERG. Suppose it is cut, suppose the hair was cut, can you tell that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, we can tell from looking at the tip of a hair whether it has been cut, burned, crushed, and whether it has been cut with a sharp instrument, such as a razor, or whether it has been cut with a dull instrument.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these hairs cut, the hairs in 140, that you found in Exhibit 140?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Some of the tips of the head hairs had been cut, but the limb hairs and the pubic hairs had not.

Mr. EISENBERG. But they all had roots on them?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They all had roots on them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the blanket for a moment, as to the composition, you testified that there were woolen, viscose, and cotton fibers. I don't recall whether you said that there were green and brown fibers of each type of textile?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, each type had green and brown fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, also getting back to the shape of the blanket when you received it, the shape of 140 and its folds, we had discussed a crease which you marked "C," which you said was caused by an object 10 inches long, and we discussed whether the object was 10 inches long or could have been longer.

How long was the crease "C"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The crease "C," the hump in the blanket itself, was approximately 10 inches long.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did that run--as the blanket is folded, and looking from "A" to the general area of "D"--and putting "A" at the left-hand side--can you tell us how that crease ran, did it run from left to right or from top to bottom?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It ran from left to right.

Mr. EISENBERG. It ran from left to right, and about 10 inches long?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Approximately 10 inches long.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I recall, you testified it was caused by a distortion in the fibers, that is to say, the fact the crease was still present even though there was no object in the blanket was caused by a distortion of the fibers?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; the fibers had been stretched in this area--not the fibers, the yarns.

Mr. DULLES. Can one see that on the blanket itself?

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's take a look at 140, Mr. Stombaugh, and see if it is still present?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. If I can find where it was here. I doubt if it will still be present because the creases on the edges of the blanket are gone. I can't tell. It has been folded so much. No. I can't see it.

When I received the blanket in the laboratory, I noticed, when I put the blanket down flat, it had an area that was humped just like this.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have put a pencil underneath?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have picked it up an inch or two, you have made a hump of about an inch or an inch and a half up from the rest of the blanket, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. But it was very slight and you could hardly notice it, but I happened to look at the blanket from a distance and saw the hump and went over to measure it. But we tried to photograph it and we just couldn't get it. We tried various ways of lighting.

So I made a notation in my notes regarding that slight hump.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to make the record clear, the hump was 10 inches long, and therefore you felt that the object immediately causing the hump must have been approximately 10 inches long, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. The object causing the hump itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. But could it have been attached to an object which was longer than 10 inches, or could it have been attached to an object, running underneath the object causing the protrusion, which was longer than 10 inches?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay. That is what I think was the source of the confusion earlier.

Now, you placed this mark "C" on this paper illustration, Exhibit 663. Does that--does the placement of the mark approximate the general area where you found the hump?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, approximately, according to my notes. It could be to the left a little or to the right a little. This isn't to scale.

Mr. EISENBERG. One last question on the blanket, Mr. Stombaugh. Could you form any opinion as to the quality of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, the composition of the blanket being mostly viscose, a very cheap synthetic, indicated to me that it was an inferior blanket, relatively inexpensive.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you determine whether it was a domestic or a foreign product?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, I couldn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. It might have been either?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Could have been either, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you a photograph which is labeled on the bottom "C 11, Commission Exhibit 150." It is a color photograph of a brownish textured shirt, long-sleeved, with a hole in the right elbow, and I ask you whether you recognize the shirt that is pictured in that photograph?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see your mark anywhere on that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, my mark is in red, initials "PMS" are in the collar of the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this photograph admitted?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted, 673.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 673, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Let me state for the record we are introducing the photograph at this point rather than the shirt itself because depositions are being taken in Dallas simultaneously with the testimony being elicited today, and the shirt is being used by those members of the staff who are in Dallas.

Mr. DULLES. I understand.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this shirt that is pictured in Exhibit 673, said shirt being Commission Exhibit 150?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I received this shirt the same day I received the blanket, which was November 23, 1963, approximately 7:30 a.m.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you conduct an examination to determine the composition of this shirt?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you do that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I did this later on that morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. What were your conclusions as to the composition, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The shirt is composed of gray-black cotton, dark blue cotton, and orange-yellow cotton fibers. The dark yarn in the shirt is composed of a mixture of dark blue and gray-black cotton fibers twisted together, and the light yellowish orange looking colors here, the yarns in this part of the shirt were composed of orange-yellow cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the shirt to determine--pardon me, Mr. Dulles, were you going to put a question on the composition?

Mr. DULLES. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the shirt to determine the presence of hairs or other debris?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, I didn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. You did not?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Neither then or at any subsequent time?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a look at your notes on that, Mr. Stombaugh, to make sure about that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I did not remove the debris from the shirt. I noted in my notes the two buttons from the top were forcibly removed, the right elbow area was worn through, the bottom front inside of the shirt was ripped forcibly, and that I had made a known sample of this shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I had been under the impression you found some wax on that shirt.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; down the face of the shirt I did find some wax adhering to it, and this wax I removed and delivered to the spectrographic unit for a spectrographic examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that show in your notes?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I was looking for debris and hairs. I knew I had not scraped the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am using the wrong term, I guess.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I recall doing this. This was later in the afternoon when I removed this wax and took it to the spectrographic unit. This was after I had conducted other examinations on some other items.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, we had an earlier discussion, and you had mentioned this to me in an earlier discussion, as I recall----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find any body hairs on this shirt--or any hairs, I should say?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of examination had not been requested. It seemed unnecessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, were you able to determine the quality of the shirt or did you form any opinion as to the quality of the shirt?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; it was an inexpensive shirt. I found no labels in it indicating the manufacturer.

Mr. DULLES. Any indication that labels had been torn out?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Not that I recall, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine, Mr. Stombaugh, whether this was a domestic, whether this was of domestic or foreign origin?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; there are so many different shirt manufacturers in this country, that there is little value in trying to trace down a particular source unless we can find a manufacturer's marking in the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any laundry marks which you attempted to trace down?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found no laundry marks. The shirt was well worn and appeared to have been hand laundered.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the shirt, I will move on to another item.

Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.

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

Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.

In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.

Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now--this is the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m., 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you form any opinions as you examined it, concerning the construction of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I looked at the bag and examined it, it struck me as being a homemade bag such as I could make. Occasionally I will have a need for something like this at home. Therefore, I will take some brown paper and a strip of tape home with me. Then when I get home I will fold the tape--fold the paper rather--in the shape I need--and to seal it up I will tear strips of the sealing tape from the little piece I have.

Here we find that this tape has been torn at several places, such as one would do in an instance like that. Due to these torn edges, I was under the impression, from looking at the bag, that it was a homemade bag which someone had made at home and they did not have a tape dispenser which machine-cuts tape. Therefore, they had to tear it, which they did--or cut it, of course--with a knife. And this is the case where pieces of tape were torn.

Mr. EISENBERG. You were pointing to various torn edges as you testified, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many, if any, square-cut edges did you notice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found--according to my drawing--two machine-cut edges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that indicate--well, do you form any opinion as to, on the basis of that, as to the origin, possible origin, of the tape?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The origin of the tape as far as the manufacturer----

Mr. EISENBERG. What I am referring to is this: on the basis of that would you draw an inference that the person had taken--whoever made this bag--had taken two lengths of tape from a dispensing machine and had subsequently torn it up into smaller strips, or do you think he had one length of tape from a dispensing machine which he subsequently tore up into smaller strips?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the ends that I could see, now I don't know whether there were any ends underneath which I did not have a chance to look at, I don't have anything in my notes, but from what I can see it would appear he took a strip of tape, machine-cut from a dispenser, and used that entire strip, thus using up both ends of the tape because we have two machine-cut ends.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, it would be a machine-cut strip at the beginning of the tape which the person pulled out, left over from the last cut?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And a machine-cut at the end, where the person himself ripped the tape from the machine?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you infer that he then divided it into smaller strips on the occasion when he made the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; he pulled one strip, of course, he could have pulled two or three strips, I don't know, but it would appear he took one strip of tape and tore it into smaller pieces to be used on the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice any bulges or creases or folds apart from the fold used in making of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I didn't. I noticed that one end of the bag had been torn.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would you say that the absence of bulges would be inconsistent with the carrying of a heavy object or an irregularly shaped object in the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, I don't believe I am qualified to answer that question, because I actually am not an expert in paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right. We will leave that to the questioned document examiner and we will take it up with him.

Did you notice anything else about the bag relating to its gross physical characteristics and its shape, apart from any debris which you may have found inside or outside the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; just an oblong homemade bag was the impression I received from looking at it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think it was, if it was in fact a homemade bag, do you think it was a well-made bag, Mr. Stombaugh? Did you form any opinion as to that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In my opinion, just a personal opinion, the person was aware as to how to make a bag, to seal the ends by folding both corners in and then folding them flat.

Mr. EISENBERG. You just demonstrated that both corners originally were folded by the crease lines, and you folded it over again to show how it was made?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this makes a neat and also a secure corner or end to the bag, to prevent losing any of the contents.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine the outside of this paper bag----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit 142 and also 626, to see if there were any foreign items on the surface?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found that the bag had previously been dusted for latent fingerprints because I found traces of what appeared to be fingerprint powder on it.

I was using white gloves at the time I examined this and the gloves became quite soiled from the fingerprint powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find anything else?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; nothing on the outside of the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you conduct that examination, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. With a low-power microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any cotton fibers on the outside of the bag at all, Mr. Stombaugh, white or colored?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There were white cotton fibers on the outside but I was using a pair of white cotton gloves, so these would be of no value. White cotton is the most common thing we have in the way of textiles, and therefore it just doesn't have sufficient individual characteristics to be of value for comparison and identification purposes. It is for this reason that we use gloves of this material.

Mr. EISENBERG. And those fibers may have come from your white cotton gloves?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they could very easily have come from my gloves from handling the object with a pair of gloves on.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you proceed to examine the inside of the paper bag to see if there were any foreign objects?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What were your conclusions?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed the debris from the inside of the bag by opening the bag as best I could, and tapping it and knocking the debris on to a small piece of white paper, and I found a very small number of fibers. Upon examining these fibers, I found a single brown, delustered, viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers from the inside of the bag. I also found a minute particle of wood and a single particle of a waxy substance.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attach any significance to the particle of wood, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it was too minute for identification purposes. It could have come from any surface, including the bag itself. Sometimes all of the wood used in the manufacture of paper doesn't go into a pulp, and this might be a very tiny such fragment.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the wood fragment?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I looked at it microscopically.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to compare it with the wood of the Exhibit 139, which is a rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the wood particle from the bag was too minute for comparison purposes. There wasn't much you could do with it, it was very small.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attach any significance to the body wax--or to the wax, I should say?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The wax particle I noticed, and I recalled having seen wax on the shirt, Exhibit No. 673, so therefore I put that aside for a spectrographic examination and comparison of the wax particle from the inside of the bag with the wax from the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what were the results?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were entirely different.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any analysis made of the wax in the bag as to its origin, do you know?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was examined by the spectrographic examiner and he found it was just common wax.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say common wax, do you mean the kind you wax a floor with?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; more like that which could have come from a candle, candle wax.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the wax on the shirt as to origin?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was paraffin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now you also said there were several fibers, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. There was a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did this single brown viscose fiber match the fibers from the blanket, Exhibit 140?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; it did.

Mr. EISENBERG. In what characteristics were they matched?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The fibers in the blanket had a large number of brown viscose fibers, delustered and one fiber I found in the bag was also a viscose fiber of the same type and color as seen under a low-powered microscope. The delustering spots seen on the fiber were the same size, and both fibers were approximately the same diameter.

Mr. EISENBERG. How common is viscose, Mr. Stombaugh, as a fiber?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Viscose is fairly common. It is used in many types of garments; it depends on the quality of the garment.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this was delustered viscose, did you say?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. How common is delustered viscose?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is most common, I would say. It is more common than lustrous.

Mr. EISENBERG. Generally speaking, how many variations of diameter would a delustered viscose come in?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is entirely up to the manufacturer. He can make viscose any diameter he wants, and there could be hundreds of variations in the diameter of viscose fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the fiber you found in the paper bag, 142, matched the fibers you found in the Exhibit 140?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; but the viscose fibers in the blanket varied in size also.

Mr. EISENBERG. To what extent?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There were 10 to 15 different diameters of viscose in this blanket. It appeared to me as if the blanket was made of scrap viscose, scrap fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the diameters would be random?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were random; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the color, was the color a match between the fiber found in 140--in 142--and the fiber which is in the composition of 140, the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the color matched some of the viscose fibers, the brown viscose fibers in the blanket. Of course, these colors also varied slightly but not to any great extent, not like the diameter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other common characteristics between the viscose fibers found in the blanket and the viscose fibers found in the paper bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers found in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter, the diameter of that same fiber would have the same size of delustering markings, same shape, same form, and also same color.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you found in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the green cotton fiber--was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony mentioned?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which are contained in the composition of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These matched in all observable microscopic characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. And those were what?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The color and the amount of twist of the cotton fibers were the same as the color and twist found in these. Mainly the color is what we go by on cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were they mercerized or unmercerized?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were not mercerized.

Mr. EISENBERG. How common is cotton as a fiber, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Cotton is the most common fiber used.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what about nonmercerized cotton, as to commonness?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You would find more unmercerized cotton in use than mercerized, because to mercerize cotton is an added production factor used in cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. How great a variation do you get in degree of twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You are referring to between mercerized and un----

Mr. EISENBERG. No; within unmercerized cotton.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This would depend on the quality of the cotton and the length of the cotton also.

Mr. EISENBERG. But I mean as samples come across your desk in your office, or as you read about them in books, is there a great variation in twist or a small variation?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It depends--there is a small variation but this would depend on the type of cotton. There are different types of cotton, and each is determined from the length of the individual cotton fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell what kind of cotton you were dealing with in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because here we are not dealing with a full-length cotton fiber. We are dealing with a fragment of a single fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you determine whether there was a variation in the twist of the cotton fibers within the blanket itself as there was, you say, in the diameter of the viscose fibers?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The twist seemed to coincide with the twist found in the cotton from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. But looking just to the blanket now for a second, you said the brown viscose or the viscose generally in the blanket itself varied as to diameter. Did the cotton in the blanket vary within itself as to twist or was the cotton of a fairly uniform twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it was fairly uniform twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you said the fibers you found, the green cotton fibers you found, in the bag were the same twist as the twist of the cottons which composed the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And just to tie this into the questions I was asking a few seconds ago, would this degree of twist be significant, that is can you determine under the microscope 4 different kinds of degrees of twist or 20--how many different degrees of twist can you determine under a microscope, just approximately?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Are you referring to the same type of cotton----

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, when you get a piece of cotton?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or cotton as a whole?

Mr. EISENBERG. When you get a piece of cotton under the microscope and you don't know what type it is? I am referring to cotton as a whole.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I see. The degree of twist could be--now if we are dealing with fresh cotton, cotton running right from the plant, then the degree of twist, this varies, and this could be used in the identification of the type of cotton. But in the manufacturing process quite frequently when the cotton is spun into yarns then this twist is affected.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, at this point I am not interested in determining the type of cotton. What I am interested in is determining how significant the degree of twist is as an identifying factor.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I would say no significance at all as far as the sole identifying characteristic goes, whether or not this cotton of this cotton has the same twist. The twist we use is for identification purposes only, supplementing other identifying characteristics.

Mr . EISENBERG. That is the only purpose I am interested in.

Mr . STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is the only purpose.

Mr . EISENBERG. But in getting to that, how valuable is it for identification purposes? I am curious as to how many--how much a twist can vary. As you pick up a random fiber, and put it under your microscope, I am interested in how much the twist can vary. For example, if there are only two possibilities, then it isn't too helpful that you get a match in twist, but if there are great variations in twist in cotton fibers as they come under your microscope, it would be helpful in making your identification.

Mr . STOMBAUGH. I see what you are getting at. There are great variations. Sometimes in a cotton fiber, the twist will be rather far apart. Other times it will be rather close together. This piece----

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the fibers, the cotton fibers, to begin with, matched in twist, that is, the cotton fibers you found in the paper bag matched the twist of the ones that are contained in the blanket, and you said they also matched in color?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to ask you the same question as to color that I asked you as to twist. How many different shades do you think you can distinguish under the microscope in a green cotton? Would the range be just 2 or 3 different shades, or do you think you could distinguish between 20 or 30 different types of green cotton if you laid them next to each other under the microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; the range in green cotton fibers, for that matter in any color, is tremendous. This could go to 50 sometimes 100 different shades which you can distinguish under a microscope. To the naked eye, it would look as if it is just green. But you could take, say five different fabrics of the same type that have been dyed exactly the same color or rather you think they are the same shade, and put the individual fibers under the microscope and there will be a big difference noted in shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now were the green cotton fibers in the blanket uniform as to shade between themselves?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; these varied.

Mr. EISENBERG. To what extent?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They go from a green to a very pale green.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Might be seven or eight different shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. So when you say there is a match, you mean the green cotton fibers you found in the paper bag were within the spectrum of shades that are laid out in the green cotton fibers from the blanket--is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No. I forget how many different shades of green I found in this blanket. Under the circumstances, I considered the exact number of no particular significance. But we will say it might be possibly eight different separate shades, and the fibers I found from the blanket matched some of these shades. Not all of them; but there might be a medium-green fiber that I found in the bag, which I matched with a medium-green fiber from this blanket. It might have been one that had a yellowish-green tinge to it, which I also matched with the yellowish-green tinged cotton fibers from the blanket.

So unless the colors match absolutely, there is no match.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many green cotton fibers you found in the paper bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have here in my notes "several"--

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have here in my notes "several light green cotton fibers," which would be approximately two or three.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall whether they represented two or three different shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all different from each other but each matched the cotton fibers in the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you had two or three cotton fibers of two or three shades of green in the bag, and they matched against these two or three of the seven or eight shades of green cotton which were in the blanket, is that a correct recapitulation?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you say there are 50 to 100--approximately--green shades of cotton that can be distinguished under the microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I would say that is true. This would vary from dark green, of course, all the way up to light-pale green.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find anything else within the bag, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; that is all I found inside the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if you can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibers in the bag, ultimately came from the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come from this blanket, because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers.

Now these 3 different types of fibers have 6 different general colors, and if we would multiply that, say by a minimum of 5 different shades of each so you would have 30 different shades you are looking for, and 3 different types of fibers. Here we have only found 1 brown viscose fiber, and 2 or 3 light green cotton fibers. We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.

So if I had found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions as to the blanket?

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I have none, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recognize Exhibit 139? Are you familiar with that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine that in the laboratory?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when you made that examination?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; here is my mark.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which consists of your initials?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. My initials, and the date 11-23-63. Do you mind if I check to see if this is unloaded?

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the rifle to determine whether it contained on its surface or crevices any hair or other debris?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you made that examination?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.

I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you unhappy at all about that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact.

Mr. EISENBERG. Proceed.

Mr. DULLES. It was dusted by the Dallas police, was it, first?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I don't know who dusted it.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I believe that will be shown later that it was dusted by Dallas police.

As far as you know, did it come into your office, into your laboratory before it went to the identification division, latent fingerprint section?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints.

So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun.

At this point of the butt plate, the end of the stock----

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you point to that again?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the left side of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is on the left side; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge, jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the wood, is that what you are referring to?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here, according to my notes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.

The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.

You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.

Mr. EISENBERG. "These" being the ones that you found in the butt plate crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; adhering to this small jagged edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we get to those, were there any other fibers of value on the rest of the Exhibit 139?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented.

Mr. EISENBERG. You could not make a determination as to their nature?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I could tell what type they were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Meaning textile type?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; such as wool, cotton, what-have-you, but the grease and the dirt had changed the colors which ruined the characteristics for comparison purposes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell whether they were old or new?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They all appeared old.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about----

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by old, 2 or 3 months old, 2 or 3 weeks old?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, a length of time, I would say that in excess of a month or 2 months.

Mr. DULLES. In that area?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In that area or longer. They weren't recently put in there. Let's say that.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the grease, did you attempt to examine the grease?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why was that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I could see no need of it at that time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's return then to the fibers which you referred to as being fresh, which you said you found in the crevice of the butt plate, and I will ask Mr. Dulles' question in reverse: What do you mean by fresh, why do you call these fresh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In the first place, this was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these fibers in a position where they could have easily been knocked off by rough use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice.

Mr. DULLES. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in part by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had been folded into the crevice by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now assuming your conclusion is accurate that they were dusted into the crevice, and had not been in the crevice originally but had merely adhered to the jagged edge, how much--how rough a handling would it have taken to have gotten them loose from that jagged edge?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the use of the weapon itself have jarred them loose?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I doubt it. I doubt it.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am talking now about the jagged edge position, and not the crevice position.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You mean breaking them loose? They were adhering to the jagged edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It might, of course--there are a lot of factors here you don't know, but they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked loose and fallen off.

Mr. EISENBERG. What I can't understand is, when you are talking about the handling of the gun are you talking about the position in which you found them, or are you talking about the position which you deduced they were in before you found them brushed into the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, both. The position I found them in. I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off. They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you concluded they were fresh--well, you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter. I couldn't--this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.

But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago, and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off.

Am I making myself a little more clear?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; you are making yourself clear; yes.

Now, looking at Exhibit 139, the weapon, and Exhibit 140, the blanket, do you think it is possible that the bulge you described before, which you marked "C," might have been caused by some component part of 139, the rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. At the time I found the hump in the blanket which I believed you have marked point C.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is point C on the replica piece of paper you have folded up, marked Exhibit 663?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I checked the telescopic sight on Exhibit 139, and noted that the approximate length and general shape of the scope----

Mr. DULLES. Exhibit 139 being the blanket?

Mr. EISENBERG. Being the rifle.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Were approximately the same so far as length and shape went, and at the time I thought to myself it is quite possible the hump in the blanket could have been made by that telescopic sight.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to match up the rifle into the blanket to see if that could be true?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I didn't want to handle the rifle any more than possible. I took a ruler and measured the scope and then compared the measurement with the hump in the blanket and it was approximately the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the relationship, the spatial relationship of the scope to the end of the gun, as compared with the spatial relationship of the hump in the blanket to the end of the blanket? Were those matching?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the way the blanket was folded at the time, and from measuring this, and not using the gun itself and putting it in contact with the blanket, just from measurements, I determined it is possible that the scope could have made the hump. In other words, the gun could have fitted in there. But I couldn't be absolutely certain on any of this. This is just from measurements.

Mr. EISENBERG. And visual comparison?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And visual comparison; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any further information you would like to give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just the fibers I removed.

Mr. DULLES. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers that were found in the jagged edge?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. What does that mean?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt plate of the gun.

Mr. DULLES. Did you find all three shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. All three shades; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. All three shades were found on the fragments that were found in the butt of the gun?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made photographs showing these, color photographs showing these?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. Color photographs are very difficult to make microscopically because the color isn't always identical to what you see in the microscope. So these colors are slightly off.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have shown a chart captioned "Microphotograph Showing Match Between Orange-Yellow Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle and Orange-Yellow Cotton Fibers From Oswald's Shirt." Did you take this photograph?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it was taken under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. It was taken under your supervision.

Mr. Chairman, may I submit this as 674.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted, 674.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 674, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I believe this was 400 also. I am not certain of this, because the shot itself has also been enlarged.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now you were discussing the reproduction of the color in the photomicrograph?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. These are the orangish-yellow fibers. The color is not exactly the same as what one would see under the microscope.

However, you can see that the fibers on both sides, namely, the fiber from the rifle here, and this----

Mr. DULLES. On the right-hand side----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the right-hand side.

Mr. DULLES. Of Exhibit 674?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And the fibers from the shirt, which are on the left-hand side of Exhibit 674, do match. The colors are the same and also, we find the same twist in the fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was the orange-yellow cotton fiber--were the orange-yellow cotton fibers in the shirt of a uniform shade?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all of a uniform shade. It was what we would call a uniform dye job.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The twist was about normal. These, you can see here.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to the right-hand side and left-hand side of 674?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You can see the twist to these fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they have a uniform twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Uniform.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the match was identical as to twist and shade, and the fibers in the shirt were uniform in themselves as to these two characteristics, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the gray-black cotton fibers?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These are the gray-black cotton fibers and the color didn't come out well on these in this instance because of time and color process limitations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just a second. You have a chart here--a photomicrograph--captioned "Microphotograph Showing Match Between Gray-Black Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle, etc. and Gray-Black Cotton Fibers From Oswald's Shirt."

Did you take these photographs or were they taken under your supervision?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 675?

Mr. DULLES. 675, it will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 675, and received in evidence.)

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The same would apply to Exhibit 675 as to 674, with the exception of the color. The color on these is much darker and we tried up to last night to duplicate the exact color and this is the best I could come up with under the time and color process limitations. It took us about 4 hours to make a photograph such as this.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is an apparent match of colors in the photograph----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. But there is one----

Mr. EISENBERG. I say, there is an apparent match in photographs, in color, or is that just my eyes deceiving me?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This one appears to be slightly lighter than this shade.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. But actually they are both a gray black, almost black in color.

Mr. EISENBERG. But under the microscope they were identical, and a different shade than what we see in Exhibit 675?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases did you make your determination of color and match under the microscope, or by use of the photographs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Under the microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. And these are illustrative and prepared for the Commission's use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have a chart of photomicrograph captioned "Match Between Dark Blue Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle, etc." Did you prepare these photographs or were they prepared under your supervision?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have these received as Exhibit 676?

Mr. DULLES. 676.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 676, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of 675 and 676, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. All of these were made at approximately 400 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find a color match here?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the color match of the dark blue cotton fibers shows rather well in this photograph, Exhibit 676.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now there is also a violet-colored fiber running through the right-hand side of 676.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I asked the photographer about this when he developed this and I said, "Why did we get this, this is not in the slide at all," and he said that is one of the orange fibers. They use different techniques in bringing out the blue and the yellow-orange in a photomicrograph.

Mr. DULLES. The shades are the fiber of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; this shade in the photograph is different from what that fiber actually is. It is in the development process. I am not too familiar with color photography. There is an art to it. However, I do know that there are times and technical limitations on the accuracy of color reproductions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, were the shades in--were the shades of the dark blue cotton fibers uniform throughout the shirt which is pictured in Commission Exhibit 673?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No sir; the dark blue fibers had some lighter shades and some slightly darker shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. About how many different shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There were only about three in this.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many dark blue fibers you got from the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I believe a total of six or seven fibers from the butt plate and three of them are blue fibers and all matched.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall whether they were one or more shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Two shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that two of the fibers were two different shades of blue?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they matched two different shades of blue in the shirt out of a total of three different shades of blue?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you testified before there were about 50 to 100 ranges of shade of green cotton. What about the ranges in shades of blue cotton?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The same would apply to blue cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the ranges in shades of orange yellow cotton?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The orange-yellow cotton I have here----

Mr. EISENBERG. 674.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a shade of a yellow cotton fiber, it appears orange yellow under a microscope. Sometimes you get greenish yellow. These will vary, the orange-yellow shade itself might be only two variations in orange yellow, but in a greenish yellow it might be 50 to 100.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was a gray-black cotton fiber in the shirt. Were they uniform between themselves as to color?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; these were uniform.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many shades of gray, in the gray-black area, can you distinguish?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The gray-black in itself would be similar to the orange-yellow and would be possibly two or three.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in the black taken as a broader----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Black taken in itself would go from, all the way from, very grayish-light gray all the way down to dense black.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many different shades can you distinguish?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Black is different. There are only about 25 or 30 shades, I would say, in black.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you identified the fibers you found on the butt plate as matching the fibers you found in the shirt, not only as to color but as to shades within those colors, out of a range going from 25 in the gray-black or black area to 50 to 100 in the yellow and blue areas?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And degrees of twist were all the same?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any other characteristics?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just type of fibers, they were all cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go into that in a little more detail, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors together on the gun.

Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing this shirt, so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I recall you said it could have.

Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.

The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off.

In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen off the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, is there anything you would like to add to your testimony?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I can think of nothing else.

Mr. DULLES. And you found no other pieces of fabric or other foreign material on the gun?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Nothing that I could associate with either the blanket or the shirt. I found----

Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.

We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an opinion on those.

Now if I would have found, say 15 or 20 fibers and all 15 or 20 matched the fibers from the blanket, then I could say, "Yes, I feel that these very easily could have come from the blanket." But I didn't. I only found two of the many types.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay. I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any further questions?

Mr. MURRAY. No; I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Stombaugh, we appreciate your coming.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN

Mr. DULLES. Would you mind standing and raising your right hand?

Do you swear the testimony you give before the Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?

Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. I have a Master of Science degree from Boston College in Newton, Mass. Upon being appointed in the FBI, I was given on-the-job training, which consisted of working with various examiners, conducting experiments, reading books, attending lectures, and so forth.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, how long have you been in the questioned document field?

Mr. CADIGAN. Twenty-three and a half years.

Mr. EISENBERG. And during that time have you examined papers to determine their possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of such examinations you have conducted?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; not with any degree of accuracy, except many, many specimens, many, many comparisons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified on that subject in court?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Many times?

Mr. CADIGAN. I won't say many, no; because most of the testimony I have given in court relates to other phases of the work. Strictly on paper, I would say not more than two or three times.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you have made more than two or three examinations of paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes; far more.

Mr. DULLES. Running into the hundreds and thousands?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

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

Mr. DULLES. He shall be admitted as an expert on this subject.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you an object made of paper, Commission Exhibit 142, also known as Commission Exhibit 626, and ask you if you are familiar with this object?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this object, this paper bag, to determine its origin, possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that the sample that you are referring to, that you are holding in your hand?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is marked, as you said, "Paper sample from first floor Texas School Book Depository" and has certain other markings including the words "shipping department"?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

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

Mr. DULLES. That may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be No. 677.

Mr. DULLES. 677 may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 677 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find out from precisely what portion of the Texas School Book Depository Building this was obtained, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this comes from the first floor, main floor of the Texas School Book Depository, referred to as the shipping room, the whole floor.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you--who supplied you with this sample, this Exhibit 677?

Mr. CADIGAN. This exhibit was brought to the laboratory by Special Agent Drain of our Dallas office, who brought all of this evidence in for examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether Exhibit 142 had the same origin as the paper in Exhibit 677, or might have had the same origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I examined the two papers--do you wish me to state my opinion?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; please.

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, initially, I was requested to compare the two papers to see if they could have originated from the same source. I first measured the paper and the tape samples. Then I looked at them visually by natural light, then incident light and transmitted light.

Mr. EISENBERG. What do you mean by transmitted light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, light coming right on through the paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. Then----

Mr. DULLES. Natural light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; natural light.

Mr. DULLES. As distinct from electric light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Both. In the room I am in you can go over to the window for natural light and use ceiling light for artificial light which has a little different property than the outside light.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. CADIGAN. I looked at the papers under various lighting conditions----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me a minute, Mr. Cadigan, by "transmitted light" you mean the light transmitted when you hold the object between the light source and your own eyes?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; then I put it under the microscope, and again looked at it from the standpoint of the surface, paper structure, the color, any imperfections. I further noted that on both of the tapes----

Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is the paper bag.

Mr. CADIGAN. On 142 and on the tape on 677 there were a series of marks right down about the center of the tape.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see those visually with the unaided eye, or only under a microscope?

Mr. CADIGAN. I can see them visually. The microscope makes it look clearer.

Mr. DULLES. What are you pointing to now?

Mr. EISENBERG. This line here.

Mr. DULLES. Where is this?

Mr. CADIGAN. These are a series of lines running right here about a half-inch high, they are very closely spaced.

Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; these are perpendicular lines.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Would you like to see these, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. Yes; thank you.

Mr. DULLES. They are quite clear, about a tenth of an inch apart or less than that.

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, actually they are 24-1/2 spaces per inch, which would be about 25 lines per inch.

Mr. MURRAY. Pockmarks?

Mr. CADIGAN. A series of little short marks right close together.

Mr. MURRAY. Oh, yes.

Mr. DULLES. And they run along about how far on this particular exhibit?

Mr. CADIGAN. They run the whole length of the tape.

Mr. MURRAY. A comb design.

Mr. EISENBERG. Comb in the sense that it is a series of----

Mr. MURRAY. Comb or rake.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that on 677, and mark the portion "A"? Can you still make out the lines on Exhibit 640?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle a portion of the lines on 640 and mark it--I am sorry, that is 142.

Mr. CADIGAN. I have marked it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Dulles, would you care to look at it?

Mr. DULLES. And--oh, yes--and they go over a good deal further than your circle?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. They run right across.

Mr. CADIGAN. I might explain that these are made by a wheel in the paper-tape dispenser. [Referring to an object in the room.] It is not quite this size, but it is similar to this and it has horizontal markings running all around the wheel.

As you pull the operating handle that pulls the paper tape from the roll through the machine and over the wetting brush, the wheel, in the process leaves these markings on the tape.

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, Mr. Cadigan, would this be in the type of tape dispenser which is operated not merely by a handle--by a handpull--to the tape from the dispenser, but is operated--that is operated by a lever?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; a lever, a handle.

Mr. EISENBERG. And a given quantity of tape is dispensed, which you can cut off or not as you choose--if you want to, you can pull some more tape and cut it off, is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this wheel, as I understand it, when you pull the lever this wheel forces the paper out?

Mr. CADIGAN. It turns, and it is really pulling the paper from the roll and pushing it out from the slot.

Mr. EISENBERG. That has a slight knurl which grasps the paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. It has a slight ridge all around it which is the cause of these marks on the paper tape.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.

Mr. DULLES. Is that a defect in the mark or a peculiar----

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, no; it is designed that way. Those little, you might say, in effect, teeth, go into the paper and pull it through smoothly.

Mr. EISENBERG. If I went into Woolworths and bought a roll of gummed tape, would it have those marks on it?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Because it only gets the marks when you put it in the dispensing machine that you have in commercial establishments?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be common to have this type of dispensing machine in a home, by the way?

Mr. CADIGAN. I doubt very much that you would find it in a home.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, within a commercial establishment, are there more than one type of dispensing machines?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there types that won't produce these lines at all?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out, too, that the number of lines per inch will vary depending on the diameter of that wheel. In this particular instance I found that there were 24-1/2 spaces, which would be 25 lines per inch, on both.

Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that is 142, the bag you are handling, and 677, the sample?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the markings on the manila tape in both 142 and 677 were the same. Now, at that time I also had----

Mr. DULLES. Could we get just before you continue there, would you identify what 142 is and 677 is?

Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is an apparently homemade paper bag which was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD following the assassination, and which, for the record, is a bag which may have been used to carry this rifle, 139, which was used to commit the assassination. 677 is a sample of paper and tape--and parenthetically, tape was used in the construction of 142--677 is a sample of paper and tape obtained from the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, that is, the very day of the assassination.

Mr. DULLES. Obtained by whom, by the FBI?

Mr. CADIGAN. This was obtained by the Dallas police.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to you by the Dallas----

Mr. CADIGAN. By the Dallas police through our Dallas office.

Mr. DULLES. It was obtained after the assassination on that date?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; the night of November 22.

At the same time, on November 23, we had an agent come in from Chicago with samples of paper from Klein's, with the possibility, it was thought, that the paper sack----

Mr. DULLES. Identify Klein's just for the record.

Mr. CADIGAN. Klein's Sporting Goods Store in Chicago, from which the Italian rifle was bought.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 139?

Mr. CADIGAN. Exhibit 139. The agent brought in these paper samples from Klein's for comparison purposes, and the paper tape, this manila gummed tape, had these knurl markings measuring 30 per inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the gummed tape you obtained from Klein's?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. It was not identical with this, but merely, you might say, illustrate that the markings will differ depending on the wheel, and if your wheel has 30 lines per inch and your other sample is 24 or 25 lines per inch, you know they didn't come from the same tape dispenser.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, do these wheels differ as to their diameter across the bearing surface, the length across the rolling knurled surface?

Mr. CADIGAN. I imagine there would be a difference.

I have made no precise measurement but I imagine they vary within tolerances of a quarter- or half-inch in width.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the length of the lines produced on 142 be the same--the paper bag--the same as the length of the lines produced on 677?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. At what period in connection with the manufacture of the paper are those lines put on or----

Mr. CADIGAN. These are put on after the paper is complete.

Mr. DULLES. After paper is completely manufactured?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. DULLES. And put on by the dispensing machine?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; the individual buys gummed tape in rolls.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. CADIGAN. Three-inch rolls or inch-and-a-half rolls. He then puts it on a tape-dispensing machine.

Mr. DULLES. In his particular organization?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; or his factory or shipping department or wrapping room.

Mr. DULLES. I understand.

Mr. CADIGAN. Once it is in that machine then that wheel will mark the tape going through the dispenser just before it wets it and you paste it down.

Mr. DULLES. Just before, generally just before it is used, then these markings are put on by the dispensing machine.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

After examining the papers, comparing them visually and under the microscope, I examined them under ultraviolet light. This is merely one additional step.

Here again I found that both of them fluoresced the same way.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain the meaning of that?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Paper, along with many substances, has the property of absorbing or reflecting ultraviolet light rays differently. You can take two samples of paper and put them under an ultraviolet light, and they may appear to be the same or they may be markedly different.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean even if they look the same under visual light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Visually they may look the same and yet under ultraviolet light there may be very dramatic differences.

Mr. EISENBERG. What causes those differences?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, the chemicals that are in the paper itself; I think probably a very common example are the markings on shirts, so-called invisible dyes which, visually, you do not see, but you put them under ultraviolet light and the chemical is such that it glows brilliantly.

So, it is basically a chemical or chemicals in there, in this case, in the paper being examined under the ultraviolet, which gives a certain visual appearance, which you can say, it is the same or it is different.

In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you just review those? That was the ultraviolet light----

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, briefly, it would be the thickness of both the paper and the tape, the color under various lighting conditions of both the paper and the tape, the width of the tape, the knurled markings on the surface of the tape, the texture of the fiber, the felting pattern. I hadn't mentioned this before, but if you hold a piece of paper up to the light, you see light and dark areas caused by the way the fibers felt right at the beginning stages of paper manufacture.

There are light and dark areas, and these are called the felting pattern. This is something that will vary depending on how the paper is made, the thickness of the paper, the way that the fibers moved on the papermaking machine, and here again I found that they were the same for both the known sample, Commission Exhibit 677, and the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142.

Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they were all identical?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned before the thickness. How did you measure the thickness of the tape and paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. With a micrometer.

Mr. EISENBERG. How sensitive is it?

Mr. CADIGAN. It reads to four places.

Mr. EISENBERG. How sensitive?

Mr. CADIGAN. Four decimal places.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that one-hundredths?

Mr. CADIGAN. That would be one ten-thousandths.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they were identical in that measurement?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I measured both the paper sack, Exhibit 142, and the known paper sample, Exhibit 677, at 0.0057 inch, that is fifty-seven ten-thousandths.

Mr. EISENBERG. Go ahead, Mr. Cadigan.

Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?

Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?

Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.

Mr. EISENBERG. The same room.

Did you examine this paper to see how it compared--that is, the paper in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission Exhibit 364--to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color, felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light, and they were different under ultraviolet light.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that these two papers, which were obtained within 9 or 10 days from the same source, could be distinguished by you?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you brought an ultraviolet light source with you?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission the difference between the three papers?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, we have been unable to find a plug for this ultraviolet machine, so we will temporarily or perhaps permanently bypass this examination. But did you find that two of the papers look the same under the ultraviolet and a third looked different when you examined it under ultraviolet?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which two were the identical and which was the different one?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well--Commission Exhibit 142 and Commission Exhibit 677--I observed them to have the same appearance under ultraviolet light, and that appearance was different from Commission Exhibit 364.

Mr. DULLES. Can you identify these three exhibits, because otherwise I think it will be very difficult to get into the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; 142 being the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, 677 being the sample obtained that day from the shipping room in the Texas School Depository, and 364 being a replica made some ten days later out of paper obtained some 10 days later.

Did that complete your examination of the gross or physical characteristics, as opposed to the microscopic characteristics?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that in essence was the extent of the examination I made at that time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you go on to examine for microscopic characteristics?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I believe I mentioned that at the time I had examined these papers under the microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned that at the time?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; earlier this morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Could you tell us what the results were of your examination under the microscope?

Mr. CADIGAN. Again, I found that the paper sack found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142, and the sample secured 11-22, Commission Exhibit 677, had the same observable characteristics both under the microscope and all the visual tests that I could conduct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go into detail as to what you did see under the microscope?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, I think perhaps this photograph, I have an enlarged photograph, one side being the----

Mr. DULLES. Which side is that?

Mr. EISENBERG. One side marked K-2, and the other Q-10?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; K-2 corresponds to the known paper sample 677.

Mr. EISENBERG. Obtained from the TSBD?

Mr. DULLES. What date?

Mr. CADIGAN. November 22.

Mr. DULLES. On the day of the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. And the Q-10 marking is the same as the paper bag found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142.

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

Mr. CADIGAN. I had it made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have it in evidence?

Mr. DULLES. Admitted.

Mr. CADIGAN. I would like to point out this is only one phase of the examination and this is a black-and-white photograph. In your examination under the microscope you are looking at the surface and memorizing everything about that surface your mind can retain by putting the two pieces of paper together and studying them back and forth. I don't wish to imply that that photograph represents all I can see in a microscope, because it doesn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. We understand that. May I have this, Mr. Reporter, marked as 678.

(Commission Exhibit No. 678 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. That has already been admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Now, what is the magnification in this Exhibit 678?

Mr. CADIGAN. It is about 50 times enlarged.

Mr. EISENBERG. And had you treated the paper chemically before you made this photograph?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us a little bit about that photograph and what it shows?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, actually all this shows is an enlarged area, a very small area, I might point out. It merely shows the surface structure, shows some of the fibers, and shows an imperfection. The dark line down the center of the photograph is actually a fold in both papers, merely to bring them close together so that they can be seen together.

But it gives you some idea of the surface texture, how the fibers lie in there. In this instance you have two little imperfections in these fiber bundles here, you can't see the brown-colored fibers that are actually present.

Mr. DULLES. That imperfection, however, would not be repeated, would it?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, no; it is purely accidental.

Mr. DULLES. They are accidental.

Mr. CADIGAN. They are bundles of fibers in the paper itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion were the two samples identical in the characteristics shown in this photomicrograph?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they have the same appearance.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also break down the papers to test them, to determine the morphology of the fiber?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Subsequently, I ran a fiber analysis of the paper, the known paper sample from the Texas School Book Depository, Commission Exhibit 677, and the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, and on the same day I had our spectrographic section run a spectrographic test on these same papers.

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different--or approximately 10 days later?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.

Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know whether another roll was put in the machine between the 22d and the 1st of December?

Mr. CADIGAN. May we go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. On the record.

Do you know whether the Dallas office of the FBI has attempted to make a determination as to whether the replica paper bag, the paper in the replica paper bag, prepared on December 1, Commission No. 364, was, or may have been, or wasn't taken from the same roll as the replica piece of paper or the sample piece of paper, Exhibit 677, which was obtained from the Depository November 22?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what you understand the results of their investigation to have been?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they were unable to determine whether the paper from the replica sack, Exhibit 364, came from the same roll or a different roll as the known sample obtained November 22. Commission Exhibit 677.

I understand that in the fall, the Depository is busy, and could very well have changed rolls, but no records are kept along that line.

Mr. DULLES. Changed rolls in that time, 10-day period?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir. Actually there were 4 working days in that period.

Mr. DULLES. Yes. But am I not correct that there probably or maybe certainly, I would like to have your view on that, was no change in the roll between the day before the assassination and the night of the assassination, that is between paper bag, Exhibit No. 142, and the specimen that was taken on the night of the day of the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. I can't tell you that, sir. I have no way of knowing, because these papers are similar in all observable physical characteristics, and they are different from a sample obtained on December 1. I would suspect that this were true. But I can't----

Mr. DULLES. I realize that.

Mr. CADIGAN. I cannot make a positive statement on that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any information as to whether the paper during the period between November 22 and December 1 used in the TSBD--whether it was the same or different rolls--would have come from the same ultimate manufacturer?

Mr. CADIGAN. It is my understanding that they received a shipment of 58 rolls of paper that were shipped March 19, 1963, from the St. Regis Paper Mill in Jacksonville. Fla., and which lasted them until January of 1964. This would mean on an average, in a 9-month period, a little more than six rolls a month.

Mr. EISENBERG. The inference would therefore be that if the--although the papers in the replica bag obtained on December 1 and the paper in the sample obtained on November 22 are distinguishable by you, they came from the same manufacturer, and--is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And, therefore, that the state of your science is such that you can distinguish even rolls of paper made by the same manufacturer and assumedly made within a reasonably close time, is that correct also?

Mr. CADIGAN. I don't know what period of time is involved here. But I can distinguish at least in this case between paper from the same shipment from the same mill.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed now to discuss the morphology of the fiber as you examined it under a microscope?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, I might state briefly what a fiber analysis is. We put samples of paper back into their, you might say, original state, in the form of fiber suspension.

You cook samples of paper for a couple of minutes in weak sodium hydroxide solution. Then you wash it, add water and shake it vigorously, and you get a suspension of fibers in the water. Samples of those fibers are put on glass slides and are stained by various reagents.

Then you examine them under a high-power comparison microscope or a binocular microscope under approximately 120 times magnification. In this particular case I used two different stains.

First a malachite green stain. This merely determines if there are any unbleached fibers, or if they are all bleached. I found that on both Commission Exhibit 677, the paper sample obtained on November 22, and the paper sack, Commission Exhibit 142, that they are almost 100 percent unbleached fibers.

Then I stained other samples, with a stain known as Herzberg stain. It is an iodine-iodide stain, which will distinguish between rag fibers, chemical wood fibers, and ground wood fibers by different coloring. The chemical wood is stained blue, rag fibers are stained red, ground wood stained yellow.

I made and studied specimens or slides of fibers from Commission Exhibit 677, the known sample, and from Commission Exhibit 142, the paper sack, to see if the fiber composition is similar. What that means is, is this chemical wood, is it coniferous or deciduous, are there any rag fibers in there or are there any ground wood fibers in there, and I found here the fiber composition was similar and essentially it is a coniferous woodlike pine. There were a few stray rag fibers, which I think were probably accidental, and a few stray ground wood fragments in there.

Mr. DULLES. Let me get clearly what is similar, that is the paper bag, Exhibit----

Mr. CADIGAN. 142; the paper comprising that sack and the paper comprising the known sample obtained November 22, Exhibit 677.

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. CADIGAN. The papers I also found were similar in fiber composition, therefore, in addition to the visual characteristics, microscopic and UV characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. "UV" being ultraviolet?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir. Then I had a spectrographic examination made of the paper from the sack, 142, and the known sample secured November 22, Commission Exhibit 677.

Spectrographic tests involve, of course, burning the substance and capturing the light on a photographic plate to determine what metallic ions are present. This was done by our spectrographic section, and again the paper of Commission Exhibit 677, the paper sample, secured November 22, was found to be similar spectrographically to the paper of the sack, Commission Exhibit 142.

Now, these were additional tests, the original examinations, under visual and ultraviolet light were made by me on November 23, 1963. Fiber analysis and the spectrographic examination were conducted on March 25, 1964.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were--that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?

Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see--actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.

Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----

Mr. DULLES. I understand.

Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----

Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.

I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?

Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, getting back to the paper bag, 142, and the tape thereon, just for a second, and the tape found on the, obtained from the, TSBD on November 22, Exhibit 677, were the widths of the tapes the same?

Mr. CADIGAN. Similar. They were not exactly the same; no.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the width of the tape on the paper sack, Exhibit 142, I measured at 3 inches, and the width of the manila tape on Exhibit 677 obtained the night of November 22, I measured as 2.975. There is twenty-five one-thousandths of an inch difference.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that lead you to believe that they couldn't have come from the same roll?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; certainly not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Not enough of a variation to lead to that conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. How wide do these rolls come in your experience, in what widths do they come?

Mr. CADIGAN. Normally they are supplied in, I believe, 1-, 1-1/2-, 2-, 2-1/2-, and 3-inch widths.

Mr. EISENBERG. So this was basically of a 3-inch width variety out of several possible alternatives?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other information you would like to give us or any other testimony you would like to give us on the subject of the origin of the paper in the 142 bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, possibly the comparisons made of paper samples from Jaggars Chiles-Stovall and from the William B. Riley Co.

Mr. EISENBERG. These are, you have mentioned two companies at which Oswald was employed at one time?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You obtained paper from these companies, did you?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you matched them to see if they matched--you tested them to see if they matched the paper in the bag 142, is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And your conclusion was what?

Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Anything else?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is about it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman----

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Murray, do you have any questions?

Mr. MURRAY. I don't believe I have, Mr. Commissioner, but I would like to mention this off the record, if I may.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. We have now the ultraviolet machine set up.

Could you just show us the difference in fluorescence?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what you have set up here, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. This is a portable ultraviolet viewer I used to examine the papers and I think probably what is most noticeable is in the manila tapes. The tape on the right is the sample secured November 22. The tape at the top is from the bag 142, and then the one in the, you might say, lower left, toward the bottom, is the tape that was secured December 1.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to positions in the bottom of the ultraviolet machine?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; relative position.

Mr. DULLES. The one at the left is the one taken from the paper sack, isn't it?

Mr. CADIGAN. Top left; yes; that would be from 142.

Mr. DULLES. 142, and the other is----

Mr. CADIGAN. The one on the right is 677.

Mr. DULLES. What am I supposed to see?

Mr. CADIGAN. A difference in the appearance, difference in color.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean? I see the violet and I see the white.

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you look at the two tape samples----

Mr. DULLES. This tape sample on upper left hand is covered up by this one. I wonder whether you shouldn't take out the later one?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I think probably that would be better.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you show Mr. Dulles the paper bag, 142, and the sample obtained November 22?

Mr. DULLES. Yes; those are the two we are most interested in.

Mr. CADIGAN. The observation I would make there is that the color of the tape on Exhibit 142, the sack, and the color of the paper of the sack 142, under UV, is the same as the color of the tape on 677 and the color of the paper.

Mr. DULLES. I agree on that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that Mr. Dulles makes the statement as he is looking in the machine. Mr. Cadigan, why don't you compare it----

Mr. CADIGAN. By comparison----

Mr. DULLES. This is only as to color, that is all I saw. I saw some markings on it.

Mr. CADIGAN. That is right. This is only for color appearance under the ultraviolet light.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you compare the sack found at the TSBD and the replica sack obtained 10 days later?

Mr. CADIGAN. Here again all that should be observed is the color under UV of both the paper and tape of the sample and the paper and tape of Exhibit 364.

Mr. DULLES. 364 is the paper bag, isn't it?

Mr. CADIGAN. 364 is the replica sack obtained on December 1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Ten days later.

Mr. DULLES. That is on the left?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And the other is the sack?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; the other on your right is the sample of paper obtained on November 22.

Mr. DULLES. November 22, just after the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. There is a clear distinction here. The sample to the right, that is, as I understand it, paper obtained on the evening of November 22, has a more, a deeper violet shade, and on the other hand, the tape is much lighter than the tape on the sample obtained 10 days later. That is to say that the sample 10 days later is darker as to the tape but lighter as to the paper.

Would you like the opportunity, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. We are putting in the sack and 364, the 10-day later sample.

Mr. DULLES. Sack and 10-day later sample. Which is on which side?

Mr. CADIGAN. The sack is on the left and the replica bag obtained on December 1 is on the right.

Mr. DULLES. Yes. I find there that the sample obtained 10 days later, and the sack which is on the left, that the sample obtained 10 days later shows a lighter shade of purple than the sack, and that the tape shows a darker shade of, I would call it, almost gray as against almost white for the tape which is on the sack.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. DULLES. Have you anything that you feel you should add, anything in this general field that would help the Commission?

Mr. CADIGAN. No, sir; not as it relates to this paper and these paper bags.

Mr. EISENBERG. You will be called later for testimony on handwriting--I suppose you will be the person to testify?

Mr. CADIGAN. Whenever you want me I will be available.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the tape for microscopic--to determine the morphology of the fibers in the paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us why?

Mr. CADIGAN. I didn't feel it was necessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could do that, Mr. Cadigan, and send us a letter as to the results?

Mr. CADIGAN. Certainly.

(The letter referred to was later supplied and is set forth at the end of this testimony.)

Mr. EISENBERG. And also, did you notice how the glue had been applied to the tapes?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; you might say glue was applied all the way across the tapes.

Mr. EISENBERG. There are no discernible differences in them?

Mr. CADIGAN. The glue on the tapes would be applied with a brush at the time of manufacture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there more than one way of applying glue?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes. On some tapes, if you look at them either before or after they are used you will see a continuous line running right down the tape where they have used a wheel applicator, merely a difference in manufacturing methods.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you found a brush applicator?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will the same manufacturer use two different methods?

Mr. CADIGAN. He might or might not.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is it likely that he would use two different methods?

Mr. CADIGAN. I really couldn't say.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Cadigan, I thank you very much for your most interesting and helpful testimony.

(Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

(Following is the text of a letter relating to the fiber composition of the gummed tapes in Exhibits 142 and 677.)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Washington, D.C., April 8, 1964. [By Courier Service].

Hon. J. LEE RANKIN,

General Counsel, the President's Commission, 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. RANKIN: During the testimony of Special Agent James C. Cadigan on April 3, 1964, before the President's Commission, Mr. Melvin Eisenberg of your staff orally requested Special Agent Cadigan to make a fiber analysis of the gummed tape on the paper sack found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Commission Exhibit 142, and of the sample of gummed tape in Commission Exhibit 677 Obtained November 22, 1963, at the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Fiber analysis of the two gummed tapes in Commission Exhibits 142 and 677 revealed that they were similar in fiber composition.

Sincerely yours, J. EDGAR HOOVER.

Tuesday, April 21, 1964

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW, DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY, GOV. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR., AND MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

The President's Commission met at 1:30 p.m., on April 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Francis W. H. Adams, assistant counsel; Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers; and Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas.

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW

Senator COOPER. The Commission will come to order.

Dr. Shaw, you understand that the purpose of this inquiry is taken under the order of the President appointing the Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy to investigate all the facts relating to his assassination.

Dr. SHAW. I do.

Senator COOPER. And report to the public.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. SHAW. I do.

Senator COOPER. Do you desire an attorney to be with you?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. SHAW. Robert Roeder Shaw.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession, please?

Dr. SHAW. Physician and surgeon.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you outline briefly your educational background?

Dr. SHAW. I received my B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1927, and my M.D. degree from the same institution in 1933.

Following that I served 2 years at the Roosevelt Hospital in New York City from July 1934, to July 1936, in training in general surgery. I had then 2 years of training in thoracic surgery at the University Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich., from July 1936 to July 1938.

On August 1, 1938, I entered private practice limiting my practice to thoracic surgery in Dallas, Tex.

Mr. DULLES. What kind of surgery?

Dr. SHAW. Thoracic surgery or surgery of the chest. I have practiced there continuously except for a period from June 1942, until December 1945, when I was a member of the Medical Corps of the Army of the United States serving principally in the European theater of operations.

I was away again from December 1961, until June of 1963, when I was head of the MEDICO team and performed surgery at Avicenna Hospital in Kabul, Pakistan.

Mr. DULLES. Will you tell us a little bit about MEDICO. Is that the ship?

Dr. SHAW. No; that is HOPE. MEDICO was formed by the late Dr. Tom Dooley.

Mr. DULLES. Yes; I know him very well. He was the man in Laos.

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir; this was one of their projects.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Dr. SHAW. I returned to----

Mr. DULLES. An interesting project.

Dr. SHAW. I returned to Dallas and on September 1, 1963, started working full time with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School as professor of thoracic surgery and chairman of the division of thoracic surgery.

In this position I also am chief of thoracic surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas which is the chief hospital from the standpoint of the medical facilities of the school.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you licensed to practice medicine in the State of Texas?

Dr. SHAW. I am.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you certified?

Dr. SHAW. By the board of thoracic surgery you mean?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; by the board of thoracic surgery.

Dr. SHAW. Yes; as of 1948.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience, if any, have you had, Dr. Shaw, with bullet wounds?

Dr. SHAW. I have had civilian experience, both in the work at Parkland Hospital, where we see a great amount of trauma, and much of this involves bullet wounds from homicidal attempts and accidents.

The chief experience I had, however, was during the Second World War when I was serving as chief of the thoracic surgery center in Paris, France. And during this particular experience we admitted over 900 patients with chest wounds of various sort, many of them, of course, being shell fragments rather than bullet wounds.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the total number of bullet wounds you have had experience with?

Dr. SHAW. It would be approximately 1,000, considering the large number of admissions we had in Paris.

Mr. SPECTER. What were your duties in a general way on November 22, 1963.

Dr. SHAW. On that particular date I had been at a conference at Woodlawn Hospital, which is our hospital for medical chest diseases connected with the medical school system. I had just gone to the Children's Hospital to see a small patient that I had done a bronchoscopy on a few days before and was returning to Parkland Hospital, and the medical school.

Woodlawn and the Children's Hospital are approximately a mile away from Parkland Hospital.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render any aid to President Kennedy on November 22?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B. Connally on that day?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe briefly the circumstances surrounding your being called into the case.

Dr. SHAW. As I was driving toward the medical school I came to an intersection of Harry Hines Boulevard and Industrial Boulevard.

There is also a railroad crossing at this particular point. I saw an open limousine pass this point at high speed with a police escort. We were held up in traffic because of this escort. Finally, when we were allowed to proceed, I went on to the medical school expecting to eat lunch. I had the radio on because it was the day that I knew the President was in Dallas and would be eating lunch at the Trade Mart which was not far away, and over the radio I heard the report that the President had been shot at while riding in the motorcade. I went on to the medical school and as I entered the medical school a student came in and joined three other students, and said the President has just been brought into the emergency room at Parkland, dead on arrival.

The students said, "You are kidding, aren't you?" and he said, "No, I am not. I saw him, and Governor Connally has been shot through the chest."

Hearing that I turned and walked over to the emergency room, which is approximately 150 yards from the medical school, and entered the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. At approximately what time did you arrive at the emergency room where Governor Connally was situated?

Dr. SHAW. As near as I could tell it was about 12:45.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was with Governor Connally, if anyone, at that time, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. I immediately recognized two of the men who worked with me in thoracic surgery, Dr. James Duke and Dr. James Boland, Dr. Giesecke, who is an anesthesiologist, was also there along with a Dr. David Mebane who is an instructor in general surgery.

Mr. SPECTER. What was Governor Connally's condition at that time, based on your observations?

Dr. SHAW. The Governor was complaining bitterly of difficulty in breathing, and of pain in his right chest. Prior to my arriving there, the men had very properly placed a tight occlusive dressing over what on later examination proved to be a large sucking wound in the front of his right chest, and they had inserted a rubber tube between the second and third ribs in the front of the right chest, carrying this tube to what we call a water seal bottle.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the purpose?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; this is done to reexpand the right lung which had collapsed due to the opening through the chest wall.

Mr. SPECTER. What wounds, if any, did you observe on the Governor at that time?

Dr. SHAW. I observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound.

Mr. SPECTER. How long after your initial viewing of him was he taken to the operating room?

Dr. SHAW. Within about 5 minutes. I stepped outside to talk to Mrs. Connally because I had been given information by Dr. Duke that blood had been drawn from the Governor, sent to the laboratory for cross-matching for blood that we knew would be necessary, that the operating room had already been alerted, and that they were ready and they were merely awaiting my arrival.

Mr. SPECTER. How was Governor Connally transported from the emergency room to the operating room?

Dr. SHAW. On a stretcher.

Mr. SPECTER. And was he transported up an elevator as well?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is two floors above the emergency rooms.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe what happened next in connection with Governor Connally's----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question, putting in this tube is prior to making an incision?

Mr. SHAW. Yes; a stab wound.

Mr. DULLES. Just a stab wound?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What treatment next followed for Governor Connally, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. He was taken to the operating room and there Dr. Giesecke started the anesthesia. This entails giving an intravenous injection of sodium pentothal and then after the Governor was asleep a gas was used, that will be on the anesthetic record there.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know at approximately what time this procedure was started?

Dr. SHAW. I will have to refresh my memory again from the record. We had at the time I testified before, we had the----

Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to make available to you a copy of the Parkland Memorial Hospital operative record and let me ask you, first of all, if you can identify these two pages on an exhibit heretofore marked as Commission Exhibit 392 as to whether or not this constitutes your report?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; this is a transcription of my dictated report of the operation.

Mr. SPECTER. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. On this it states that the operation itself was begun at 1300 hours or 1 o'clock, 1 p.m., and that the actual surgery started at 1335 or 1:35 p.m.

The operation was concluded by me at 3--1520 which would be 3:20 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. You have described, in a general way, the chest wound. What other wounds, if any, was Governor Connally suffering from at the time you saw him?

Dr. SHAW. I will describe then the wound of the wrist which was obvious. He had a wound of the lower right forearm that I did not accurately examine because I had already talked to Dr. Gregory while I was scrubbing for the operation, told him that this wound would need his attention as soon as we were able to get the chest in a satisfactory condition. There was also, I was told, I didn't see the wound, on the thigh, I was told that there was a small wound on the thigh which I saw later.

Mr. SPECTER. When did you first have an opportunity then to examine Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. SHAW. After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately examine the wound entrance.

We knew this was the wound exit.

Mr. SPECTER. This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the body]?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. How did you know it was a wound exit.

Dr. SHAW. By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound. This wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until the Governor was anesthetized.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; the front part.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axillary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.

Mr. SPECTER. What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?

Dr. SHAW. Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Now I hand you a diagram which is a body diagram on Commission Exhibit No. 679, and ask you if, on the back portion of the figure, that accurately depicts the point of entry into Governor Connally's back?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. The depiction of the point of entry, I feel is quite accurate.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the front side of the body, is the point of exit accurately shown on the diagram?

Dr. SHAW. The point is----

Mr. SPECTER. We have heretofore, may the record show the deposition covered much the same ground with Dr. Shaw, but the diagrams used now are new diagrams which will have to be remarked in accordance with your recollection.

Dr. SHAW. Yes. Because I would have to place--they are showing here the angle.

Mr. DULLES. Is this all on the record?

Mr. SPECTER. It should be.

Dr. SHAW. We are showing on this angle, the cartilage angle which it makes at the end of the sternum.

Mr. SPECTER. That is an inverted =V= which appears in front of the body?

Dr. SHAW. Now the wound was above that. They have shown it below that point so the wound would have to be placed here as far as the point is concerned.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you draw on that diagram a more accurate depiction of where the wound of exit occurred?

Dr. SHAW. Do you want me to initial this?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; if you please, Dr. Shaw.

I hand you another body diagram marked Commission Exhibit 680 and I will ask you if that accurately depicts the angle of decline as the bullet passed through Governor Connally?

Dr. SHAW. I think the declination of this line is a little too sharply downward. I would place it about 5° off that line.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you redraw the line then, Dr. Shaw, and initial it, indicating the more accurate angle?

Dr. SHAW. The reason I state this is that as they have shown this, it would place the wound of exit a little too far below the nipple. Also it would, since the bullet followed the line of declination of the fifth rib, it would make the ribs placed in a too slanting position.

Mr. SPECTER. What operative procedures did you employ in caring for the wound of the chest, Dr. Shaw.

Dr. SHAW. The first measure was to excise the edges of the wound of exit in an elliptical fashion, and then this incision was carried in a curved incision along the lateral portion of the right chest up toward the right axilla in order to place the skin incision lower than the actual path of the bullet through the chest wall.

After this incision had been carried down to the level of the muscles attached to the rib cage, all of the damaged muscle which was chiefly the serratus anterior muscle which digitates along the fifth rib at this position, was cleaned away, cut away with sharp dissection.

As soon as--of course, this incision had been made, the opening through the parietal pleura, which is the lining of the inside of the chest was very obvious. It was necessary to trim away several small fragments of the rib which were still hanging to tags of periosteum, the lining of the rib, and the ragged ends of the rib were smoothed off with a rongeur.

Mr. SPECTER. What damage had been inflicted upon a rib, if any, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. About 10 centimeters of the fifth rib starting at the, about the mid-axillary line and going to the anterior axillary line, as we describe it, or that would be the midline at the armpit going to the anterior lateral portion of the chest had been stripped away by the missile.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the texture of the rib at the point where the missile struck?

Dr. SHAW. The texture of the rib here is not of great density. The cortex of the rib in the lateral portions of our ribs, is thin with the so-called cancellus portion of the rib being very spongy, offering very little resistance to pressure or to fracturing.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect, if any, would the striking of that rib have had to the trajectory of the bullet?

Dr. SHAW. It could have had a slight, caused a slight deflection of the rib, but probably not a great deflection of the rib, because of the angle at which it struck and also because of the texture of the rib at this time.

Mr. SPECTER. You say deflection of the rib or deflection of the bullet?

Dr. SHAW. Deflection of the bullet, I am sorry.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?

Dr. SHAW. No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the X-rays with you, Dr. Shaw, from Parkland Hospital?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; we have them here.

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show we have available a viewer for the X-rays.

Dr. Shaw, would you, by use of the viewer, exhibit the X-rays of the Governor's chest to show more graphically that which you have heretofore described?

Dr. SHAW. This is the first X-ray that was taken, which was taken in the operating room with the Governor on the operating table, and at this time anesthetized. The safety pin that you see here is used, was used, to secure the tube which had been put between the second and third rib in expanding the Governor's lung.

We can dimly see also the latex rubber tube up in the chest coming to the apex of the chest.

The variations that we see from normal here are the fact that first, there is a great amount of swelling in the chest wall which we know was due to bleeding and bruising of the tissues of the chest wall, and we also see that there is air in the tissues of the chest wall here and here. It is rather obvious.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say here and here, you are referring to the outer portions, showing on the X-ray moving up toward the shoulder area?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; going from the lower chest up to the region near the angle of the shoulder blade.

The boney framework of the chest, it is obvious that the fifth rib, we count ribs from above downward, this is the first rib, second rib, third rib, fourth rib, fifth rib, that a portion of this rib has been shattered, and we can see a few fragments that have been left behind.

Also the rib has because of being broken and losing some of its substance, has taken a rather inward position in relation to the fourth and the sixth ribs on either side.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect was there, if any, on the upper portion of that rib?

Dr. SHAW. This was not noticed at the time of this examination, Mr. Specter. However, in subsequent examinations we can tell that there was a fracture across the rib at this point due to the rib being struck and bent.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say this point, will you describe where that point exists on the X-ray?

Dr. SHAW. This is a point approximately 4 centimeters from its connection with the transverse process of the spine.

Mr. SPECTER. And is the fracture, which is located there, caused by a striking there or by the striking at the end of the rib?

Dr. SHAW. It is caused by the striking at the end of the rib.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine. What else then is discernible from the viewing of the X-ray, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. There is a great amount of, we would say, obscuration of the lower part of the right lung field which we know from subsequent examination was due to blood in the pleural cavity and also due to a hematoma in the lower part of the right lower lobe and also a severe laceration of the middle lobe with it having lost its ability to ventilate at that time. So, we have both an airless lung, and blood in the lung to account for these shadows.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there anything else visible from the X-ray which is helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition?

Dr. SHAW. No; I don't think so.

Mr. SPECTER. Would it be useful--As to that X-ray, Dr. Shaw, will you tell us what identifying data, if any, it has in the records of Parkland Hospital, for the record?

Dr. SHAW. On this X-ray it has in pencil John G. Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that G or C?

Dr. SHAW. They have a "G" November 22, 1963, and it has number 218-922.

Mr. SPECTER. Were those X-rays taken under your supervision?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, by a technician.

Mr. SPECTER. And that is, in fact, the X-ray then which was taken of Governor Connally at the time these procedures were being performed?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, would any of the other X-rays be helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition?

Dr. SHAW. I believe the only--perhaps showing one additional X-ray would show the fracture previously described which was not easily discernible on the first film. This is quite often true but not important to the--here is the fracture that can be easily seen.

Mr. SPECTER. You are now referring to a separate and second X-ray.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you start out by telling us on what date this X-ray was performed.

Dr. SHAW. This X-ray was made on the 29th of November 1963, 7 days following the incident.

Mr. SPECTER. What does it show of significance?

Dr. SHAW. It shows that there has been considerable clearing in the lower portion of the lung, and also that there is a fracture of the fifth rib as previously described approximately 4 centimeters from the transverse process posteriorly.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there anything else depicted by that X-ray of material assistance in evaluating the Governor's wound?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. McCLOY. Were there any photographs taken as distinguished from X-rays of the body?

Dr. SHAW. There were no photographs.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, we shall then, subject to the approval of the Commission, for the record, have the X-rays reproduced at Parkland Memorial Hospital, and, if possible, also have a photograph of the X-ray made for the permanent records of the Commission to show the actual X-ray, which Dr. Shaw has described during his testimony here this afternoon.

Senator COOPER. It is directed that it be made a part of the record of these hearings.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what additional operative procedures did you perform on Governor Connally's chest?

Dr. SHAW. I will continue with my description of the operative procedure. The opening that had been made through the rib after the removal of the fragments was adequate for further exploration of the pleural cavity. A self-retaining retractor was put into place to maintain exposure. Inside the pleural cavity there were approximately 200 cc. of clotted blood.

It was found that the middle lobe had been lacerated with the laceration dividing the lobe into roughly two equal parts. The laceration ran from the lower tip of the middle lobe up into its root or hilum.

However, the lobe was not otherwise damaged, so that it could be repaired using a running suture of triple zero chromic catgut.

The anterior basal segments of the right lower lobe had a large hematoma, and blood was oozing out of one small laceration that was a little less than a centimeter in length, where a rib fragment had undoubtedly been driven into the lobe. To control hemorrhage a single suture of triple zero chromic gut was placed in this laceration. There were several small matchstick size fragments of rib within the pleural cavity. Examination, however, of the pericardium of the diaphragm and the upper lobe revealed no injury to these parts of the chest.

A drain was placed in the eighth space in the posterior axillary line similar to the drain which had been placed in the second interspace in the front of the chest.

The drain in the front of the chest was thought to be a little too long so about 3 centimeters of it were cut away.

Attention was then turned on the laceration of the latissimus dorsi muscle where the missile had passed through it. Several sutures of chromic gut where used to repair this muscle.

The incision was then closed with interrupted No. zero chromic gut in the muscles of the chest wall--first, I am sorry, in the intercostale muscle, and muscles of the chest wall, and the same suture material was used to close the serratus anterior muscle in the subcutaneous tissue, and interrupted vertical sutures of black silk were used to close the skin.

Attention was then turned to the wound of entrance which, as previously described, was about a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter, roughly elliptical in shape. The skin edges of this wound were incised--excised, I beg your pardon--I have to go back just a little bit.

Prior to examination of this wound, a stab wound was made at the angle of the scapula to place a drain in the subscapular space. In the examination of the wound of entrance, the examining finger could determine that this drain was immediately under the wound of entrance, so that it was adequately draining the space.

Two sutures were placed in the facia of the muscle, and the skin was closed with interrupted vertical matching sutures of black silk.

That concluded the operation. Both tubes were connected to a water seal bottle, and the dressing was applied.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was in charge then of the subsequent care on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. SHAW. Dr. Charles Gregory who had been previously alerted and then came in to take care of the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the wound on the wrist, did you have any opportunity to examine it by way of determining points of entry and exit?

Dr. SHAW. My examination of the wrist was a very cursory one. I could tell that there was a compound comminuted fracture because there was motion present, and there was a ragged wound just over the radius above the wrist joint. But that was the extent of my examination of the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, did I take your deposition at Parkland Memorial Hospital on March 23 of 1964?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; you did.

Mr. SPECTER. Has that deposition been made available to you?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. To you here this afternoon?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you subsequent to the giving of that deposition on March 23, 1964, had an opportunity to examine Governor Connally's clothing which we have available in the Commission room here today?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, based on all facts now within your knowledge, is there any modification which you would care to make in terms of the views which you expressed about entrance and exit wounds back on March 23, based on the information which was available to you at that time?

Dr. SHAW. From an examination of the clothing, it is very obvious that the wound of entrance was through the coat sleeve.

Mr. SPECTER. While you are testifying in that manner, perhaps it would be helpful if we would make available to you the actual jacket, if it pleases the Commission.

We shall reserve Exhibits Nos. 681 for the X-ray of November 22; 682 for the X-ray of November 29; and we shall now mark a photograph of the coat for our permanent records as "Commission Exhibit No. 683".

Dr. Shaw, I hand you at this time what purports to be the coat worn by Governor Connally, which we introduce subject to later proof when Governor Connally appears later this afternoon; and, for the record, I ask you first of all if this photograph, designated as Commission Exhibit No. 683, is a picture of this suit coat?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. I had interrupted you when you started to refer to the hole in the sleeve of the coat. Will you proceed with what you were testifying about there?

Dr. SHAW. The hole in the sleeve of the coat is within half a centimeter of the very edge of the sleeve, and lies----

Mr. DULLES. This is the right sleeve, is it not?

Dr. SHAW. I am sorry, yes. Thank you. Of the right sleeve, and places it, if the coat sleeve was in the same position, assuming it is in the same position that my coat sleeve is in, places it directly over the lateral portion of the wrist, really not directly on the volar or the dorsum of the surface of the wrist, but on the lateral position or the upper position, as the wrist is held in a neutral position.

Mr. SPECTER. With the additional information provided by the coat, would that enable you to give an opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. SHAW. There is only one tear in the Governor's garment as far as the appearance of the tear is concerned, I don't think I could render an opinion as to whether this is a wound of entrance or exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Then, do you have sufficient information at your disposal in total, based on your observations and what you know now to give any meaningful opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. SHAW. I would prefer to have Dr. Gregory testify about that, because he has examined it more carefully than I have.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine.

Mr. DULLES. Could you tell at all how the arm was held from that mark or that hole in the sleeve?

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain.

I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor's arm held in approximately this position.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right hand held close to the body?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that it is the only possibility.

Senator COOPER. Why do you say you don't think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location----

Dr. SHAW. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.

Mr. DULLES. Or whether it was one or two wounds?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Or two bullets?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; or three.

Mr. DULLES. Why do you say three?

Dr. SHAW. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.

Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; we haven't come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?

Mr. McCLOY. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?

Dr. SHAW. I have no firm opinion.

Mr. McCLOY. That is right.

Dr. SHAW. Asking me this now if it was true. If you had asked me a month ago I would have.

Mr. DULLES. Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion?

Dr. SHAW. They could.

Mr. McCLOY. I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has no firm opinion now that they were.

Mr. DULLES. As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. When you say all three are you referring to the wounds you have just described to the chest, the wound in the wrist, and also the wound in the thigh?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Senator COOPER. It was possible?

Dr. SHAW. Our original assumption, Senator Cooper, was that the Governor was approximately in this attitude at the time he was----

Senator COOPER. What attitude is that now?

Dr. SHAW. This is an attitude sitting in a jump seat as we know he was, upright, with his right forearm held across the lower portion of the chest. In this position, the trajectory of the bullet could have caused the wound of entrance, the wound of exit, struck his wrist and proceeded on into the left thigh. But although this is a possibility, I can't give a firm opinion that this is the actual way in which it occurred.

Mr. SPECTER. If it pleases the Commission, we propose to go through that in this testimony; and we have already started to mark other exhibits in sequence on the clothing. So that it will be more systematic, we plan to proceed with the identification of clothing and then go on to the composite diagram which explains the first hypothesis of Dr. Shaw and the other doctors of Parkland. And then proceed from that, as I intend to do, with an examination of the bullet, which will explore the thinking of the doctor on that subject.

Dr. Shaw, for our record, I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 684 and ask you if that is a picture of the reverse side of the coat, which we will later prove to have been worn by Governor Connally, the coat which is before you?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, appears on the back of that coat and also on the picture in line with the wound which you have described on the Governor's posterior chest?

Dr. SHAW. The picture--the coat and the picture of the coat, show a rent in the back of the coat approximately 2-centimeters medial to the point where the sleeve has been joined to the main portion of the garment.

The lighter-colored material of the lining of the coat can be seen through this rent in the coat.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, I show you a shirt, subject to later proof that it was the shirt worn by Governor Connally, together with a photograph marked "Commission Exhibit No. 685," and ask you if that is a picture of that shirt, the back side of the shirt?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; it is a picture of the back side of the shirt. However, in this particular picture I am not able to make out the hole in the shirt very well.

Now I see it, I believe; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the hole as you see it to exist in the shirt? Aside from what you see on the picture, what hole do you observe on the back of the shirt itself?

Dr. SHAW. On the back of the shirt itself there is a hole, a punched out area of the shirt which is a little more than a centimeter in its greater diameter. The whole shirt is soiled by brown stains which could have been due to blood.

Mr. SPECTER. How does the hole in the back of the shirt correspond with the wound on the Governor's back?

Dr. SHAW. It does correspond exactly.

Mr. SPECTER. Now turning the same shirt over to the front side, I ask you if the photograph, marked "Commission Exhibit No. 386," is a picture of the front side of this shirt?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. What does the picture of the shirt show with respect to a hole, if any, on the right side of the front of the shirt?

Dr. SHAW. The picture and the shirt show on the right side a much larger rent in the garment with the rent being approximately 4 centimeters in its largest diameter.

Mr. SPECTER. What wound, if any, did the Governor sustain on his thigh, Dr. Shaw?

Mr. DULLES. Just one moment, are you leaving this?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder whether or not it would not be desirable for the doctor to put on this photograph where these holes are, because they are not at all clear for the future if we want to study those photographs.

Dr. SHAW. This one is not so hard.

Mr. DULLES. That one appears but the other one doesn't appear and I think it would be very helpful.

Dr. SHAW. How would you like to have me outline this?

Mr. SPECTER. Draw a red circle of what you conceive to be the hole there, Doctor.

Mr. DULLES. The actual hole is not nearly as big as your circle, it is the darkened area inside that circle, is it not?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; the darkened area is enclosed by the circle.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to note on the photograph of the back of the shirt, 685?

Will you draw a red circle around the area of the hole on the photograph then, Dr. Shaw?

Mr. DULLES. Would you just initial those two circles, if you can.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh?

Dr. SHAW. He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect of the left thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine it sufficiently to ascertain its location on the left thigh?

Dr. SHAW. No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location.

Mr. SPECTER. Where was it with respect to a general location then on the Governor's thigh?

Dr. SHAW. It is on the medial anterior aspect of the thigh.

Mr. DULLES. Nontechnically, what does it mean?

Dr. SHAW. Well, above, slightly above, between, in other words, the medial aspect would be the aspect toward the middle of the body, but as far as being how many centimeters or inches it is from the knee and the groin, I am not absolutely sure.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a pair of trousers which we shall later identify as being those worn by the Governor. I will, first of all, ask you if a photograph bearing Commission Exhibit No. 687 is a picture of those trousers?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. And what hole, if any did you observe on the trousers and on the picture of the trousers?

Dr. SHAW. There is a hole in the garment that has been made by some instrument which has carried away a part of the Governor's garment. In other words, it is not a tear but is a punched out hole, and this is approximately 4 centimeters on the inner aspect from the crease of the trousers.

Mr. DULLES. Can you tell where the knee is there and how far above the knee approximately?

Dr. SHAW. I can't tell exactly.

Mr. DULLES. I guess you can't tell.

Dr. SHAW. From the crotch I would say it would be slightly, it is a little hard to tell, slightly more toward the knee than the groin.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that hole in the left leg of the trousers match up to the wound on the left thigh of the Governor?

Dr. SHAW. To the best of my recollection it does.

Mr. DULLES. Are there any other perforations in these trousers at all, any other holes?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. DULLES. So that means that whatever made the hole on the front side did not come through and make a hole anywhere else in the trousers?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct. It had to be a penetrating wound and not a perforating wound, it didn't go on through.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you turn those trousers over, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. I believe we had already looked at it.

Mr. SPECTER. On the reverse side, and state whether or not this picture bearing Commission Exhibit No. 688 accurately depicts the reverse side of the trousers?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; it does.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any hole shown either on the picture or on the trousers themselves?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, I now show you a body diagram which is marked "Commission Exhibit No. 689."

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question before you ask that question?

When you first saw Governor Connally in the emergency room was he dressed or undressed?

Dr. SHAW. His trousers were still on. He had his shorts on, I should say, Senator Cooper, but his coat, shirt, and trousers had been removed.

Mr. SPECTER. Were his clothes anywhere in the vicinity where you could have seen them?

Dr. SHAW. No; I never saw them. This is the first time that I saw them.

Mr. SPECTER. That is earlier today when you examined them in this room?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted by a single missile?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. With reference to that diagram, would you explain the position that you had earlier thought the Governor to have been in when he was wounded here?

Dr. SHAW. We felt that the Governor was in an upright sitting position, and at the time of wounding was turning slightly to the right. This would bring the three wounds, as we know them, the wound in the chest, the wound in the wrist, and the wound in the thigh into a line assuming that the right forearm was held against the lower right chest in front.

The line of inclination of this particular diagram is a little more sharply downward than is probably correct in view of the inclination of the ribs of the chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you redraw that line, Dr. Shaw, to conform with what you believe to be----

Dr. SHAW. The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its line of inclination.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could use that red pencil to make it a little clearer for us?

Dr. SHAW. I think these would probably work well on this paper. Perhaps this isn't a tremendous point but it slopes just a little too much.

Mr. SPECTER. You have initialed that to show your incline?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the wound you described on the thigh, Dr. Shaw, was there any point of exit as to that wound?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one more question there, how deep was the wound of entry, could you tell at all?

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I have.

Mr. DULLES. We will hear Dr. Gregory later?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; he is scheduled to testify as soon as Dr. Shaw concludes.

Dr. Shaw, I now show you Commission Exhibit 399 which has heretofore been identified as being a virtually whole bullet weighing 158 grains.

May I say for the record, that in the depositions which have been taken in Parkland Hospital, that we have ascertained, and those depositions are part of the overall record, that is the bullet which came from the stretcher of Governor Connally.

First, Dr. Shaw, have you had a chance to examine that bullet earlier today?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; I examined it this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it possible that the bullet which went through the Governor's chest could have emerged being as fully intact as that bullet is?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; I believe it is possible because of the fact that the bullet struck the fifth rib at a very acute angle and struck a portion of the rib which would not offer a great amount of resistance.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off?

Dr. SHAW. I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have gone into the Governor's thigh without causing any more damage than appears on the face of that bullet?

Dr. SHAW. If it was a spent bullet; yes. As far as the bullet is concerned it could have caused the Governor's thigh wound as a spent missile.

Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue?

Dr. SHAW. Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory?

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony and----

Dr. GREGORY. I will say yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And indicates in the affirmative. Do you have sufficient knowledge of the wound of the wrist to render an opinion as to whether that bullet could have gone through Governor Connally's wrist and emerged being as much intact as it is?

Dr. SHAW. I do not.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true in hypothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the upper portion of the back or lower portion of the neck with a 6.5-mm. missile passing between the strap muscles of the President's neck, proceeding through a facia channel striking no bones, not violating the pleural cavity, and emerging through the anterior third of the neck, with the missile having been fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the muzzle being approximately 100 to 250 feet from the President's body; that the missile was a copper jacketed bullet. Would it be possible for that bullet to have then proceeded approximately 4 or 5 feet and then would it be possible for it to have struck Governor Connally in the back and have inflicted the wound which you have described on the posterior aspect of his chest, and also on the anterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what would your reason be for giving an affirmative answer to that question, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. Because I would feel that a missile with this velocity and weight striking no more than the soft tissues of the neck would have adequate velocity and mass to inflict the wound that we found on the Governor's chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689?

Dr. SHAW. Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck you mean?

Mr. SPECTER. No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next question.

Dr. SHAW. All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the--I mean in the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.

Dr. SHAW. I see.

Mr. SPECTER. Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone through the President in the way that I have described and proceed through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether or not it was bullet 399?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?

Dr. SHAW. I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?

Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, have you had an opportunity today here in the Commission building to view the movies which we referred to as the Zapruder movies and the slides taken from these movies?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if any, light did those movies shed on your evaluation and opinions on this matter with respect to the wounds of the Governor?

Dr. SHAW. Well, my main interest was to try to place the time that the Governor was struck by the bullet which inflicted the wound on his chest in reference to the sequence of the three shots, as has been described to us.

(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

This meant trying to carefully examine the position of the Governor's body in the car so that it would fall in line with what we knew the trajectory must be for this bullet coming from the point where it has been indicated it did come from. And in trying to place this actual frame that these frames are numbered when the Governor was hit, my opinion was that it was frame number, let's see, I think it was No. 36.

Mr. SPECTER. 236?

Dr. SHAW. 236, give or take 1 or 2 frames. It was right in 35, 36, 37, perhaps.

Mr. SPECTER. I have heretofore asked you questions about what possibly could have happened in terms of the various combinations of possibilities on missiles striking the Governor in relationship to striking the President as well. Do you have any opinion as to what, in fact, did happen?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. From the pictures, from the conversation with Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, it seems that the first bullet hit the President in the shoulder and perforated the neck, but this was not the bullet that Governor Connally feels hit him; and in the sequence of films I think it is hard to say that the first bullet hit both of these men almost simultaneously.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that view based on the information which Governor Connally provided to you?

Dr. SHAW. Largely.

Mr. SPECTER. As opposed to any objectively determinable facts from the bullets, the situs of the wounds or your viewing of the pictures?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. I was influenced a great deal by what Governor Connally knew about his movements in the car at this particular time.

Mr. DULLES. You have indicated a certain angle of declination on this chart here which the Chief Justice has.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know enough about the angle of declination of the bullet that hit the President to judge at all whether these two angles of declination are consistent?

Dr. SHAW. We know that the angle of declination was a downward one from back to front so that I think this is consistent with the angle of declination of the wound that the Governor sustained.

Senator COOPER. Are you speaking of the angle of declination in the President's body?

Dr. SHAW. Of the first wound?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Dr. SHAW. First wound.

Mr. SPECTER. What you have actually seen from pictures to show the angle of declination?

Dr. SHAW. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. In the wounds in the President's body?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; that is right. I did not examine the President.

Mr. DULLES. And that angle taking into account say the 4 feet difference between where the President was sitting and where the Governor was sitting, would be consistent with the point of entry of the Governor's body as you have shown it?

Dr. SHAW. The jump seat in the car, as we could see, placed the Governor sitting at a lower level than the President, and I think conceivably these two wounds could have been caused by the same bullet.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything else to add, Dr. Shaw, which you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Dr. SHAW. I don't believe so Mr. Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission then I would like to move into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 679 and 680, and then reserve Nos. 681 and 682 until we get the photographs of the X-rays and I now move for admission into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 683 through 689.

Senator COOPER. They have all been identified, have they?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; during the course of Dr. Shaw's testimony.

Senator COOPER. It is ordered then that these exhibits be received in the record.

(The documents referred to, previously identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 679, 680, and 683-689 for identification were received in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Just one or two questions. It is perfectly clear, Doctor, that the wound, the lethal wound on the President did not--the bullet that caused the lethal wound on the President, did not cause any wounds on Governor Connally, in your opinion?

Dr. SHAW. Mr. McCloy, I couldn't say that from my knowledge.

Mr. McCLOY. We are talking about the, following up what Mr. Dulles said about the angle of declination, the wound that came through the President's collar, you said was consistent between the same bullet. I just wondered whether under all the circumstances that you know about the President's head wound on the top that would also be consistent with a wound in Governor Connally's body?

Dr. SHAW. On the chest, yes; I am not so sure about the wrist. I can't quite place where his wrist was at the time his chest was struck.

Mr. McCLOY. Now perhaps this is Dr. Gregory's testimony, that is the full description of the wrist wound, that would be his rather than your testimony?

Dr. SHAW. I think he could throw just as much light on it as I could. And more in certain aspects.

Mr. McCLOY. It did hit bone?

Dr. SHAW. Obviously.

Mr. McCLOY. And there must have been a considerable diminution in the velocity of the bullet after penetrating through the wrist?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. The wound inflicted on it, the chest wound on Governor Connally, if you move that an inch or two, 1 inch or the other, could that have been lethal, go through an area that could easily have been lethal?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; of course, if it had been moved more medially it could have struck the heart and the great vessels.

Mr. McCLOY. Let me ask you this, Doctor, in your experience with gunshot wounds, is it possible for a man to be hit sometime before he realizes it?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. There can be a delay in the sensory reaction.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes; so that a man can think as of a given instant he was not hit, and when actually he could have been hit.

Dr. SHAW. There can be an extending sensation and then just a gradual building up of a feeling of severe injury.

Mr. McCLOY. But there could be a delay in any appreciable reaction between the time of the impact of the bullet and the occurrence?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; but in the case of a wound which strikes a bony substance such as a rib, usually the reaction is quite prompt.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Now, you have indicated, I think, that this bullet traveled along, hit and traveled along the path of the rib, is that right?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet could not have hit the rib at all but it might have been the expanding flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you would call it on the rib itself?

Dr. SHAW. I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it.

Mr. McCLOY. Was--up until you gave him the anesthetic--the Governor was fully conscious, was he?

Dr. SHAW. I would not say fully, but he was responsive. He would answer questions.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions of the doctor.

Mr. DULLES. There were no questions put to him that were significant as far as our testimony is concerned?

Dr. SHAW. No; we really don't have to question him much. Our problem was pretty clearcut, and he told us it hurt and that was about his only response as far as----

Senator COOPER. Could I ask you a question, doctor?

I think you said from the time you came into the emergency room and the time you went to the operating room was about 5 minutes?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; it was just the time that it took to ask a few simple questions, what has been done so far, and has the operating room been alerted, and then I went out and talked to Mrs. Connally, just very briefly, I told her what the problem was in respect to the Governor and what we were going to have to do about it and she said to go ahead with anything that was necessary. So this couldn't have taken more than 5 minutes or so.

Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything or did anyone say anything there about the circumstances of the shooting?

Dr. SHAW. Not at that time.

Mr. DULLES. Either of Governor Connally or the President?

Dr. SHAW. Not at that time. All of our conversation was later.

Mr. DULLES. Was the President in the same room?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. DULLES. Did you see him?

Dr. SHAW. I only saw his shoes and his feet. He was in the room immediately opposite. As I came into the hallway, I could recognize that the President was on it, in the room to my right. I knew that my problem was concerned with Governor Connally, and I turned and went into the room where I saw that he was.

Mr. DULLES. Did you hear at that time or have any knowledge, of a bullet which had been found on the stretcher?

Dr. SHAW. No; this was later knowledge.

Mr. DULLES. When did you first hear that?

(At this point Senator Russell entered the hearing room.)

Dr. SHAW. This information was first given to me by a man from the Secret Service who interviewed me in my office several weeks later. It is the first time I knew about any bullet being recovered.

Senator COOPER. I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony you have had wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest.

What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would this experience--you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by bullets--have provided you knowledge also about the characteristics of missiles, particularly bullets of this type?

Dr. SHAW. No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more. Perhaps a little more since I have seen deformed bullets from wounds, but I haven't gone into that aspect of wounds.

Senator COOPER. In the answers to the hypothetical questions that were addressed to you, based upon the only actual knowledge which you could base that answer, was the fact that you had performed the operation on the wound caused in the chest, on the wound in the chest?

Dr. SHAW. That is true. I have seen many bullets that have passed through bodies or have penetrated bodies and have struck bone and I know manners from which they are deformed but I know very little about the caliber of bullets, the velocity of bullets, many things that other people have much more knowledge of than I have.

Senator COOPER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Shaw.

TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY

Senator COOPER. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are going to give to this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. GREGORY. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. GREGORY. Doctor Charles Francis Gregory.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession, sir?

Dr. GREGORY. I am a physician and surgeon.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline your educational background briefly, please?

Dr. GREGORY. I received a bachelor of science degree from the University of Indiana in 1941, and an M.D. degree in medicine from the Indiana University School of Medicine in 1944.

Following 1-year internship and a tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, I undertook 5 years of postgraduate training in orthopedic surgery at Indiana University Medical Center.

Upon completing that training I became a member of the faculty at Indiana University Medical School, and remained so until November of 1952, when I reentered the U.S. Navy for another 20 months.

In 1956 I was appointed professor and then chairman of the Division of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, where I presently am.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you certificated by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery?

Dr. GREGORY. I am, in 1953.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience, if any, have you had with bullet wounds, Doctor?

Dr. GREGORY. Beyond the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School, my experience has covered a tour of duty in the Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the total number of bullet wounds you have had an opportunity to observe and treat?

Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that I have dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you a licensed doctor in the State of Texas at the present time?

Dr. GREGORY. I am.

Mr. SPECTER. What were your duties in a general way back on November 22, 1963, with Parkland Hospital?

Dr. GREGORY. On that date, November 22, 1963, I was seeing patients in the health service of the adjacent medical school building when about noon I was advised that the President of the United States had been admitted to Parkland Hospital due to gunshot injuries.

I went immediately to the emergency room area of the Parkland Hospital, and upon gaining admission to the emergency room, I encountered the hospital superintendent.

I inquired of him then as to whether or not the President had injuries which might require my attention and he indicated that they were not of that nature.

I, therefore, took a number of unnecessary onlookers like myself from the emergency area in order to reduce the confusion, and I went to the fifth floor of the hospital, which is the orthopedic ward.

And after attending a number of patients there, I prepared to leave the hospital, but stopped by the surgical suite on my way out, to check and see if any need for my services might have come up, and encountered there Dr. Shaw who indicated to me that Governor Connally had also been injured, and that these included injuries to his extremities for which I would be retained.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Dr. Shaw then call upon you to perform operative aid for Governor Connally?

Dr. GREGORY. He did.

Mr. SPECTER. And when did you first see Governor Connally then?

Dr. GREGORY. I first saw Governor Connally after Dr. Shaw had prepared him and draped him for the surgical procedures which he carried out on the Governor's chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you have any opportunity to observe the wound on the Governor's chest?

Dr. GREGORY. I could see the wounds on the Governor's chest, but I could see them only through the apertures available in the surgical drapes, and therefore I had difficulty orienting the exact positions of the wounds, except for the wound identified as the wound of exit which could be related to the nipple in the right chest which was exposed.

Mr. SPECTER. Now what did you observe with respect to the wound on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I did not have an opportunity to examine the wound on the Governor's wrist until Dr. Shaw had completed his surgical treatment of the Governor's chest wound.

At that time he was turned to his back and it was possible to examine both the right upper extremity and the left lower extremity for wounds of the wrist and left thigh respectively.

The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.

There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease.

Mr. SPECTER. You say that the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?

Dr. GREGORY. I assumed it to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you proceed to tell us, even though it is out of sequence, what those factors, later determined to be, were which led you to assume that it was the wound of entrance?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. Assuming that the wrist wound, which included a shattering fracture of the wrist bone, of the radial bone just above the wrist, was produced by a missile there were found in the vicinity of the wound two things which led me to believe that it passed from the dorsal or back side to the volar. The first of these----

Mr. SPECTER. When you say volar what do you mean by that?

Dr. GREGORY. The palm side.

Mr. SPECTER. Proceed.

Dr. GREGORY. The first of these was evidence of clothing, bits of thread and cloth, apparently from a dark suit or something of that sort which had been carried into the wound, from the skin into the region of the bone.

The second of these were two or three small fragments of metal which presumably were shed by the missile after their encounter with the firm substance which is bone.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the bits of cloth which you describe, have you had an opportunity earlier today to examine a coat, heretofore identified and marked by a picture bearing Commission Exhibit No. 683, which we will have later testimony on as being Governor Connally's coat?

Dr. GREGORY. I have.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, did your examination disclose with respect to the wound of the right wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Well, the right sleeve of the coat has a tear in it close to the margin at a point which is, I think, commensurate with the location of the dorsal surface, the back side of the wrist, forearm where the two may have been superimposed and both damaged by the same penetrating body.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the nature of the material of the suit coat the same as that which you found in the wound of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. It is. As a matter of fact, at the time that the wound was treated, and the cloth was found, the speculation was made as to the kind of--the color of the suit the Governor was wearing and moreover the thread was almost identifiable as mohair or raw silk or something of that nature and entirely consistent with this fabric.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the color, which you speculated about, the same as which you see in this jacket?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; it was my impression it was black or either dark blue.

Mr. SPECTER. You say there was something in the X-ray work which led you to further conclude that that was the wound of entrance?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you proceed now to show the Commission those X-rays, please?

Dr. GREGORY. This is an X-ray made in the lateral view of the Governor's wrist at the time he was brought to the hospital prior to any surgical intervention.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the first X-ray, Dr. Gregory, would you identify the date when it was taken?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; this film was made on November 22, 1963, as indicated by a pencil marking on that film, and it further bears the assigned X-ray number of 219-992, which was that of the patient, Governor John Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission we shall reserve number 690 and 691 for later identification of those photographs and X-rays.

Senator COOPER. So ordered.

Dr. GREGORY. If you will notice in addition to the apparent fracture of this, the radial bone here.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you now describing a second X-ray?

Dr. GREGORY. No; these are two taken at right angle of the Governor's wrist prior to attention. These are diagnostic film, one made with the hand palm down and one with the hand turned 90°.

Mr. SPECTER. Do they bear identical numbers then?

Dr. GREGORY. They do.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any mark on them at the present time which distinguishes them by way of marking or number?

Dr. GREGORY. Other than the pencil markings on each of these two films and my own which I attached last evening for convenience.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you mark one of them as "A" and one as "B," so that when you describe them here we will know which you are referring to?

Dr. GREGORY. Very well. Let the record show that "A" stands for the anteroposterior view, Exhibit No. 691, and "B" stands for the lateral view, Exhibit No. 690, of the right wrist and forearm. "A" then demonstrates a comminuted fracture of the wrist with three fragments.

Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by comminuted?

Dr. GREGORY. Comminuted refers to shattering, to break into more than two pieces, specifically many pieces, and if I may, I can point out there is a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, and there are several smaller fragments lying in the center of these three larger ones.

Mr. SPECTER. How many fragments are there in total, sir, in your opinion?

Dr. GREGORY. I would judge from this view that counting each isolated fragment there are fully seven or eight, and experience has taught that when these things are dismantled directly under direct vision that there very obviously may be more than that.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you continue to describe what that X-ray shows with respect to metallic fragments, if any?

Dr. GREGORY. Three shadows are identified as representing metallic fragments. There are other light shadows in this film which are identified or interpreted as being artifacts.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the basis of distinction between that which is an artifact and that which is a real shadow of the metallic substance?

Dr. GREGORY. A real shadow of metallic substance persist and be seen in other views, other X-ray copies, whereas artifacts which are produced by irregularities either in the film or film carrier will vary from one X-ray to another.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it your view that these other X-ray films led you to believe that those are, in fact, metallic substances?

Dr. GREGORY. As a matter of fact, it is the mate to this very film, the lateral view marked "B", which shows the same three fragments in essentially the same relationship to the various levels of the forearm that leads me to believe that these do, in fact, represent metallic fragments.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as specifically as you can what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?

Dr. GREGORY. I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters in diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal.

Mr. SPECTER. What would your estimate be as to their weight in total?

Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that they would be weighed in micrograms which is very small amount of weight. I don't know how to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you.

It is the kind of weighing that requires a microadjustable scale, which means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all the metallic substances which you observed either visually or through the X-rays in the Governor's wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. These are the three metallic substance items which I saw.

Now if I may use these to indicate why I view the path as being from dorsal to volar, from the back of the wrist to the palm side, these have been shed on the volar side suggesting that contact with this bone resulted in there being flaked off, as the remainder of the missile emerged from the volar side leaving the small flakes behind.

Mr. SPECTER. Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?

Dr. GREGORY. There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.

Mr. SPECTER. And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?

Dr. GREGORY. Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion," indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?

Dr. GREGORY. Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.

Mr. DULLES. Would you show that on your own wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.

Dr. GREGORY. I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.

But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.

Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.

Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to the other factors indicating point of entry and point of exit, Dr. Gregory, I call your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 399, which is a bullet and ask you first if you have had an opportunity to examine that earlier today?

Dr. GREGORY. I have.

Mr. SPECTER. What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?

Dr. GREGORY. In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile.

(At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.)

I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead.

The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not inconsistent with one of the characteristics known for missiles which is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a linear motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion which is a spinning motion having to do with maintaining the integrity of the initial linear direction, but if they strike an object they may be caused to turn in their path and tumble end over, and if they do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the strike time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air upon emergence, tumble into another target backward. That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there sufficient metallic substance missing from the back or rear end of that bullet to account for the metallic substance which you have described in the Governor's wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. It is possible but I don't know enough about the structure of bullets or this one in particular, to know what is a normal complement of lead or for this particular missile. It is irregular, but how much it may have lost, I have no idea.

Mr. DULLES. Would the nature of the entry wound give you any indication as to whether it entered backward or whether it entered forward?

Dr. GREGORY. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance, and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it.

Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which I have examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of fabric lost, and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we recovered them.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the back of that bullet characteristic of an irregular missile so as to cause the wound in the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I would say that the back of this being flat and having sharp edges is irregular, and would possibly tend to tear tissues more than does an inclined plane such as this.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the back of the missile be sufficiently irregular to have caused the wound of the right wrist, in your opinion?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it could have; yes. It is possible.

Mr. SPECTER. Would it be consistent with your observations of the wrist for that missile to have penetrated and gone through the right wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. It is possible; yes. It appears to me since the wound of exit was a small laceration, that much of the energy of the missile that struck the Governor's wrist was expended in breaking the bone reducing its velocity sufficient so that while it could make an emergence through the underlying soft tissues on his wrist, it did not do great damage to them.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any indication from the extent of the damage to the wrist whether the bullet was pristine, that is: was the wrist struck first in flight or whether there had been some reduction in the velocity of the missile prior to striking the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I would offer this opinion about a high velocity rifle bullet striking a forearm.

Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to inject factors which we have not put on the record although it has been brought to your attention previously: Assume this is a 6.5-millimeter missile which was shot from a rifle having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with a distance of approximately 160 to 200 feet between the weapon and the victim; and answer the prior question, if you would, Dr. Gregory, with those factors in mind?

Dr. GREGORY. I would fully expect the first object struck by that missile to be very badly damaged, and especially if it were a rigid bone such as the wrist bone is, to literally blow it apart. I have had some experience with rifle wound injuries of the forearm produced by this type of missile, and the last two which I attended myself have culminated in amputation of the limb because of the extensive damage produced by the missile as it passed through the arm.

Considerably more than was evidenced in the Governor's case either by examination of the limb itself or an examination of these X-rays.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to the experience you had which you experienced which resulted in amputations, what was the range between the weapon and the victim's limb, if you know?

Dr. GREGORY. The range in those two instances, I concede was considerably shorter but I cannot give you the specific range. By short I mean perhaps no more than 15 or 20 yards at the most.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the difference between the 15 or 20 yards and the 160 to 250 feet make any difference in your opinion, though, as to the damage which would be inflicted on the wrist had that bullet struck it as the first point of impact?

Dr. GREGORY. No, sir; I don't think it would have made that much difference.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know what the color was of the fragments in the wrist of the Governor, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. GREGORY. As I recall them they were lead colored, silvery, of that color. I did not recall them as being either brass or copper.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other X-rays of the Governor's wrist which would aid the Commission in its understanding of the injuries to the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Only to indicate that there were two fragments of metal retrieved in the course of dealing with this wound surgically.

For the subsequent X-rays of the same area, after the initial surgery indicate that those fragments are no longer there.

And as I stated, I thought I had retrieved two of them. The major one or ones now being missing. The small one related to the bone or most closely related to the bone, and I will put back up here----

Mr. SPECTER. On the new X-rays which you put up, would you identify them first by indicating the date the X-ray was taken?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; the date of the X-ray is the same, November 22, 1963, and they may be identified as Exhibit "C" anteroposterior view postoperative, which is this one.

Mr. SPECTER. Did they bear the same numbers, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. GREGORY. They will bear the same numbers; yes.

Mr. DULLES. I think you had better get them marked.

We haven't got them marked yet "A," "B," and "C."

Representative BOGGS. Postoperative, these are after the operation?

Dr. GREGORY. These two. This one was made before the wound was dealt with.

Mr. SPECTER. Which one?

Dr. GREGORY. "A" is the one made before the wound was dealt with surgically.

Senator COOPER. Could you mark it 4 "A," "B," "C," and "D," Doctor?

Mr. McCLOY. Is that "B," we have had another "B" here, you know?

Dr. GREGORY. This is "C." "A" and "C" are comparable X-rays, one made before and one made after the operation was carried out.

Before the operation, you will note a large fragment of metal visible here, not visible in this one. You will also note a small satellite fragment not visible here. A second piece of metal visible preoperatively is still present postoperatively.

No effort incidentally is made to dissect for these fragments. They are small, they are proverbial needles in hay stacks, and we know from experience that small flakes of metal of this kind do not ordinarily produce difficulty in the future, but that the extensive dissection required to find them may produce such consequences and so we choose to leave them inside unless we chance upon them, and on this occasion, those bits of metal recovered were simply found by chance in the course of removing necrotized material.

Other than that the X-rays have nothing more to offer so far as the wrist is concerned.

Mr. SPECTER. May we then reserve 692 for "C" and 693 for "D"?

Dr. GREGORY. I will put the other marks on these.

Senator COOPER. So ordered.

Dr. GREGORY. For your convenience.

Mr. DULLES. Was the wound of exit in the wrist also jagged like the wound of entry or was there, what differences were there between the wound of entry and the wound of exit?

Dr. GREGORY. The wound of exit was disposed transversely across the wrist exactly as I have it marked here. It was in the nature of a small laceration, perhaps a centimeter and a half in length, about a half an inch long, and it lay in the skin creases so that as you examined the wrist casually it was a very innocent looking thing indeed, and it was not until it was probed that its true nature in connection with the remainder of the wound was evident.

Senator RUSSELL. When did you first see this bullet, Doctor, the one you have just described in your testimony?

Dr. GREGORY. This bullet?

Senator RUSSELL. Yes.

Dr. GREGORY. This morning, sir.

Senator RUSSELL. You had never seen it until this morning?

Dr. GREGORY. I had never seen it before this time.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?

Dr. GREGORY. As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a half a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.

Mr. SPECTER. How about on the volar or front side of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. The volar surface or palmar surface had a wound disclosed transversely about a half centimeter in length and about 2 centimeters above the flexion crease to the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Then the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist was a little larger than the wound on the volar or palm side of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; it was.

Mr. SPECTER. And is that characteristic in terms of entry and exit wounds?

Dr. GREGORY. It is not at all characteristic of the entry wound of a pristine missile which tends to make a small wound of entrance and larger wound of exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it, however, characteristic of a missile which has had its velocity substantially decreased?

Dr. GREGORY. I don't think that the exchange in the velocity will alter the nature of the wound of entrance or exit excepting that if the velocity is low enough the missile may simply manage to emerge or may not emerge at all on the far side of the limb which has been struck.

Mr. DULLES. Would this be consistent with a tumbling bullet or a bullet that had already tumbled and therefore entered back side too?

Dr. GREGORY. The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?

Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics on the Governor's wrist which indicate either the point of entry or the point of exit?

Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don't know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile. That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.

This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it aside.

Mr. SPECTER. Would that then also indicate the wound of entrance where that striking took place?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe it is more in keeping with it, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the thigh wound, what, if anything, did you observe as to a wound on the thigh, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. GREGORY. I was apprised that the Governor had a wound of the thigh, and I did examine it immediately the limb was available for it after Dr. Shaw had completed the surgery.

The wound was located on the inner aspect of the thigh, a little to the front surface about a third of the way up from the knee. The wound appeared to me to be rounded, almost a puncture type of wound in dimension about equal to a pencil eraser, about 6 mm.

I suspected that there might be a missile buried here and so an X-ray was obtained of that limb, and----

Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the X-ray with you?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. On what date was that X-ray taken?

Dr. GREGORY. This X-ray is marked as having been taken on November 22, 1963. It indicates that it was made of the left thigh, and it belongs to John Connally, John G. Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. That says "G" instead of "C"?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. It appears to me to be a "G." The number again is 219-922.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that the same number as the other X-rays bear?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe it is, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. May we reserve then Commission Exhibit No. 694 for that X-ray?

Senator COOPER. It may be so done.

Dr. GREGORY. There are a series of these films. Would you like them marked subsequently "E", "F," and "G"?

Mr. SPECTER. Insofar as you feel they are helpful in characterizing the wounds, do mark them in that way.

Dr. GREGORY. All right.

This I understand is Exhibit E, then and it is a single X-ray made on the anterior posterial view of Mr. Connally's thigh. The only thing found is a very small fleck of metal marked with an arrow here. It is that small, and almost likely to be overlooked. This was not consonant with the kind of wound on the medial aspect of his thigh.

Our next natural assumption was that that missile having escaped from the thigh had escaped the confines of this X-ray and lay somewhere else. So that additional X-rays were made of the same date and I submit two additional X-rays identified again as belonging to John G. Connally, the left lower extremity, November 22, 1963, and these two are numbered 218-922, and they are an anterial posterior view which I will mark "F," and a lateral view which I will mark "G."

Mr. SPECTER. May we reserve 695 for "F," and 696 for "G"?

Senator COOPER. So ordered.

Dr. GREGORY. Careful examination of this set of X-rays illustrated or demonstrates, I should say, a number of artificial lines, this is one and there is one. These lines I think represent rather hurried development of these films for they were taken under emergency conditions. They were intended simply to let us know if there was another missile in the Governor's limb where it might be located.

The only missile turned up is the same one seen in the original film which lies directly opposite the area indicated as the site of the missile wound or the wound in the thigh, but a fragment of metal, again microscopic measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic fragment?

Dr. GREGORY. This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight thereabouts, not much more than that.

Mr. SPECTER. Could that fragment, in your opinion, have caused the wound which you observed in the Governor's left thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. I do not believe it could have. The nature of the wound in the left thigh was such that so small a fragment as this would not have produced it and still have gone no further into the soft tissues than it did.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the wound that you observed in the soft tissue of the left thigh be consistent with having been made by a bullet such as that identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Dr. GREGORY. I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing.

I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather.

Mr. SPECTER. Had the missile gone through his wrist in reverse, would it likely have continued in that same course until it reached his thigh, in your opinion?

Dr. GREGORY. The missile that struck his wrist had sufficient energy left after it passed through the radius to emerge from the soft tissues on the under surface of the skin. It could have had enough to partially enter his thigh, but not completely.

Mr. SPECTER. In the way which his thigh was wounded?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe so; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you do, Dr. Gregory, with the missile fragments which you removed from his wrists?

Dr. GREGORY. Those were turned over to the operating room nurse in attendance with instructions that they should be presented to the appropriate authorities present, probably a member of the Texas Rangers, but that is as far as I went with it myself.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a part of a document heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 392, a two-page report which bears your name on the second page, and I ask you if this is the report you made of the operation on Governor Connally?

Dr. GREGORY. It appears to be the same; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct?

Dr. GREGORY. In essence they are true and correct; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, does that report show the name of the nurse to whom you turned over the metallic fragments?

Dr. GREGORY. There are two nurses who are identified on this page. One is the scrub nurse, Miss Rutherford, and the second is the circulating nurse, Mrs. Schrader.

Mr. SPECTER. And is one or the other the nurse to whom you turned over the metallic fragments?

Dr. GREGORY. I do not remember precisely to whom I handed them. I do not know.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No. 679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back, and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.

Dr. GREGORY. They do not in that, though the location of the wounds on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that entrance and exit terms have been reversed.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you delete the inaccurate statement and insert the accurate statement with your initials by the side of the changes, please?

Will you now describe the operative procedures----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question that relates, I think, to your question. Assuming that the wrist wound and the thigh wound were caused by the same bullet, would you agree that the approximate trajectory is as indicated in this chart where Dr. Shaw has drawn a trajectory that he assumed taking into account three bullets instead of two? I am only asking you about the two wounds, namely the wrist and the thigh.

Dr. GREGORY. It would strike me, sir, that the trajectory to the wrist and the subsequent wound of the thigh could be lined up easily in a sitting position.

Now, those two could probably be lined up with a trajectory of the wound in the chest as well, but this would require a more precise positioning of the individual.

Mr. DULLES. But do you agree in general, taking the two wounds with which you are particularly familiar, that that would have been the trajectory as between the wrist and the thigh as drawn on that chart?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes, essentially so; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. For the record, how was that chart identified. Doctor?

Dr. GREGORY. This is identified as Commission Exhibit 689.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline briefly the operative procedures which you performed on the Governor, please?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. The wound on the dorsum of the Governor's wrist was treated by debridement, which means to remove by sharp surgical excision all contaminated tissues and those which are presumed to have been rendered nonviable by force. This meant removing a certain amount of skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat, and all of the particles of clothing, threads of cloth, which we could identify; and, incidentally, a bit of metal or two.

That wound was subsequently left open; in other words, we did not suture it or sew it together. This is done in deference to potential infection which we know often to be associated with retained organic material such as cloth.

The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged. The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound was then sutured, closed.

After this, the fracture was manipulated into a hopefully respectable position of the fragments, and a cast was applied, and some traction, using rubber bands, was applied to the finger and the thumb in order to better hold the fracture fragments in their reduced or repositioned state.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, could all of the rounds which were inflicted on the Governor, that is, those described by Dr. Shaw, and those which you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a single missile under these specifications.

Mr. SPECTER. Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been described here today?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished.

Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say that, sir?

Dr. GREGORY. I think that to pass through the soft tissues of the President would certainly have decelerated the missile to some extent. Having then struck the Governor and shattered a rib, it is further decelerated, yet it has presumably retained sufficient energy to smash a radius.

Moreover, it escaped the forearm to penetrate at least the skin and fascia of the thigh, and I am not persuaded that this is very probable. I would have to yield to possibility. I am sure that those who deal with ballistics can do better for you than I can in this regard.

Mr. SPECTER. What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. I think that is a much more plausible possibility or probability.

Mr. SPECTER. How about the likelihood of passing through the President and through the Governor's chest, but missing his wrist and passing into his thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. That, too, is plausible, I believe.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other circumstances of this event which have been related to you, including the striking of the President's head by a third bullet, which would account in any way, under any possibility, in your view, for the fracture of the right wrist which was apparently caused by a missile?

Dr. GREGORY. May I refer to this morning's discussions?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please do.

Dr. GREGORY. This morning I was shown two additional missiles or portions of missiles which are rather grossly distorted.

Mr. SPECTER. Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the missiles which have heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570.

Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.

These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.

Mr. DULLES. In his wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. I don't know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an exhibit heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 388, which depicts the artist's drawing of the passage of a bullet through the President's head, and I ask you, first of all, if you have had an opportunity to observe that prior to this moment?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. I saw this illustration this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, if you assume that the trajectory through the President's head was represented by the path of a 6.5-mm. bullet which fragmented upon striking the skull, both the rear and again the top, is it possible that a fragment coming at the rate of 2,000 feet per second from the distance of approximately 160 to 230 feet, could have produced a fragment which then proceeded to strike the Governor's wrist and inflict the damage which you have heretofore described?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it is plausible that the bullet, having struck the President's head, may have broken into more than one fragment. I think you apprised me of the fact that it did, in fact, disperse into a number of fragments, and they took tangential directions from the original path apparently.

Mr. SPECTER. Assuming the fact that the autopsy surgeon presented for the record a statement that the fragments moved forward into the vicinity of the President's right eye, as the diagram shows, that there were approximately 40 star-like fragments running on a line through the head on the trajectory, and that there was substantial fragmentation of the bullet as it passed through the head, what is your view about that?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it is possible that a fragment from that particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right arm.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to observe the slides and films commonly referred to as the Zapruder film this morning?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I saw those this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Did they shed any light on the conclusions--as to your conclusions with respect to the wounds of the Governor and what you observed in the treatment of the Governor?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes, to this extent. It seemed to me in frames marked 234, 235, and 236, Governor Connally was in a position such that a single missile entered his back, could have passed through his chest, through his right forearm, and struck his thigh. That is a possibility.

I looked at the film very carefully to see if I could relate the position of Governor Connally's right arm to the movement when the missile struck the President's head, presumably the third missile, and I think that the record will show that those are obscured to a degree that the Governor's right arm cannot be seen. In the Governor's own words, he did not realize his right arm had been injured, and he has no idea when it was struck. This is historical fact to us at the time of the initial interview with him.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one question? If a bullet had merely struck the Governor's arm without previously having struck anything else, is it conceivable that impediment of the bone that it hit there would be consistent with merely a flesh wound on the thigh? Do you follow me?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I follow you. I would doubt it on the basis of the kind of wound that the Governor has. Now the kind of wound in the Governor's right forearm is the kind that indicates there was not an excessive amount of energy expended there, which means either that the missile producing it had dissipated much of its energy, either that or there was an impediment to it someplace else along the way.

It is simply that there was not enough energy loss there, and one would expect a soft tissue injury beyond that point to be of considerably greater magnitude.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, did I take your deposition back on March 23, 1964, at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; you did.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to review that deposition prior to today?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I have looked it over.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Gregory, that you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Dr. GREGORY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. DULLES. Are you in agreement with the deposition as given?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. I don't think there are any--there is any need to change any of the essence of the deposition. There are a few typographical errors and word changes one might make, but the essence is essentially as I gave it.

Mr. SPECTER. I have no further questions, sir.

Senator COOPER. I would just ask this question. In your long experience of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have you acquired, through that, knowledge of ballistics and characteristics of bullets?

Dr. GREGORY. Within a very limited sphere.

Senator COOPER. I know your testimony indicates that.

Dr. GREGORY. I have been concerned with the behavior of missiles in contact with tissues, but I am not very knowledgeable about the design of a missile nor how many grains of powder there are behind it. My concern was with the dissipation of the energy which it carries and the havoc that it wreaks when it goes off.

Senator COOPER. You derived that knowledge from your actual study of wounds and their treatment?

Dr. GREGORY. Study of wounds together with what I have read from the Army proving grounds, various centers, for exploring this kind of thing. I don't own a gun myself.

Mr. McCLOY. You are from Texas and you do not own a gun?

Dr. GREGORY. Well, sir, I went from Indiana to Texas. My father gave me a .410 shotgun, but he took it away from me shortly after he gave it to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you very much.

Dr. GREGORY. Thank you very much, sir, Mr. Chief Justice.

(A short recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, the Commission will come to order, please.

TESTIMONY OF GOV. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

Governor, this Commission has met today for the purpose of taking the testimony of you and Mrs. Connally concerning the sad affair that you were part of. If you will raise your right hand, please, and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Governor CONNALLY. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, Governor. Mr. Specter will conduct the examination.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?

Governor CONNALLY. John Bowden Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your official position with the State of Texas, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. I am now Governor of the State of Texas.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to be in the automobile which carried President John F. Kennedy through Dallas, Tex., back on November 22, 1963.

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you outline briefly, please, the circumstances leading up to the President's planning a trip to Texas in November of last year?

Governor CONNALLY. You want to go back to--how far back do you want to go, a few days immediately prior to the trip or a month before, or all of the circumstances surrounding it?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, just a very brief picture leading up to the trip, Governor, starting with whatever point you think would be most appropriate to give some outline of the origin of the trip.

Governor CONNALLY. Well, it had been thought that he should come to Texas for a period of many months, as a matter of fact. There was some thought given to it during 1962. The trip kept being delayed.

Finally in the fall of 1963 it was decided that he definitely should come, or should come in the fall of last year as opposed to waiting until this year, when his appearance might have more political overtones.

So I came up, I have forgotten the exact date, around the middle of October and talked to him about it, discussed the details, asked him what he would like to do.

He said he would like to do whatever he could do that was agreeable with me; it was agreeable with me that he more or less trust me to plan the trip for him, to tell him where he would like to go. About that time some thought was being given to having four fundraising dinners. His attitude on that was he wouldn't prefer that. He felt that the appearances would not be too good, that he would much prefer to have one if we were going to have any. I told him this was entirely consistent with my own thoughts. We ought not to have more than one fundraising dinner. If we did, it ought to be in Austin. If we could do it, I would like for him to see and get into as many areas of the State as possible while he was there.

He, on his own, had made a commitment to go to the dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas, which was being given the night of the 21st in Houston, so shortly, really before he got there, and when I say shortly I would say 2 weeks before he came, the plans were altered a little bit in that he landed originally in San Antonio in the afternoon about 1:30 of the afternoon of the 21st. From there we went to Houston, attended the Thomas dinner that night at about 8 o'clock.

After that we flew to Fort Worth, spent the night at the Texas Hotel, had a breakfast there the next morning, and left about 10 o'clock, 10:30, for the flight over to Dallas.

Mr. SPECTER. In what vehicle did you fly from Fort Worth to Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. In Air Force 1.

Mr. SPECTER. And approximately what time did you arrive at Love Field, Tex.

Governor CONNALLY. I would say about 11:50, 12:00, shortly before noon. I believe the luncheon was planned for 12:30, and we were running on schedule. I believe it was 11:50.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe for us briefly the ceremonies at Love Field on the arrival of the President?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, we, as usual, the President had a receiving line there. I conducted Mrs. Kennedy through the receiving line and introduced her to about 15 or 17 people who were there as an official welcoming committee.

The President came right behind, was introduced to them, and then he and Mrs. Kennedy both went over to the railing and spoke to a number of people who were standing around, who visited for 5 or 10 minutes, and then we got into the car as we had customarily done at each of the stops, and Mrs. Connally and I got on the jump seats, and with the President and Mrs. Kennedy on the back seat, and took off for the long motorcade downtown.

Mr. SPECTER. I will now hand you a photograph which I have marked "Commission Exhibit 697," Governor Connally, and ask you if that accurately depicts the occupants of the car as you were starting that motorcade trip through Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it does.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the identities of the men who are riding in the front seat of the car?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes. Roy Kellerman is on the right front. He is a Secret Service agent, and Bill--I can't remember the other's name----

Mr. SPECTER. Greer.

I hand you another photograph here, Governor, marked as "Commission Exhibit 698," and ask you if that is a picture of the President's automobile during its ride through the downtown area of Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I assume it is. This is certainly the President's automobile, and this is the precise position that each of us occupied in the ride through Dallas. It was the same position, and could be a photograph, of any number of places that we went. But I was seated in the jump seat immediately in front of him, and Mrs. Connally was seated immediately in front of Mrs. Kennedy in the jump seat, and Roy Kellerman was immediately in front of me.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I move at this time the admission into evidence of Exhibits 697 and 698?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The items marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 697 and 698 were received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. What was the relative height of the jump seats, Governor, with respect to the seat of the President and Mrs. Kennedy immediately to your rear?

Governor CONNALLY. They were somewhat lower. The back seat of that particular Lincoln limousine, which is a specially designed and built automobile, as you know, for the President of the United States, has an adjustable back seat. It can be lowered or raised. I would say the back seat was approximately 6 inches higher than the jump seats on which Mrs. Connally and I sat.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know for certain whether or not the movable back seat was elevated at the time?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I could not be sure of it, although I know there were--there was a time or two when he did elevate it, and I think beyond question on most of the ride in San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, and Dallas, it was elevated. For a while--the reason I know is--I sat on the back seat with him during part of the ride, particularly in San Antonio, not in Dallas, but in San Antonio. The wind was blowing, and we were traveling fairly fast, and Mrs. Kennedy preferred to sit on the jump seat, and I was sitting on the back seat part of the time, and the seat was elevated, and I think it was on substantially all the trip.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the portion elevated, that where only the President sat?

Governor CONNALLY. No; the entire back seat.

Mr. SPECTER. Describe in a general way the size and reaction of the crowd on the motorcade route, if you would, please, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. When we got into Dallas, there was quite a large crowd at the airport to greet their President, I would say several thousand people.

Part way downtown, in the thinly populated areas of Dallas, where we traveled, the crowds were not thick and were somewhat restrained in their reaction. By restrained, I mean they were not wildly enthusiastic, but they were grown people. There was a mature crowd as we went through some of the residential areas. They applauded and they were obviously very friendly in their conduct.

But as we, of course, approached downtown, the downtown area of Dallas, going down the main street, the crowds were tremendous. They were stacked from the curb and even outside the curb, back against the back walls. It was a huge crowd. I would estimate there were 250,000 people that had lined the streets that day as we went down.

The further you went the more enthusiastic the response was, and the reception. It was a tremendous reception, to the point where just as we turned on Houston Street off of Main, and turned on Houston, down by the courthouse, Mrs. Connally remarked to the President, "Well, Mr. President, you can't say there aren't some people in Dallas who love you." And the President replied, "That is very obvious," or words to that effect.

So I would say the reception that he got in Dallas was equal to, if not more, enthusiastic than those he had received in Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conversations which stand out in your mind on the portion of the motorcade trip through Dallas itself?

Governor CONNALLY. No; actually we had more or less desultory conversation as we rode along. The crowds were thick all the way down on both sides, and all of us were, particularly the President and Mrs. Kennedy were, acknowledging the crowds. They would turn frequently, smiling, waving to the people, and the opportunity for conversation was limited. So there was no particularly significant conversation or conversations which took place. It was, as I say, pretty desultory conversation.

Mr. SPECTER. Did the automobile stop at any point during this procession?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it did. There were at least two occasions on which the automobile stopped in Dallas and, perhaps, a third. There was one little girl, I believe it was, who was carrying a sign saying, "Mr. President, will you please stop and shake hands with me," or some that was the import of the sign, and he just told the driver to stop, and he did stop and shook hands, and, of course, he was immediately mobbed by a bunch of youngsters, and the Secret Service men from the car following us had to immediately come up and wedge themselves in between the crowd and the car to keep them back away from the automobile, and it was a very short stop.

At another point along the route, a Sister, a Catholic nun, was there, obviously from a Catholic school, with a bunch of little children, and he stopped and spoke to her and to the children; and I think there was one other stop on the way downtown, but I don't recall the precise occasion. But I know there were two, but I think there was still another one.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other events prior to the time of the shooting itself which stand out in your mind on the motorcade trip through Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. No; not that have any particular significance.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the comment which Mrs. Connally had made to President Kennedy which you just described, where on the motor trip was that comment made, if you recall?

Governor CONNALLY. This was just before we turned on Elm Street, after we turned off of Main.

Mr. SPECTER. Onto Houston?

Governor CONNALLY. Onto Houston, right by the courthouse before we turned left onto Elm Street, almost at the end of the motorcade, and almost, I would say, perhaps a minute before the fatal shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the condition of the crowd at that juncture of the motorcade, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. At that particular juncture, when she made this remark, the crowd was still very thick and very enthusiastic. It began to thin immediately after we turned onto Elm Street. We could look ahead and see that the crowd was beginning to thin along the banks, just east, I guess of the overpass.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difficulty in hearing such a conversational comment?

Governor CONNALLY. No, no; we could talk without any, and hear very clearly, without any difficulty, without any particular strain. We didn't do it again because in trying to carry on a conversation it would be apparent to those who were the spectators on the sidewalk, and we didn't want to leave the impression we were not interested in them, and so we just didn't carry on a conversation, but we could do so without any trouble.

Mr. SPECTER. As the automobile turned left onto Elm from Houston, what did occur there, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and, in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest, that I had probably been fatally hit.

So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----

Mr. SPECTER. Nellie is Mrs. Connally?

Governor CONNALLY. Mrs. Connally. When she pulled me over into her lap, she could tell I was still breathing and moving, and she said, "Don't worry. Be quiet. You are going to be all right." She just kept telling me I was going to be all right.

After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, "Bill, get out of line." And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said, "Get us to a hospital quick." I assumed he was saying this to the patrolman, the motorcycle police who were leading us.

At about that time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of the line, and I lost consciousness and didn't regain consciousness until we got to the hospital.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I hand you a photograph, marked Commission Exhibit 699, which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza depicting the intersection of Houston and Elm, and ask you if you would take a look at that photograph and mark for us, if you would, with one of the red pencils at your right, the position of the President's automobile as nearly as you can where it was at the time the shooting first started.

Governor CONNALLY. I would say it would be about where this truck is here. It looks like a truck. I would say about in that neighborhood.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you place your initials, Governor, by the mark that you made there?

Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know. 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

Mr. SPECTER. What was your impression then as to the source of the shot?

Governor CONNALLY. From back over my right shoulder which, again, was where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound as coming back over my right shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. At an elevation?

Governor CONNALLY. At an elevation. I would have guessed at an elevation.

Mr. SPECTER. Excuse me.

Governor CONNALLY. Well, that is all.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an impression as to the source of the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. The same. I would say the same.

Mr. SPECTER. How fast was the President's automobile proceeding at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. I would guess between 20 and 22 miles an hour, and it is a guess because I didn't look at the speedometer, but I would say in that range.

Mr. SPECTER. Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?

Governor CONNALLY. He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I have to--I would say it was after the third shot when she said, "They have killed my husband."

Mr. SPECTER. Did she say anything more?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got his brains in my hand."

Mr. SPECTER. Did that constitute everything that she said at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. That is all I heard her say.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Connally say anything further at this time?

Governor CONNALLY. All she said to me was, after I was hit when she pulled me over in her lap, she said, "Be quiet, you are going to be all right. Be still, you are going to be all right." She just kept repeating that.

Mr. SPECTER. Was anything further stated by Special Agent Roy Kellerman other than that which you have already testified about?

Governor CONNALLY. No; those are the only two remarks that I heard him make.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any statement made by Special Agent William Greer at or about the time of the shooting?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not hear Bill say anything.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by President Kennedy after the shooting?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not see him.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us