approximately duplicating the photograph made by Mr. Dillard which is
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29, Photograph No. 2. I, with a pencil, made
a circle around the mark on the curb, and this pencil mark shows in
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 30.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 31 is a photograph taken from in front of
the school book depository building looking down toward the Triple
Underpass, showing in the center area of the picture two men in white
shirts standing along the south curb of Main Street at the point where
the mark on the curb was found.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32 is a photograph made from under the Triple
Underpass looking past the point where the mark on the curb was located
towards the Texas School Book Depository Building, which relates this
area to the rest of the assassination site.
There is a marker that has been set up on the curb with an arrow
pointing down, that is directly over the area where the mark is located
on the south curb of Main Street.
The photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, is a photograph made from
the location of Mr. Abraham Zapruder who made motion pictures of the
assassination on November 22, and this photograph was made having a man
who can be seen standing in the center of the picture, placed in the
center of Elm Street, along a straight line between the mark on the
curb and the assassination window in the Texas School Book Depository
Building, the sixth floor.
The man is standing in that direct straight line between the
assassination window and the mark on the curb, and the photograph then
shows where the President in the Presidential limousine, would have
been on Elm Street as related to the Zapruder films if a bullet going
from the sixth floor window to the mark on the curb went directly over
the President’s head.
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to tell us the frame in Zapruder’s sequence
which would correspond to the position of the man standing on Elm
Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; this would correspond to frame No. 410 in the
Zapruder films. Of course, this, as stated, is based on the assumption
that a bullet going from the window to the mark on the curbing
went directly over the President’s head. It would have occurred at
approximately frame 410.
In relating this to other previously determined facts regarding the
Zapruder films, this would be 97 frames after the frame 313, which
is the frame of the Zapruder films that shows the shot that struck
the President in the head. At 18.3 frames per second, this 97 frames
would represent a lapse of time of 5.3 seconds between the shot to the
President’s head at frame 313, and any shot that would have occurred at
frame 410, if such did occur.
Mr. REDLICH. Now, with further reference to the relationship of this
location to the Zapruder films, the Commission previously requested
that the Bureau, advise us as to when Special Agent Hill of the Secret
Service reached the Presidential car. Can you tell us now the results
of that investigation?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I examined the Zapruder film and determined that
Agent Hill first places his hand on the Presidential car at frame 343.
This is approximately 1.6 seconds after the President is hit in the
head at frame 313.
Special Agent Hill placed one foot on the bumper of the car at frame
368, which is approximately 3 seconds after frame 313. Agent Hill had
both feet on the car at frame 381, which is approximately 3.7 seconds
after frame 313.
Mr. REDLICH. Going back now to frame 410 on the Zapruder film, which is
the frame that would correspond to the location of a man appearing on
Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, can you tell us the location
of Special Agent Hill and Mrs. Kennedy at frame 410?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At frame 410 in the Zapruder films, Mrs. Kennedy has
returned to the seat beside the President after having climbed out on
the back deck or the trunk lid, and Secret Service Agent Hill is in the
process of climbing from the bumper into the back seat of the car and
is about midway from the back bumper to the President, crawling across
the trunk lid.
Mr. REDLICH. Is it correct to say, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that at frame 410
the principal target on the back of the Presidential limousine would
have been Special Agent Hill and not any of the other occupants of the
rear seat of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do not have an opinion on that, except my
recollection of the frame, as I recall it, the Connallys are down in
the car, and the President is down in the car to a point where he may
not be visible from the sixth floor window. Mrs. Kennedy would still
be visible, and Agent Hill; Mrs. Kennedy and Agent Hill, as I recall,
are the only ones readily visible or that are visible.
Mr. REDLICH. Turning now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, to the curb mark itself; you
have brought with you today the actual piece of curbing which contains
the mark referred to in your testimony; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. That piece of curbing has been designated as Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 34.
(The article referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.)
Mr. REDLICH. Were you present at the time this curbing was removed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was removed under my supervision.
Mr. REDLICH. Can you then describe the subsequent investigation that
was conducted in connection with this curbing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the section of curbing, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34,
was cut out from the curbing along the south side of Main Street in the
assassination area. The mark on the curb having been located 23 feet, 4
inches from the abutment of the triple underpass. It was cut out under
my supervision, and I personally returned it to the FBI laboratory.
In the FBI laboratory it was examined for the presence of any foreign
material.
Mr. REDLICH. For the record, the results of this investigation have
been summarized in a communication from Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin,
dated August 12, 1964, and designated now as the Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
27; is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the
curbing in the laboratory resulted in the finding of foreign metal
smears adhering to the curbing section within the area of the mark.
These metal smears were spectrographically determined to be essentially
lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found.
The lead could have originated from the lead core of a mutilated
metal-jacketed bullet such as the type of bullet loaded into the
6.5-millimeter Mannlicher Carcano cartridges, or from some other source
having the same composition.
The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the
curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed
bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.
The damage to the curbing would have been much more extensive if a
rifle bullet had struck the curbing without first having struck some
other object. Therefore, this mark could not have been made by the
first impact of a high velocity rifle bullet.
Mr. REDLICH. Based on your examination of the mark on the curb, can you
tell us whether the mark which we have been referring to is a nick on
the curb, that is, has a piece of the curb been chipped away, or is it
instead a simple marking of lead?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is not a chip. There is no indication of any of
the curbing having been removed, but rather it is a deposit of lead on
the surface of the curbing that has given the appearance of a mark.
It was also established from a microscopic study of the curbing
that the lead object that struck the curbing that caused the mark,
was moving in a general direction away from the Texas School Book
Depository Building.
Mr. REDLICH. In connection with this investigation into the microscopic
characteristics of the mark, a photograph was prepared which is
designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35. Will you describe that
photograph?
(The photograph referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 is a color photograph
that I made of the mark on the curbing, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
34. This is magnified about five times, and shows only the marked area.
There is a red area in the lower left corner marked A which designates
the point of initial impact, and the lead deposit is then sprayed out
in a fanlike direction from that arrow.
Mr. REDLICH. Does point A in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 refer to or
correspond to the portion of the marking which is visible in Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 34?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It refers to the lower right-hand portion of that mark
on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. It is this area here, and this area here
[indicating].
Mr. REDLICH. Was Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 the photograph on the basis
of which the direction of the bullet fragment was determined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; the direction was determined from an actual
examination of the curbing itself rather than from the photograph.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35, was made primarily to show this lead deposit
more clearly than Exhibit 34 shows it.
Mr. REDLICH. I realize, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that the next question may be
out of your area of specialization, and you may not be able to answer
it. But are you able to tell us whether, if there had been copper
deposits indicating a fully jacketed bullet, whether in the intervening
period of time between the assassination and the time the curbstone
was examined these copper deposits might have been removed by rain or
erosion or any other natural causes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my understanding that there is no more reason
for the copper to be removed than the lead to be removed, and it is my
observation of the mark itself, the lead deposits, that the effect of
time on it was to add a layer of dirt and film over it which covered
it--more an adding on of dirt and other matter which covered it rather
than a wearing away.
So, based on this, although it is not possible to state whether or not
copper was there initially and eroded away or washed away or wore away,
it seems logical that copper would have no more reason to become worn
away than lead.
Mr. REDLICH. Previous investigation, Mr. Shaneyfelt, as well as the
results of the reenactment in Dallas, have led, as you know, to
a tentative conclusion that if three shots were fired during the
assassination sequence, that one of these three shots missed the
occupants of the car.
Assuming that tentative conclusion to be a definite finding of fact
for purposes of this question, are you able to tell us whether in your
opinion, the location, the presence, of the lead marking on the curb,
which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34, provides any
basis for determining which of the three shots fired by the assassin
missed the Presidential limousine?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Based on the assumptions as stated, it is my opinion
that the examination of the mark on the curb has furnished only limited
further information in this regard because it is not possible to
establish whether or not this mark on the curb could have been made
from a fragment of the shot that hit the President in the head or a
fragment of another shot that missed. The very fact that it can be
considered as one of the possibilities suggests a possibility of a
third shot that missed.
Mr. REDLICH. How far from the President’s position at frame 313 was the
mark on the curb?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don’t have that figure here at the present time. To
the best of my recollection, it was approximately 260 feet from where
the President would have been at frame 313 to the mark on the south
side of Main Street which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
34.
Mr. REDLICH. I would like to designate at this time a number,
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 36, which we will apply to a communication which
I asked you to furnish to the Commission giving us the exact distance
between the President’s location at frame 313 and the mark on the curb,
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. All right.
(The article referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 36 for
identification.)
Mr. REDLICH. Have you completed your answer to my question with regard
to whether this information offers any basis upon which one can
conclude which of the three shots missed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I believe I have. I have very little opinion
regarding that.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, prior to our deposition you and I
discussed the matters concerning which you were going to testify, and
during the course of this deposition there were a few conversations
which were not transcribed, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Is all of your testimony which has been transcribed
completely consistent with any information which you have provided in
the off-the-record conversations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. REDLICH. Is there any relevant material which you provided in any
off-the-record conversations which has not been covered in the course
of our record deposition?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.
Mr. REDLICH. Is there anything concerning the matters to which you
testified that you would like to add at the present time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I believe not.
Mr. REDLICH. A copy of this deposition will be available for your
review.
AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH
The following affidavit was executed by Paul Morgan Stombaugh on
September 4, 1964.
AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, _ss_:
Paul Morgan Stombaugh, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. This affidavit is made at the request of the President’s Commission
on the Assassination of President Kennedy, for the purpose of
supplementing the testimony I gave before the Commission concerning
certain hairs and fibers I examined.
2. The principal characteristics of cotton fibers used for comparison
purposes are color and shade; and degree of twist. Of these, color and
shade are by far the most significant. The principal characteristics of
viscose used for comparison purposes are color and shade, diameter, and
size and distribution of delustering agent.
3. The orange-yellow and grey-black cotton fibers in the shirt,
Commission Exhibit 150, were respectively of uniform shades; the dark
blue cotton fibers in the shirt were of three different shades. All the
fibers in the shirt were mercerized, and of a substantially uniform
twist.
4. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag, Commission Exhibit
142, varied in shade, but were of a uniform twist. The brown viscose
fibers in the blanket, Commission Exhibit 140, varied in diameter,
shade, size, and distribution of delustering agent.
5. Stombaugh Exhibits 1–6 consist of the following items:
(a) Stombaugh Exhibit 1 consists of the hairs I found on the blanket,
Commission Exhibit 140.
(b) Stombaugh Exhibit 2 consists of the known sample of Lee Harvey
Oswald’s hairs sent to me by the Dallas Office of the FBI.
(c) Stombaugh Exhibit 3 consists of the fibers I found in the paper
bag, Commission Exhibit 142.
(d) Stombaugh Exhibit 4 consists of a sample of fibers from the
blanket, Commission Exhibit 140.
(e) Stombaugh Exhibit 5 consists of the fibers I found on the rifle,
Commission Exhibit 139.
(f) Stombaugh Exhibit 6 consists of a sample of fibers from the shirt,
Commission Exhibit 150.
Signed this 4th day of September, 1964.
(S) Paul Morgan Stombaugh,
PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH.
AFFIDAVIT OF L. J. LEWIS
The following affidavit was executed by L. J. Lewis on August 26, 1964.
AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
I, L. J. Lewis, being duly sworn, depose as follows:
I do not at the present time have a permanent residence but can be
contacted at my present place of employment, Kemp’s Garage, 634 West
Davis, Dallas, Texas. On January 21, 1964, I was residing at 7616 Hume,
Pleasant Grove, Texas, and was then self-employed as a wholesale car
dealer.
On January 21, 1964, I was interviewed by Special Agents John T. Kesler
and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning
what I had seen on November 22, 1963, as it related to Lee Harvey
Oswald, the shooting of Dallas Police Officer, J. D. Tippit, and the
assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
I have been shown the written report[B] of the results of this
interview of January 21, 1964, by Special Agents John T. Kesler and
Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While this
report is substantially correct, I wish at this time to make the
following clarifications in regard to the last sentence in paragraph
one and the entirety of paragraph two.
“Upon hearing the shots and recognizing them as gunshot sounds, I
immediately called the Dallas Police Department to report a shooting.
There was so much confusion at the Police Department end of the
telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what
I was telling them. A few minutes later, I observed a white male,
approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue,
carrying either an automatic pistol or a revolver in his hand, and
while running was either attempting to reload same or attempting to
conceal the weapon in his belt.
“Upon reaching the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson
Boulevard, the individual then proceeded west on Jefferson Boulevard.”
I have read this written report and with the exception of the
aforementioned clarifications, it reveals a correct report of what I
saw on November 22, 1963.
Signed this 26th day of August 1964.
(S) L. J. Lewis,
L. J. LEWIS.
[B] This report was labeled L. J. Lewis Exhibit A.
TESTIMONY OF ALWYN COLE
The testimony of Alwyn Cole was taken at 3:26 p.m., on September 4,
1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Melvin Aron
Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, you have given testimony to the Commission at
a previous time, and this is a continuation of that testimony. So you
will still be under oath from the previous session.
Mr. COLE. I understand.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state your full name and position once more?
Mr. COLE. Alwyn Cole, examiner of questioned documents, U.S. Treasury
Department.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, I will hand you for your examination the
following exhibits: Commission Exhibit No. 795, which is a Selective
Service System notice of classification in the name of Alek James
Hidell; Commission Exhibit No. 806, which is a certificate of service
in the U.S. Marine Corps, in the name of Alek James Hidell; Commission
Exhibit No. 801, which is a Selective Service System notice of
classification in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit
No. 802, which is a Selective Service System registration certificate
in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 811, which is
a retouched negative of a registration certificate; Commission Exhibit
No. 812, which consists of two retouched negatives of a certificate
of service in the U.S. Marine Corps; Commission Exhibit No. 803,
which consists of a retouched negative of the face of a Selective
Service System notice of classification; Commission Exhibit No. 804,
which consists of a retouched negative of the face of a Selective
Service System notice of classification; Commission Exhibit No. 805,
which consists of a retouched negative of a portion of the face of a
Selective Service System notice of classification; and a certificate
of service in the U.S. Marine Corps in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald,
which I am labeling Cole Exhibit No. 1.
(Cole Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)
I ask you whether these are the items you have considered in connection
with your previous testimony?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, beginning with Exhibit No. 795, which is--at least
as to its face--a Selective Service System notice of classification in
the name of Alek James Hidell, can you tell us whether the face of this
Exhibit was produced from the negatives 803, 804, and 805?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Exhibit No. 795 is in fact a photographic print
from the negative, Exhibit No. 804, as to the face. Prior to that
photographic negative, however, other negatives were made, the first
one being the negative 803, and then another negative involved in the
production of Exhibit No. 795 is 805, which gives that part of the text
of the card beginning “The law requires” and ending “for advice see
your Government appeal agent.”
In other words, the negatives just described finally culminated in the
production of the photographic print, Exhibit No. 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you yourself made prints of these
negatives, 803, 804, and 805?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is by transmitted light, the normal way of printing
a negative?
Mr. COLE. I have made them in that manner; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I now hand you Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and
I ask you whether those are the prints you have made from Commission
Exhibits Nos. 803, 804, and 805?
(Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were marked for identification.)
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Cole Exhibit No. 2 is a photographic print from
negative 805. Cole Exhibit No. 3 is a photographic print from negative
804. Cole Exhibit No. 4 is a photographic print from negative 803.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you also made photographs of these negatives by
reflected light, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 and ask you
whether the photographs on these Exhibits labeled 803, 804, and 805 are
the photographs of the negatives which you made by reflected light.
(Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 were marked for identification.)
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. These prints are from photographic negatives made
by reflected light, and I should point out that the prints are enlarged
somewhat over the original size of the negatives, about 1.25 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the difference between Cole Exhibit No. 5
and Cole Exhibit No. 6?
Mr. COLE. Cole Exhibit No. 6 shows that side of the negatives to which
the opaquing medium or retouching medium was applied, whereas Cole
Exhibit No. 5 shows the opposite side of the negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, did you attempt to determine whether the
negatives, 803, 804, and 805, had been made from the Selective Service
notice in the name Oswald, which is Commission Exhibit No. 801--that
is, from the face of that card?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the negatives 803, 804, and 805,
were in fact made from Exhibit No. 801.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, how were you able to link up the negatives 803,
804, and 805, and the Oswald notice, Exhibit No. 801?
Mr. COLE. That was done chiefly by a close study of the typewritten
material following the line--I am now referring to Exhibit No.
801--following the line “Selective Service Number,” in which there are
four small rectangles showing the insertion of typewritten numbers, and
by study of the signature of the member or clerk of local board where
it intersects printed matter of the original form. The typewritten
matter and the inked lines of the signature have been the subject
of opaquing or retouching. With respect to the typewriting of the
Selective Service number, the original typewriting fell exactly on the
base line of the ruled rectangles of the original printed card. This
created a rather difficult problem about opaquing out the typewritten
matter. The opaquing material was brought very close to the ruled
line, but some of that line was permitted to remain unretouched. Since
this line had in effect been reinforced by the base of the typewritten
material, the line appears somewhat heavier. This heaviness comes
through on the final photographic print which is Exhibit No. 795.
Now, by this strange heaviness, I am referring to the lower border of
the four rectangles which follow the wording “Selective Service Number.”