Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 602, 603, and 605 are your copper-coated lead bullets
of Winchester-Western manufacture.
Mr. EISENBERG. And 604?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And 604 is a Remington-Peters lead bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets
have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were
not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this
bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been
fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic
marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an
examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not
they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one
weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to
determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this
revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to
make either type of determination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was
not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired,
the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way,
which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized
.38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel,
and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be
impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
Representative FORD. When you say this weapon, will you identify what
you mean by "this weapon"?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.
Mr. EISENBERG. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that
the gun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly
smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled
for the .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might
wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know if wobble is the correct word. But as
the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably
getting an erratic passage, so the marks won't reproduce.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to say that the bullets were not fired
from this weapon, No. 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is not; since the rifling characteristics of
Commission Exhibit 143--this revolver--are the same as those present on
the four bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of
Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one
bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you
told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge
cases.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more
recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered
Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing.
Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.
Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the
cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the
cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun----
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets
were fired in that gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the
bullet--you cannot match them up?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.
Representative BOGGS. There is no way to do it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; other than what I have said. In other words, you
can tell manufacture. But there is no way of--that I know of--of
connecting or identifying a particular bullet having been loaded into a
particular cartridge case.
Representative BOGGS. But there is no doubt about the fact that the
four cartridge cases came from firing in that weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were fired in that weapon to the exclusion of all
other weapons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you said before that you would be missing a
bullet--under the explanation you gave--would you be missing both a
bullet and a cartridge case?
Representative BOGGS. Excuse me, before you answer that question.
What testimony have we developed with reference to this delay in the
transmission of these bullets to either the FBI or to the Commission?
Mr. EISENBERG. Just what you have heard. Would you like to have it
developed further?
Representative BOGGS. Well, is this within his competence?
Mr. EISENBERG. I do not think so. I can state for the record myself
that about 2 weeks ago I requested--I made a request of Mr. Conrad,
who is the Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Laboratory--that
the three Tippit bullets which had not theretofore been examined, be
examined. At that point they had not yet been sent from the Dallas
Police to the FBI, and no request had apparently been made for them.
Representative BOGGS. Well, the FBI obtained one almost immediately.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Representative BOGGS. And then there was how long a delay before the
other three?
Mr. EISENBERG. You have the dates there, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The date was--we obtained the first one on November 23,
1963, and then----
Representative BOGGS. The day after the killing of Officer Tippit?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it was delivered at the same time as all the other
material. And then it was returned November 17, 1963.
As far as the FBI is concerned, sir, we have no jurisdiction in that
case. We were doing the lab work for the Dallas Police Department, but
in the investigation of the death of Officer Tippit we do not have
jurisdiction.
Representative BOGGS. How did the Commission ascertain that these
additional bullets were there?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, upon review of the underlying materials, it
developed that while one bullet had been taken out of Officer Tippit as
soon as he got to the hospital, which was apparently the first bullet,
the one examined November 23, three further bullets were taken out at
the autopsy. And since we knew that only one bullet had been examined
by the FBI, and since we knew at that point that three further bullets
had been taken out, we asked that those three further bullets be
examined.
Representative BOGGS. What proof do you have though that these are the
bullets?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, again, we will have to connect it up at a
subsequent time. They were turned over to the FBI Dallas Office, were
they, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. I am talking about the three bullets now, not the
first bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; turned over to the FBI Dallas Office by the Dallas
Police. Now, we will have to connect up by deposition or testimony
before the Commission on the origin of those bullets, and proof is not
in the record now, as it is not in the case of many of these items, as
to origin. However, I have no doubt that we will be able to connect it
up and put it all in the record.
Representative BOGGS. Has there been any inquiry made as to why there
was this delay in removing the other three bullets to the FBI?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, as Mr. Cunningham stated, I was told since this
was not within the jurisdiction of the FBI, they would only examine
evidence which was given to them. And since it had not been given to
them, they had not examined it.
When I asked for it, there was a formal request made for them, and they
made their examination at that point.
Is that your understanding, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, sir. In other words, we will do
laboratory examinations for any duly constituted law-enforcement agency
upon request. And we did it in this case. We offer our facilities
but do not go out and ask for work. Since we have no jurisdiction
in the killing of Officer Tippit, we would make no investigation
and therefore, we would have no reason to go and ask for additional
bullets, until of course this Commission asked us to, and then we did
on behalf of the Commission.
Representative BOGGS. Do you have any theory, and this is just a
theory, you understand, as to this discrepancy in these results as
compared to the cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Inasmuch as there are three Western bullets, you would
be missing one Western cartridge case, and one Remington bullet. You
are missing one of each. He could have missed one of the shots. I do
not know how many times he actually fired the weapon. But he could have
missed once. It is very possible that he could have. And depending
on the angle, it would be very difficult to find that bullet unless
it struck some close intervening object. Also I have no first-hand
information, again, but I believe that some neighbor turned in these
cartridge cases to the Dallas Police Department.
Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that is correct.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You have received a letter from the Dallas office of
the FBI just recently, I believe, setting forth that information.
Representative BOGGS. That would account for one. There would still be
another one, would there not?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There would be just one cartridge case missing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other logical theory which could explain
the results?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of course, he could have had an empty cartridge case
remaining in the weapon at the time he fired it. Then he would only
have fired four shots, and then a bullet is still unaccounted for. That
would explain it also.
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, if he had an unejected R-P cartridge
case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No--a Western.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean an unejected Western cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And he fired two Winchester and two R-P bullets--now in
that case--and, if he then ejected he would get three Winchester and
two R-P bullets, would he not--that is, cartridge case--if he had an
extra cartridge case?