Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; well--these would be very difficult on
account of the case. They would be hard to resize on account of the
fact the case is pushed out due to the rechambering. But they could be
used; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say there is no indication, would there be an
indication if they were resized?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; usually--unless the sizing die was extremely
clean--usually you will get your resizing marks from the resizing die.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in particular you say the cartridge cases from this
particular weapon show a substantial amount of bulge?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They do. As you brought to my attention, there is a
crack in the one case. I would not care to use this type of brass if
I were hand loading. I would find brass that had been fired in a .38
Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, by the way, the various cartridge cases, the four
cartridge cases and four bullets that you have identified, and that you
obtained from your Dallas Office and other sources, that is, Exhibits
594 and 602, 603, 604, and 605, are these now in the same condition as
they were when you originally got them?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Substantially. A small sample was taken off the noise
which was run spectrographically. But the major portions of all these
bullets are the same as when they were received in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean them in any way or alter them?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we had to clean them. They were removed from the
body and were bloody. You could not see the surfaces. We had to put
them in haemo-sol, which is nothing more than a material that will take
out the blood.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true of all four bullets? That is true of the
last three bullets as well as the original bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Q-13 was cleaned of blood tissue in haemo-sol. I do not
think I have anything in the notes that the last three were cleaned at
all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that indicate they were not cleaned?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say so, because I would have put it down.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the substance removed from the first bullet tested
to see whether it was blood, or did you just assume it was blood?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No examination was made of it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any dirt on the cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't remember any.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would your notes show if you had cleaned it up?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they do not show any cleaning up?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. You said these revolver bullets were sold in boxes of
how many?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Fifty.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will a storekeeper, a gun man who sells bullets, sell
less than 50 usually, in your experience?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Maybe some small outfit would. But I just don't know of
any around here that will.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Oswald was found with two types of ammunition, two
makes of .38 Special cartridges. Would you infer than that----
Representative BOGGS. What two types?
Mr. EISENBERG. R.-P., or Remington-Peters, and Western-Winchester.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were Westerns.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you infer on the basis of your previous statement
that he had probably bought a larger quantity?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The inference would be that he had at least two boxes.
Mr. EISENBERG. At some point?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; either that or he had obtained them from another
individual.
Mr. EISENBERG. How about the rifle ammunition, this 6.5
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle ammunition--how is that commonly sold--the
Western brand?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would depend on the surplus house, how it is sold.
Mr. EISENBERG. You think that might be sold in less than fixed minimum
quantities?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many times that type of ammunition, surplus ammunition,
is sold in any amount. They will give a single price, single cartridge
price--or they will take off some if you buy them by the thousand or
the hundred. That is a lot different than commercially made ammunition
for sale in this country.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to examine this witness now
on the paraffin test, if there are no further questions on the areas we
have been covering up to now.
Representative FORD. Any questions, Mr. Boggs?
Representative BOGGS. I don't think so.
Representative FORD. Mr. Rhyne?
Mr. RHYNE. Yes; you said that you were positive that these cartridge
cases that were found near where Officer Tippit was killed, and which
are over in front of Representative Boggs now, were fired in this gun.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I stated the first time, in my opinion those
cartridge cases were fired in that particular weapon to the exclusion
of all other weapons.
Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body
of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that
they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired
from that gun. However, the rifling characteristics on the bullets
are the same as produced by that weapon. Also, I could not identify
consecutive tests obtained from that revolver, using .38 Special
ammunition, and I could not identify, even though there are microscopic
marks on three of these bullets for comparison purposes--I could not
identify them with each other.
Mr. RHYNE. Now, based on your many, many years of experience, is this
usual or unusual, that you are unable to identify bullets from such a
gun under these circumstances?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual in this particular case. I have
had other cases with these rechambered .38 S&W revolvers, that are
rechambered to a .38 Special; it is not unusual to not be able to
identify them. And especially when the barrel has been cut off 2-3/4
inches, it even cuts down the possibility a little bit more.
Mr. RHYNE. I was under the impression that you people down at the FBI
could identify almost any bullet as coming from almost any gun. That is
not strictly true, then?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, but it is not.
Representative BOGGS. How much has this barrel been cut off?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. About 2-3/4 inches. You measure the length of the
barrel from--you see the cylinder----
Representative BOGGS. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the portion coming out from the frame, that is a
portion of the barrel. And the barrel is measured from there to the
muzzle. And the barrel now is 2-1/4 inches long. The original barrel
was 5 inches long--or at least it is similar to the model that would
have a 5-inch barrel.
Representative BOGGS. What is the advantage of reducing the length of
the barrel?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two things--sales appeal and concealment.
Representative BOGGS. Does it affect the firing quality of the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It affects your accuracy inasmuch as it cuts down on
your sight radius. Your longer barrel will be more accurate than a
shorter barrel, due to the longer sight radius. The reason that rifles
are inherently more accurate than a hand weapon is due, in part, to
the longer sight radius. That is the reason the farther you can get
away from the sight when you are firing a revolver, the more accurate.
Lengthening your sight radius will increase the accuracy.
Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do
you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.
Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they could have,
on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they could have been.
However, no conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of
these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.
Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar
markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same,
or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not
a lot of similarities. There are not sufficient similarities to effect
an identification.
Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, these
bullets could have been fired by another weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Either this weapon or another weapon
which has the same rifling characteristics.
Representative FORD. You are limiting that to the bullets now?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.
Mr. RHYNE. Yes; my question related just to the bullets.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.
Mr. RHYNE. He was positive about the cartridge cases, but not about the
bullets.
Representative BOGGS. Now, would it be likely to find these cartridge
cases, which you can positively identify as having been fired from this
weapon--would it be likely that these bullets which you cannot identify
as having been fired from this weapon--would it be likely that they
would be fired from another weapon under those circumstances?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, that, sir, depends on other extraneous facts
other than my comparisons and examinations. In other words, I can only
testify to what I actually found from an examination and comparison of
those bullets with these test bullets from that gun. And as to anything
else, I cannot testify. I mean--that would be based upon other facts.
Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying some of these questions a little bit further,
Mr. Cunningham, you say that this bullet could have been fired from
this gun, and was fired from a gun with these rifling characteristics?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which you said were five lands, five grooves, right
twist?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the widths of the lands and grooves? Did you
measure those?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; they were also the same. In other words, when I
say it has similar rifling characteristics--the widths of the lands and
the grooves is taken into account the rifling characteristics. It has
the same width and number of lands and grooves and a right twist.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, how many other--well, before I ask that, you have
also established that the bullets were .38 Specials?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the manufacturer of each bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say they had been fired therefore from a gun
chambered for a .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; there was no indication that they were fired in a
weapon other than .38 caliber.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the weapon was a .38 Special weapon with five
lands, five grooves, right twist, and with the same dimensions for each
land and each groove.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would the entire production run of this model
conform to that description?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. And also there are other models.
Mr. EISENBERG. Other models also produced by Smith and Wesson?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; in .38 Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate the number of those guns?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. May I have the NRA reprint? My estimate comes from the
figures that are set forth in Commission Exhibit 593, which states that
by 1942 there were a million "Military and Police" revolvers, which is
the prior model to the Victory model, which they produced.
Representative BOGGS. That is this model?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. But the model has similar rifling
characteristics. You could not distinguish between them. In other
words, one is a commercially made gun--this is strictly a wartime gun.
Also production of the "S" series continued until 1948, when the "C"
series was started, including over one million "M&P" models, including
the Victory model, which was this model, were manufactured between
1942 through March of 1948; and since that date, Smith and Wesson has
produced over 500,000 "M&P" revolvers in the "C" series, which, when
you add them up--there are over two and a half million.
Mr. EISENBERG. Two and a half million?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Over 2-1/2 million.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, apart from specially handmade or equivalent
weapons, how many other types of weapons have you encountered which
have these rifling characteristics?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Other than possibly a Spanish-made copy of the
Smith--the Smith is the only one in .38 Special now that will have
similar rifling characteristics.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say Spanish-made, you are referring to the
basement type of operation?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this weapon did not produce, and does not
produce--that is, the weapon 143--does not produce identical
microscopic characteristics from bullet to bullet, you have testified.
And you have told us that the reason might be that the weapon was
rechambered but not rebarrelled, so that the .38 Special is slightly
undersized for the barrel?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has not been rebarrelled.
Mr. EISENBERG. That's right. So when you fire a .38 Special, it is
slightly undersized, and this might affect the barrel characteristics?
Wasn't that your testimony? That the .38 Special is slightly undersized?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; approximately four-thousandths of an inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you therefore limit the number of possible
weapons from which the bullets might have been fired, not only to the
2-1/2 million S&W's which you discussed, plus the possibility of
Spanish homemade weapons, but also to those weapons, that subcategory
of weapons within those 2-1/2 million, which does not produce
microscopic characteristics such that you can identify bullets fired
from them?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; you cannot, due to the fact that there was
also the possibility that the inability to identify consecutive tests
from that weapon could be caused from an accumulation of lead or from
barrel wear--the barrel was actually physically changing.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is not quite what I meant. Out of every ten S&W .38
Specials, on the basis of your experience, how many do you think would
produce rifling characteristics such that you could identify bullets
fired from them?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, you could tell if the rifling characteristics are
similar. But as far as the individual characteristic marks, that would
be on an individual basis. Much depends on the imperfections in the
barrel. Now, if you have some real deep imperfections in a barrel, it
would be possible to pick them up each time. Even though you would have
a lot of dissimilarities, the similarities would be so distinctive that
there is always a possibility you could identify them. But not this
weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Rhyne asked before whether it was usual or unusual
to get this type of weapon not producing microscopic characteristics
such that you could identify the bullet to the gun. You said it was not
unusual.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I say out of every 10 such weapons, how many would
you expect to be in this condition--that is, in a condition such that
you cannot make an identification?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing that.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of your experience, the experience that led
you to say it is not unusual to have this condition?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can only say that you find them, that you cannot
identify them, so it is not unusual. But as to numbers, I could not
say. When you go back and you take all the hundreds and hundreds of
examinations I have made, it is not unusual. But I also will not say
that it is usual. I will go to the negative, I will say it is not
unusual.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you agree that out of the 2-1/2 million possible
weapons it could only have been fired from a gun which will not produce
microscopic characteristics such that you can identify the bullet to
the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There is a good indication of that; yes. However,
there is mutilation on all four of the bullets. But the three we are
talking about, the ones that had marks for comparison purposes, now,
even though the possibility is remote, it is still possible that there
is mutilation in different areas of each bullet, so you would not be
able to identify them. Even if the bullets--even if they had not been
mutilated, you maybe still could not identify them. In other words,
your mutilation on different parts of each bullet would preclude the
possibility of identifying them with each other. So I cannot answer
your question positively.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have one subject remaining with
this witness. Mr. Cunningham, are you familiar with the paraffin test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you administered this test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the approximate number of times you have
administered it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know the exact number, but I must have
performed this test at least 100 times, and probably more.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will state for the record--I know you do not know
of this of your own knowledge, Mr. Cunningham--but a paraffin test was
performed on Lee Harvey Oswald by the Dallas Police. Three paraffin
casts were made, one of the right cheek, one of the right hand, and one
of the left hand. There was no reaction on the paraffin test of the
right cheek. There was a reaction on the paraffin test of each of the
right and left hands.
I will now hand you a sketch which was made by a participant in those
tests, which shows the distribution of the blue or violet dots which
constitute a positive reaction to this test on the left and right hands
of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Representative BOGGS. Before you do that, Mr. Cunningham, will you
describe briefly the procedure on a paraffin test? I want to understand
exactly what it is.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The so-called paraffin test is the making of reinforced
paraffin casts, of a person's hands, and then treating either with
either one of two reagents. One is diphenylamine, and the other is
diphenylbenzidine.
Representative BOGGS. Is that when the cast is on?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is definitely after it is removed.
Representative FORD. You actually make a cast of the individual's hand?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, yes.
Representative BOGGS. You make the casts. Then you take the casts off.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You slit it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how the cast is made?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. You first take warm paraffin. Each paraffin melts
at a slightly different temperature. What we were using in our tests
melts at about 130°. And this hot paraffin is placed on the hands. It
is spread on with a brush, or it can be poured over. If you are sure
that your brush is absolutely clean and will not react--and we checked
all of our equipment so that we were not getting a reaction from the
diphenylbenzidine--we let it pour on from the brush. Once you get a
coating, you can just brush it on, because then you won't be disturbing
any materials on the hands. And after you get a coat on, you take
gauze bandages and lay them on top and put more paraffin on them. The
gauze does nothing more than to give it reinforcement so it won't fall
apart or crumble when it gets real cool. Then you cut them off the
hands after they cool. Then they are chemically processed with either
diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine.
Representative BOGGS. The cast?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; the portion of the cast next to the hand.
Representative BOGGS. Right. I understand now.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why paraffin is used? What is the action
of the paraffin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, the warm paraffin has the effect of opening up
the pores of the skin and many times material that you cannot get
off from washing will be picked up in the sticky paraffin. As it is
cooling, the dirt and the foreign material on the hands will become
embedded in the paraffin.