Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the knurling is typical--the physical
characteristics were similar to those of the bullets manufactured by
the Western Cartridge Co.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is Commission Exhibit 573, which is the--as to
which Mr. Frazier has testified, and which is believed to be the bullet
found in the Walker residence.
Are you familiar with it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have examined it as well as Mr. Frazier?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this bullet was a 6.5-mm. Western
copper-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would.
Mr. EISENBERG. As definitely as you say the bullets which we
have just been looking at are respectively Remington-Peters and
Western-Winchester .38 Special bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Could I see that just a moment?
What did that hit, the brick wall of the house?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. DULLES. You don't know?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know. I have no first-hand knowledge of it.
It is in essentially the same condition as when we received it in the
laboratory, and all I know would be what has already been furnished
your Commission by report.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now given the fact that that was a 6.5-millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that have been fired in any other
6.5-millimeter rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it has to be a rifle that is chambered
specifically for this particular cartridge. In other words, there are
other 6.5-millimeter cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, as I understand it, your conclusion and Mr.
Frazier's was only that this cartridge, that this bullet, could have
been fired from Exhibit 139 or a rifle with similar----
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the basis of the rifling characteristics it could
have been fired from 139. However, there are insufficient marks
remaining to determine whether or not it had actually been so fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now the testimony yesterday as I recall it was that it
was fired either from Exhibit 139 or from a rifle with similar, or from
a weapon with similar rifling characteristics?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. But according to your testimony it would have to be
similar to a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I did not so testify. You asked if you could fire
another 6.5-mm. cartridge other than the cartridge----
Mr. EISENBERG. I asked if that cartridge, if a Western manufacture
6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could be fired in a gun other than
the 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. And you said, as I recall it, "It could
only be fired from a gun chambered for that cartridge."
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. That 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano
cartridge could only be fired in a weapon that is chambered for that
particular cartridge. Further we have never found another cartridge
that this particular type bullet has been loaded into.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any reason to believe there is another
6.5-millimeter rifle manufactured that is chambered for that cartridge?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None that I know of. Maybe I misunderstood
you. You mean, if the weapon is chambered for a 6.5-millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano, then that is commonly known as its caliber?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But you can rechamber weapons for another cartridge, as
they do all the time with the military surplus Springfield rifles. You
can have them rebarreled and rechambered.
Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from rechambering, talking just about original
manufacture, do I understand that the only weapon which you have
encountered, the only 6.5 millimeter weapon you have encountered which
would fire the particular type of cartridge which is Exhibit 573 is the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the various models of it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.
Before the luncheon--are there any further questions along this line?
Before the luncheon recess we were talking about the paraffin test and
we were discussing the significance of a positive result, and you had
given testimony concerning two experiments which the FBI had run which
indicated that positive results might be obtained even by a person who
had not recently fired a weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it
produced a negative result.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or
your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the
significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any
residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact
that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the
cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed
behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into
the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none
will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not
expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you expect to find residues on a person who has
fired a revolver such as Commission Exhibit 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again, by its design, you would expect to find
something, although there are cases where you won't find it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you expect to find a residue in the case of the
revolver as opposed to the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A revolver has a revolving cylinder. There is a space
between the barrel and the front portion of the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show that by use of Exhibit
143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can see when you close the cylinder, and each
chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the
bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp
and then into the rifling.
The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is
negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire
this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues
around the entrance to the rear portion of the barrel which is next to
the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself.
So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands
after he fired a revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that there is no
equivalent gap in the manufacture of a rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you run any kind of a test with this revolver which
would indicate whether it did in fact leave residues?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; I did, or we did, three of us, Mr. Frazier, Mr.
Killion, and myself. The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed
my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with
green soap and rinsed them in distilled water.
Mr. EISENBERG. The purpose of this washing was what?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my
hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any
deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet-recovery
room, four times--and then after firing I opened it up and ejected
the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The
amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the
cartridge cases was in my hand at the time.
I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin
casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of
diphenylbenzidine.
The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on
both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had
ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, you testified this morning that many common
substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test,
so-called paraffin test.
Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this
test so unreliable. Handling a recently fired weapon, that is covered
with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form
of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and
in some cases more--especially up here and around here you would.
Mr. DULLES. Does the time between the tests, between the firing and the
test, make very much difference, within a few hours?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the residues are on the skin they will react. In
other words, if the material has been washed off completely, then you
are all through, but if it remains on the skin or is imbedded in the
pores of the skin it would still react, but so will so many other
things.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review for a second your testimony this morning,
in the experiments that the FBI ran, a revolver or automatic pistol
were used as opposed to rifles, as I recall it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any negative results following the shooting
of the revolver or automatic pistol?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None of those were negative results, but they were not
run under the same conditions. By the way, with an automatic pistol you
shouldn't expect to find any residues, for the same reason as with a
rifle--the cartridge is chamber, and the boltface comes in right behind.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you look at your notes for your first experiment,
because as I recall there were some negative results on that.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only negative results were on the 20 people who
were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those
people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am talking about the first experiment now, not the
second one.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The first experiment--yes; that was true. This test was
a little bit different.
In other words, they were not just taking people from their work. These
people had washed their hands.
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, their hands were cleaned before they
fired the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. But then some of them fired a revolver and still didn't
get a residue, as I remember your testimony?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle,
139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in
running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting
a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands.
Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control,
both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he
had not tired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no
reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using
similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the
tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative
reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no
residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We
cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He
held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he
would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so
he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the
receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or
on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we
got numerous reactions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?
Representative FORD. Based on your testimony this morning, and what you
have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted
and how extensively are they?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these
tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the
cast and we will process them.
However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we
frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few
reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this
indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few
of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco
and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with.
Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction.
Representative FORD. Is this a test that has been conducted by
law-enforcement agencies for some time. Is it a new test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the first test that I reported on here were
conducted in 1935.
There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for
psychological reasons.
Mr. DULLES. Explain that.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, "We are going
to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now," and they
will--it is--
Mr. DULLES. I get your point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Following up Congressman Ford's question, does the
FBI run paraffin tests except on request from other law-enforcement
agencies?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't, no. Basically, the paraffin test is the
preparing of the cast. We don't do that. We will run the chemical
processing of these casts at the request of the local law-enforcement
agency.
Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by
itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the
paraffin test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.
Representative FORD. Is that because of the feeling that it is not as
reliable as it should be?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable
as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon. It is
positive, and diphenlybenzidine solution is very positive and very
sensitive, as to whether or not an oxidizing agent is present and it is
used in chemistry.
Mr. DULLES. You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here, wouldn't
we?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I mentioned that this morning.
Representative FORD. He brought it out this morning.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would be willing to state right now if we processed
both of your hands you would come up positive, because invariably pipe
smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would get a positive
reaction.