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?