Mr. DULLES. This is only as to color, that is all I saw. I saw some
markings on it.
Mr. CADIGAN. That is right. This is only for color appearance under the
ultraviolet light.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you compare the sack found at the TSBD and the
replica sack obtained 10 days later?
Mr. CADIGAN. Here again all that should be observed is the color under
UV of both the paper and tape of the sample and the paper and tape of
Exhibit 364.
Mr. DULLES. 364 is the paper bag, isn't it?
Mr. CADIGAN. 364 is the replica sack obtained on December 1.
Mr. EISENBERG. Ten days later.
Mr. DULLES. That is on the left?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And the other is the sack?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; the other on your right is the sample of paper
obtained on November 22.
Mr. DULLES. November 22, just after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. There is a clear distinction here. The sample to the right,
that is, as I understand it, paper obtained on the evening of November
22, has a more, a deeper violet shade, and on the other hand, the tape
is much lighter than the tape on the sample obtained 10 days later.
That is to say that the sample 10 days later is darker as to the tape
but lighter as to the paper.
Would you like the opportunity, Mr. Murray?
Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. We are putting in the sack and 364, the 10-day later
sample.
Mr. DULLES. Sack and 10-day later sample. Which is on which side?
Mr. CADIGAN. The sack is on the left and the replica bag obtained on
December 1 is on the right.
Mr. DULLES. Yes. I find there that the sample obtained 10 days later,
and the sack which is on the left, that the sample obtained 10 days
later shows a lighter shade of purple than the sack, and that the tape
shows a darker shade of, I would call it, almost gray as against almost
white for the tape which is on the sack.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Dulles.
Mr. DULLES. Have you anything that you feel you should add, anything in
this general field that would help the Commission?
Mr. CADIGAN. No, sir; not as it relates to this paper and these paper
bags.
Mr. EISENBERG. You will be called later for testimony on handwriting--I
suppose you will be the person to testify?
Mr. CADIGAN. Whenever you want me I will be available.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the tape for microscopic--to determine
the morphology of the fibers in the paper?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us why?
Mr. CADIGAN. I didn't feel it was necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could do that, Mr. Cadigan, and
send us a letter as to the results?
Mr. CADIGAN. Certainly.
(The letter referred to was later supplied and is set forth at the end
of this testimony.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And also, did you notice how the glue had been applied
to the tapes?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; you might say glue was applied all the way across the
tapes.
Mr. EISENBERG. There are no discernible differences in them?
Mr. CADIGAN. The glue on the tapes would be applied with a brush at the
time of manufacture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there more than one way of applying glue?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes. On some tapes, if you look at them either
before or after they are used you will see a continuous line running
right down the tape where they have used a wheel applicator, merely a
difference in manufacturing methods.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you found a brush applicator?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will the same manufacturer use two different methods?
Mr. CADIGAN. He might or might not.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is it likely that he would use two
different methods?
Mr. CADIGAN. I really couldn't say.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Cadigan, I thank you very much for your most
interesting and helpful testimony.
(Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
(Following is the text of a letter relating to the fiber composition of
the gummed tapes in Exhibits 142 and 677.)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
_Washington, D.C., April 8, 1964_.
[By Courier Service].
Hon. J. LEE RANKIN,
_General Counsel, the President's Commission, 200 Maryland Avenue NE.,
Washington, D.C._
DEAR MR. RANKIN: During the testimony of Special Agent James C. Cadigan
on April 3, 1964, before the President's Commission, Mr. Melvin
Eisenberg of your staff orally requested Special Agent Cadigan to make
a fiber analysis of the gummed tape on the paper sack found on the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Commission
Exhibit 142, and of the sample of gummed tape in Commission Exhibit
677 Obtained November 22, 1963, at the Texas School Book Depository
Building.
Fiber analysis of the two gummed tapes in Commission Exhibits 142 and
677 revealed that they were similar in fiber composition.
Sincerely yours,
J. EDGAR HOOVER.
_Tuesday, April 21, 1964_
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW, DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY, GOV.
JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR., AND MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.
The President's Commission met at 1:30 p.m., on April 21, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B.
Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, John
J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.
Also present present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Francis
W. H. Adams, assistant counsel; Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel;
David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel;
Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne,
observers; and Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas.