A cartridge, or round of ammunition, is composed of a primer, a

cartridge case, powder, and a bullet. The primer, a metal cup

containing a detonable mixture, fits into the base of the cartridge

case, which is loaded with the powder. The bullet, which usually

consists of lead or of a lead core encased in a higher strength metal

jacket, fits into the neck of the cartridge case. To fire the bullet,

the cartridge is placed in the chamber of a firearm, immediately behind

the firearm’s barrel. The base of the cartridge rests against a solid

support called the breech face or, in the case of a bolt-operated

weapon, the bolt face. When the trigger is pulled, a firing pin strikes

a swift, hard blow into the primer, detonating the priming mixture. The

flames from the resulting explosion ignite the powder, causing a rapid

combustion whose force propels the bullet forward through the barrel.

The barrels of modern firearms are “rifled,” that is, several spiral

grooves are cut into the barrel from end to end. The purpose of the

rifling is to set the bullet spinning around its axis, giving it a

stability in flight that it would otherwise lack. The weapons of a

given make and model are alike in their rifling characteristics;

that is, number of grooves, number of lands (the raised portion of

the barrel between the grooves) and twist of the rifling. When a

bullet is fired through a barrel, it is engraved with these rifling

characteristics. For example, all S. & W. .38/200 British Service

Revolvers have five grooves and five lands, which twist to the right,

and bullets fired through such a revolver will have five groove and

land impressions, right twist.

In addition to rifling characteristics, every weapon bears distinctive

microscopic characteristics on its components, including its barrel,

firing pin, and breech face. While a weapon’s rifling characteristics

are common to all other weapons of its make and model (and sometimes

even to weapons of a different make or model), a weapon’s microscopic

characteristics are distinctive, and differ from those of every other

weapon, regardless of make and model. Such markings are initially

caused during manufacture, since the action of manufacturing tools

differs microscopically from weapon to weapon, and since the tools

change microscopically while being operated. As a weapon is used,

further distinctive microscopic markings are introduced by the effects

of wear, fouling, and cleaning. As Frazier testified:

Q. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion

that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the

exclusion of all other weapons?

MR. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon,

there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which

are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the

parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining

and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with

very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in

such a way that there will be developed on the surface of

the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it

is made by these accidental machine-type operations, will be

characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be

reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of

marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be

in part filed to smooth off the corners, and then, as a final

operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the

hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular

pattern of microscopic marks.

The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged

in this photograph [Commission Exhibit No. 558] to show the

types of marks I was referring to.

* * * * *

The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on

the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various

types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens

to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in

these marks during the life of the weapon are very important

in identification, because many of the machining marks can

be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand

between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time

a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt

face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of

marks which are peculiar to it.

* * * * *

* * * [T]he marks which are placed on any bolt face are

accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there

intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some

machining operation, such as a milling machine, in which each

cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal;

then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more,

and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of

the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that

operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched--until

you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics,

a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain

place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a

certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little

dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face

of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such

as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or

smoothed off the surface of the metal.

* * * * *

* * * [A]s the blade of a milling machine travels around a

surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a

piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of

a dust--or a very fine powder or chip--that tooth leaves a

certain pattern of marks--that edge. That milling cutter may

have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes

a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it

out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little

pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch

the face of the bolt--unless they are washed away. So that

you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the

machining operation.

Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting

operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the

tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which

produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time

the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there

before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a

series of marks which go around the surface which has been

machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this

tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set

of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal,

these very fine marks will extend for a short distance, then

disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend

for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be

composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen

in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete

circles around the face of the bolt.

Q. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces

from a factory?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And what did you find on that examination?

A. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic

characteristics between the two bolt faces.

Q. There actually was none?

A. No, there was none.[A10-3]

* * * * *

Q. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired

in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr.

Frazier?

A. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the

fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel

from which the bullets are fired.

The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They

originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks

resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or

faulty cleaning.

They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases

and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used,

and primarily again they result from wear, that is, an eroding

of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges,

bullets through it.

In this particular barrel the manufacturer’s marks are caused

by the drill which drills out the barrel, leaving certain marks

from the drilling tool. Then portions of these marks are erased

by a rifling tool which cuts the four spiral grooves in the

barrel and, in turn, leaves marks themselves, and in connection

with those marks of course, the drilling marks, being circular

in shape, there is a tearing away of the surface of the metal,

so that a microscopically rough surface is left.

Then removing part of those marks with a separate tool causes

that barrel to assume an individual characteristic, a character

all of its own.

In other words, at that time you could identify a bullet fired

from that barrel as having been fired from the barrel to the

exclusion of all other barrels, because there is no system

whatever to the drilling of the barrel. The only system is in

the rifling or in the cutting of the grooves, and in this case

of rifle barrels, even the cutters wear down as the barrels

are made, eventually of course having to be discarded or

resharpened.

Q. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to

determine whether their microscopic characteristics are

identical?

A. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say,

paired barrels, which have been manufactured on the same

machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to

make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired

bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each

other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as

individual microscopic characteristics are concerned. Their

rifling impressions of course would be identical, but the

individual marks there would be entirely different.[A10-4]

When a cartridge is fired, the microscopic characteristics of the

weapon’s barrel are engraved into the bullet (along with its rifling

characteristics), and the microscopic characteristics of the firing pin

and breech face are engraved into the base of the cartridge case. By

virtue of these microscopic markings, an expert can frequently match

a bullet or cartridge case to the weapon in which it was fired. To

make such an identification, the expert compares the suspect bullet

or cartridge case under a comparison microscope, side by side with a

test bullet or cartridge case which has been fired in the weapon, to

determine whether the pattern of the markings in the test and suspect

items are sufficiently similar to show that they were fired in the same

weapon. This is exemplified by Frazier’s examination of Commission

Exhibit No. 543, one of the cartridge cases found in the Texas School

Book Depository Building after the assassination:

Q. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the

recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you

described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a

microscope * * *?

MR. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the

markings which you have seen under the microscope and on the

basis of which you made your identification?

A. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles

and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side

of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point

out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them

and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on

the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown

is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the

139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission

Exhibit 543 on the right side.

The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly

shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of

the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is

an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the

face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion

to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute

to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature,

that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to

each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on

the two specimens themselves.

Q. Referring for a second to this mental, visual,

comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms

training--firearms-identification training--be able to look

under a microscope and make a determination for himself

concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a

given weapon?

A. In that connection that person could look through

the microscope. He may or may not see these individual

characteristics which are present, because he does not know

what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of

such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your

mind going back and forth between one area and the other until

you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.

If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or

something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in

either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds

of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to

whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.

Q. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert

interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a

layman could make?

A. I would say so; yes. I don’t think a layman would recognize

some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown

in the photographs as actually being significant or not

significant, because there will be things present which have

nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case

in the gun.

There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and

there are no marks registered at that point as a result of

the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone

may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the

absence of similar marks.

Q. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you,

which is 559--

A. Yes.

Q. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?

A. No.

Q. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not

identical to explain why you would get such a result?

A. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle

4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to

the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the

photograph.

On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which

runs through there, having an entirely different appearance

from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of

that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge

of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the

hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer

and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back

against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were

fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one

cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other

cartridge case.

In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison

is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the

marks that are present.

* * * * *

Q. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures [of

the firing-pin depressions on the cartridge case Commission

Exhibit No. 543, and a test cartridge case], Mr. Frazier?

A. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not

flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed

to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type

of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.

Q. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of

the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of

dissimilarities?

A. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is

made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic

characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and

visualized on the two surfaces.

Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether

there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear,

whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures

are the same or not.

So I don’t think we can say that it is an absence of

dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.[A10-5]

A bullet or cartridge case cannot always be identified with the weapon

in which it was fired. In some cases, the bullet or cartridge case is

too mutilated. In other cases, the weapon’s microscopic characteristics

have changed between the time the suspect item was fired and the time

the test item was fired--microscopic characteristics change drastically

in a short period of time, due to wear, or over a longer period of

time, due to wear, corrosion, and cleaning. Still again, the weapon

may mark bullets inconsistently--for example, because the bullets are

smaller than the barrel, and travel through it erratically.[A10-6]

The Rifle

The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository

shortly after the assassination was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military

rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight.[A10-7] Inscribed on

the rifle were various markings, including the words “CAL. 6.5,”

“MADE ITALY,” “TERNI,” and “ROCCA”; the numerals “1940” and “40”;

the serial number C2766; the letters “R-E,” “PG,” and “TNI”; the

figure of a crown; and several other barely decipherable letters and

numbers.[A10-8] The rifle bore a very inexpensive Japanese four-power

sight, stamped “4 x 18 COATED,” “ORDNANCE OPTICS INC.,” “HOLLYWOOD

CALIFORNIA,” and “MADE IN JAPAN”[A10-9] and a sling consisting of two

leather straps, one of which had a broad patch, which apparently had

been inserted on the rifle and cut to length.[A10-10] The sling was

not a standard rifle sling, but appeared to be a musical instrument

strap or a sling from a carrying case or camera bag.[A10-11] A basic

purpose of a rifle sling is to enable the rifleman to steady his grip,

by wrapping the arm into the sling in a prescribed manner. The sling on

the rifle was too short to use in the normal way, but might have served

to provide some additional steadiness.[A10-12]

The rifle was identified as a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Italian

military rifle, Model 91/38.[A10-13] This identification was initially

made by comparing the rifle with standard reference works and by the

markings inscribed on the rifle.[A10-14] The caliber was independently

determined by chambering a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter cartridge

in the rifle for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of

the rifle’s barrel which was measured with a micrometer.[A10-15] (The

caliber of a weapon is the diameter of the interior of the barrel,

measured between opposite lands. The caliber of American weapons is

expressed in inches; thus a .30-caliber weapon has a barrel which is

thirty one-hundredths or three-tenths of an inch in diameter. The

caliber of continental European weapons is measured in millimeters. A

6.5-millimeter caliber weapon corresponds to an American .257-caliber

weapon, that is, its barrel diameter is about one-fourth inch.)[A10-16]

The identification was later confirmed by a communication from SIFAR,

the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service. This communication also

explained the markings on the rifle, as follows: “CAL. 6.5” refers

to the rifle’s caliber; “MADE ITALY” refers to its origin, and was

inscribed at the request of the American importer prior to shipment;

“TERNI” means that the rifle was manufactured and tested by the Terni

Army Plant of Terni, Italy; the number “C2766” is the serial number

of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type

bearing that serial number; the numerals “1940” and “40” refer to the

year of manufacture; and the other figures, numbers, and letters are

principally inspector’s, designer’s, or manufacturer’s marks.[A10-17]

The Model 91/38 rifle was one of the 1891 series of Italian military

rifles, incorporating features designed by Ritter von Mannlicher and

M. Carcano. The series originally consisted of 6.5-millimeter caliber

rifles, but Model 38 of the series, designed shortly before World War

II, was a 7.35-millimeter caliber. Early in World War II, however,

the Italian Government, which encountered an ammunition supply

problem, began producing many of these rifles as 6.5-millimeter caliber

rifles, known as the 6.5-millimeter Model 91/38.[A10-18] The 91/38

has been imported into this country as surplus military equipment,

has been advertised quite widely, and is now fairly common in this

country.[A10-19]

Like most bolt-action military rifles, the 91/38 is operated by

turning up the bolt handle, drawing the bolt to the rear, pushing the

bolt forward, turning down the bolt handle, and pulling the trigger.

Bringing the bolt forward and turning down the bolt handle compresses

the spring which drives the firing pin, and locks the bolt into place.

When the trigger is pulled, the cocked spring drives the firing pin

forward and the cartridge is fired. The face of the bolt bears a lip,

called the extractor, around a portion of its circumference. As the

bolt is pushed forward, this lip grasps the rim of the cartridge. As

the bolt is pulled back, the extractor brings the empty cartridge case

with it, and as the cartridge case is being brought back, it strikes

a projection in the ejection port called the ejector, which throws it

out of the rifle. Meanwhile, a leaf spring beneath the clip has raised

the next cartridge into loading position. When the bolt is brought

forward, it pushes the fresh cartridge into the chamber. The trigger is

pulled, the cartridge is fired, the bolt handle is brought up, the bolt

is brought back, and the entire cycle starts again. As long as there

is ammunition in the clip, one need only work the bolt and pull the

trigger to fire the rifle.[A10-20]

The clip itself is inserted into the rifle by drawing back the bolt,

and pushing the clip in from the top. The clip holds one to six

cartridges.[A10-21] If six cartridges are inserted into the clip and

an additional cartridge is inserted into the chamber, up to seven

bullets can be fired before reloading.[A10-22] When the rifle was

found in the Texas School Book Depository Building it contained a

clip[A10-23] which bore the letters “SMI” (the manufacturer’s markings)

and the number “952” (possibly a part number or the manufacturer’s code

number).[A10-24] The rifle probably was sold without a clip; however,

the clip is commonly available.[A10-25]

Rifle Cartridge and Cartridge Cases

When the rifle was found, one cartridge was in the chamber.[A10-26]

The cartridge was a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge,

manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., at East Alton, Ill. This

type of cartridge is loaded with a full metal-jacketed, military type

of bullet, weighing 160-161 grains. The bullet has parallel sides and a

round nose. It is just under 1.2 inches long, and just over one-fourth

inch in diameter.[A10-27] Its velocity is approximately 2,165 feet per

second.[A10-28] The cartridge is very dependable; in tests runs by the

FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army, the

C2766 rifle was fired with this Western Cartridge Co. ammunition over

100 times, with no misfires. (In contrast, some of the other ammunition

available on the market for this rifle is undesirable or of very poor

quality).[A10-29] The cartridge is readily available for purchase from

mail-order houses, as well as a few gunshops; some 2 million rounds

have been placed on sale in the United States.[A10-30]

The presence of the cartridge in the chamber did not necessarily mean

that the assassin considered firing another bullet, since he may have

reloaded merely by reflex.[A10-31]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 558

Bolt face of the C2766 rifle.]

Apart from the cartridge in the rifle, three expended cartridge cases

were found in the southeast portion of the sixth floor of the Texas

School Book Depository Building, lying between the south wall and

a high stack of boxes which ran parallel to the wall.[A10-32] The

cartridge cases were a short distance to the west of the southeast

corner window in that wall.[A10-33] Based on a comparison with test

cartridge cases fired from the C2766 rifle, the three cartridge cases

were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle.[A10-34]

(See Commission Exhibit No. 558, p. 556.) A test was run to determine

if the cartridge-case-ejection pattern of the rifle was consistent

with the assumption that the assassin had fired from the southeast

window.[A10-35] In this test, 11 cartridges were fired from the rifle

while it was depressed 45° downward, and 8 cartridges were fired from

the rifle while it was held horizontally. The elevation of the ejected

cartridge cases above the level of the ejection port, and the points

on the floor at which the ejection cartridge cases initially landed,

were then plotted. The results of these tests are illustrated by the

diagrams, Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547. Briefly, Commission

Exhibit No. 547 shows that with the weapon depressed at a 45° angle,

the cartridge cases did not rise more than 2 inches above the ejection

port; with the weapon held horizontally, they did not rise more than

12 inches above the ejection port.[A10-36] Commission Exhibit No. 546

shows that if a circle was drawn around the initial landing points of

the cartridge cases which were ejected in the test while the rifle

was held depressed at 45°, the center of the circle would be located

86 inches and 80° to the right of the rifle’s line of sight; if a

circle was drawn around the initial landing points of the cartridge

cases ejected while the rifle was held horizontally, the center of the

circle would be 80 inches and 90° to the right of the line of sight.

In other words, the cartridge cases were ejected to the right of and

at roughly a right angle to the rifle.[A10-37] The cartridge cases

showed considerable ricochet after their initial landing, bouncing

from 8 inches to 15 feet.[A10-38] The location of the cartridge cases

was therefore consistent with the southeast window having been used by

the assassin, since if the assassin fired from that window the ejected

cartridge cases would have hit the pile of boxes at his back and

ricocheted between the boxes and the wall until they came to rest to

the west of the window.[A10-39]

The Rifle Bullets

In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School

Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor

Connally’s stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front

of the President’s car.[A10-40] The stretcher bullet weighed 158.6

grains, or several grains less than the average Western Cartridge Co.

6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.[A10-41] It was slightly

flattened, but otherwise unmutilated.[A10-42] The two bullet fragments

weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively[A10-43] The heavier fragment

was a portion of a bullet’s nose area, as shown by its rounded contour

and the character of the markings it bore.[A10-44] The lighter fragment

consisted of bullet’s base portion, as shown by its shape and by the

presence of a cannelure.[A10-45] The two fragments were both mutilated,

and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves

whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two

separate bullets.[A10-46] However, each had sufficient unmutilated

area to provide the basis of an identification.[A10-47] Based on a

comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher

bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired

from the C2766 rifle.[A10-48]

The Revolver

The revolver taken from Oswald at the time of his arrest was a .38

Special S. & W. Victory Model revolver.[A10-49] It bore the serial

No. V510210, and is the only such revolver with that serial number,

since S. & W. does not repeat serial numbers.[A10-50] The revolver was

originally made in the United States, but was shipped to England, as

shown by the English inspection or proof marks on the chambers.[A10-51]

The revolver showed definite signs of use but was in good operating

condition.[A10-52] The revolver was originally designed to fire a

.38 S. & W. cartridge, whose bullet is approximately 12 or 13 grains

lighter than the .38 Special, and approximately .12 inches shorter,

but has a somewhat larger diameter.[A10-53] In the United States, the

.38 Special is considered to be a better bullet than the .38 S. &

W.,[A10-54] and the revolver was rechambered for a .38 Special prior to

being sold in the United States.[A10-55] The weapon was not rebarreled,

although the barrel was shortened by cutting off approximately 2¾ of

its original 5 inches.[A10-56] The shortening of the barrel had no

functional value, except to facilitate concealment.[A10-57]

The weapon is a conventional revolver, with a rotating cylinder holding

one to six cartridges. It is loaded by swinging out the cylinder and

inserting cartridges into the cylinder’s chambers. If all six chambers

are loaded, the weapon can be fired six consecutive times without

reloading.[A10-58] To extract empty cartridge cases, the cylinder

is swung out and an ejector rod attached to the cylinder is pushed,

simultaneously ejecting all the cartridge cases (and cartridges) in the

cylinder. If both live cartridges and expended cartridge cases are in

the cylinder, before pushing the ejection rod one can tip the cylinder

and dump the live cartridges into his hand.[A10-59] The cartridge cases

will not fall out, because they are lighter than the cartridges, and

when fired they will have expanded so as to tightly fit the chamber

walls.[A10-60]

In a crouched stance a person can fire five shots with the revolver in

3-4 seconds with no trouble, and would need no training to hit a human

body four times in four or five shots at a range of 8 feet.[A10-61] A

person who had any training with the weapon would not find its recoil

noticeable.[A10-62]

Revolver Cartridges and Cartridge Cases

When Oswald was arrested six live cartridges were found in the

revolver.[A10-63] Three were Western .38 Specials, loaded with

copper-coated lead bullets, and three were Remington-Peters .38

Specials, loaded with lead bullets.[A10-64] Five additional live

cartridges were found in Oswald’s pocket,[A10-65] all of which were

Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated bullets.[A10-66] The

Western and Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridges are virtually

identical--the copper coating on the Western bullets is not a full

jacket, but only a gilding metal, put on principally for sales

appeal.[A10-67]

Four expended cartridge cases were found near the site of the Tippit

killing.[A10-68] Two of these cartridge cases were Remington-Peters

.38 Specials and two were Western .38 Specials.[A10-69] Based on a

comparison with test cartridge cases fired in the V510210 revolver,

the four cartridge cases were identified as having been fired in the

V510210 revolver.[A10-70]

Revolver Bullets

Four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.[A10-71]

In Nicol’s opinion one of the four bullets could be positively

identified with test bullets fired from V510210 revolver, and the

other three could have been fired from that revolver.[A10-72] In

Cunningham’s opinion all four bullets could have been fired from

the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to

the revolver[A10-73]--that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the

revolver’s rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn

on the basis of microscopic characteristics.[A10-74] Cunningham did

not conclude that the bullets had not been fired from the revolver,

since he found that consecutive bullets fired in the revolver by

the FBI could not even be identified with each other under the

microscope.[A10-75] The apparent reasons for this was that while the

revolver had been rechambered for a .38 Special cartridge, it had not

been rebarreled for a .38 Special bullet. The barrel was therefore

slightly oversized for a .38 Special bullet, which has a smaller

diameter than a .38 S. & W. bullet. This would cause the passage of

a .38 Special bullet through the barrel to be erratic, resulting in

inconsistent microscopic markings.[A10-76]

Based on the number of grooves, groove widths, groove spacing, and

knurling on the four recovered bullets, three were copper-coated lead

bullets of Western-Winchester manufacture (Western and Winchester are

divisions of the same company), and the fourth was a lead bullet of

Remington-Peters manufacture.[A10-77] This contrasts with the four

recovered cartridge cases, which consisted of two Remington-Peters

and two Westerns. There are several possible explanations for this

variance: (1) the killer fired five cartridges, three of which were

Western-Winchester and two of which were Remington-Peters; one

Remington-Peters bullet missed Tippit; and a Western-Winchester

cartridge case and the Remington-Peters bullet that missed were simply

not found. (2) The killer fired only four cartridges, three of which

were Western-Winchester and one of which was Remington-Peters; prior to

the shooting the killer had an expended Remington-Peters cartridge case

in his revolver, which was ejected with the three Western-Winchester

and one Remington-Peters cases; and one of the Western-Winchester

cases was not found. (3) The killer was using hand-loaded ammunition,

that is, ammunition which is made with used cartridge cases to save

money; thus he might have loaded one make of bullet into another

make of cartridge case.[A10-78] This third possibility is extremely

unlikely, because when a cartridge is fired the cartridge case expands,

and before it can be reused it must be resized. There was, however,

no evidence that any of the four recovered cartridge cases had been

resized.[A10-79]

The Struggle for the Revolver

Officer McDonald of the Dallas police, who arrested Oswald, stated

that he had struggled with Oswald for possession of the revolver and

that in the course of the struggle, “I heard the snap of the hammer,

and the pistol crossed my left cheek * * * the primer of one round was

dented on misfire at the time of the struggle. * * *”[A10-80] However,

none of the cartridges found in the revolver bore the impression of

the revolver’s firing pin.[A10-81] In addition, the revolver is so

constructed that the firing pin cannot strike a cartridge unless the

hammer (which bears the firing pin) has first been drawn all the way

back by a complete trigger pull.[A10-82] Had the hammer gone all the

way back and then hit the cartridge, it is unlikely that the cartridge

would have misfired.[A10-83] It would be possible for a person to

interject his finger between the hammer and the cartridge, but the

spring driving the hammer is a very strong one and the impact of the

firing pin into a finger would be clearly felt.[A10-84] However, the

cylinder and the trigger are interconnected and the trigger cannot be

fully pulled back if the cylinder is grasped.[A10-85] Therefore, if

Oswald had pulled on the trigger while McDonald was firmly grasping the

cylinder, the revolver would not have fired, and if the gun was grabbed

away at the same time the trigger would have snapped back with an

audible sound.[A10-86]

The Paraffin Test

During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following

the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police

on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald’s

hands reacted positively to the test. The cast of the right cheek

showed no reaction.[A10-87]

To perform the paraffin test, layers of warm liquid paraffin,

interleaved with layers of gauze for reinforcement, are brushed or

poured on the suspect’s skin. The warm sticky paraffin opens the

skin’s pores and picks up any dirt and foreign material present at the

surface. When the paraffin cools and hardens it forms a cast, which

is taken off and processed with diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine,

chemicals which turn blue in the presence of nitrates. Since gunpowder

residues contain nitrates, the theory behind the test is that if a cast

reacts positively, i.e., if blue dots appear, it provides evidence that

the suspect recently fired a weapon.[A10-88] In fact, however, the test

is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has

recently fired a weapon or whether he has not.[A10-89] On the one hand,

diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine will react positively not only

with nitrates from gunpowder residues, but nitrates from other sources

and most oxidizing agents, including dichromates, permanganates,

hypochlorates, periodates, and some oxides. Thus, contact with

tobacco, Clorox, urine, cosmetics, kitchen matches, pharmaceuticals,

fertilizers, or soils, among other things, may result in a positive

reaction to the paraffin test. Also, the mere handling of a weapon may

leave nitrates on the skin.[A10-90] A positive reaction is, therefore,

valueless in determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon.

Conversely, a person who has recently fired a weapon may not show a

positive reaction to the paraffin test, particularly if the weapon was

a rifle. A revolver is so constructed that there is a space between the

cylinder, which bears the chambers, and the barrel. When a revolver is

fired, nitrate-bearing gases escape through this space and may leave

residues on the hand.[A10-91] In a rifle, however, there is no gap

between the chamber and the barrel, and one would therefore not expect

nitrates to be deposited upon a person’s hands or cheeks as a result of

his firing a rifle. As Cunningham testified:

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. * * * 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.[A10-92]

The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by

experiments run by the FBI. In one experiment, conducted prior to the

assassination, paraffin tests were performed on 17 men who had just

fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber revolver. Eight men tested negative

in both hands, three men tested positive on the idle hand and negative

on the firing hand, two men tested positive on the firing hand and

negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on both their

firing and idle hands.[A10-93] In a second experiment, paraffin tests

were performed on 29 persons, 9 of whom had just fired a revolver or

an automatic, and 20 of whom had not fired a weapon. All 29 persons

tested positive on either or both hands.[A10-94] In a third experiment,

performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766

rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano

ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on

both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek

tested negative.[A10-95]

The paraffin casts of Oswald’s hands and right cheek were also examined

by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all

the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and

the revolver cartridge cases.[A10-96] Since barium and antimony were

present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their

presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had fired the

rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the cheek cast

of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater amount of

antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast rendered it

impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on

the inside surface. Since the outside surface had not been in contact

with Oswald’s cheek, the barium and antimony found there had come from

a source other than Oswald. Furthermore, while there was more barium

and antimony present on the casts than would normally be found on

the hands of a person who had not fired a weapon or handled a fired

weapon, it is also true that barium and antimony may be present in many

common items; for example, barium may be present in grease, ceramics,

glass, paint, printing ink, paper, rubber, plastics, leather, cloth,

pyrotechnics, oilcloth and linoleum, storage batteries, matches and

cosmetics; antimony is present in matches, type metal, lead alloys,

paints and lacquers, pigments for oil and water colors, flameproof

textiles, storage batteries, pyrotechnics, rubber, pharmaceutical

preparations and calico; and both barium and antimony are present in

printed paper and cloth, paint, storage batteries, rubber, matches,

pyrotechnics, and possibly other items. However, the barium and

antimony present in these items are usually not present in a form which

would lead to their adhering to the skin of a person who had handled

such items.[A10-97]

The Walker Bullet

On April 10, 1963, a bullet was recovered from General Walker’s

home, following an attempt on his life.[A10-98] The bullet, which was

severely mutilated, weighed 148.25 grains.[A10-99] This bullet had

the rifling characteristics of the C2766 rifle and all its remaining

physical characteristics were the same as the Western 6.5 millimeter

Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. However, while the bullet could have been

fired from the C2766 rifle, it was severely mutilated and in Frazier’s

opinion could not be identified as having been fired or not fired from

that rifle.[A10-100] Nicol agreed that a positive identification could

not be made, but concluded there was “a fair probability” that the

bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullets.[A10-101]

FINGERPRINTS AND PALMPRINTS

Two experts gave testimony concerning fingerprints and palmprints:

Sebestian Latona[A10-102] and Arthur Mandella.[A10-103] Latona is the

supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the Identification

Division of the FBI. He has been with that Division over 32 years,

having begun as a student fingerprint classifier and worked up to his

present position. Mandella is a detective and fingerprint instructor

with the police department of the city of New York. He has been in

the fingerprint field for 19 years. Both have made a vast number of

fingerprint examinations and have testified in Federal, State, and

military courts.[A10-104] Their conclusions were identical, except as

noted.

General Principles[A10-105]

Fingerprints and palmprints are made by the ridges which cover the

surface of the fingers and palms. These ridges first appear 2 or 3

months before birth, and remain unchanged until death. Commission

Exhibit No. 634-A (p. 564) illustrates several common characteristics

or “points” formed by the ridges; a clear fingerprint impression will

contain anywhere from 85 to 125 such points. While many of the common

points appear in almost every print, no two prints have the same points

in the same relationship to each other.

A print taken by a law-enforcement agency is known as an “inked print,”

and is carefully taken so that all the characteristics of the print are

reproduced on the fingerprint card; a print which is left accidentally,

such as a print left at the scene of a crime, is known as a latent

print. To make an identification of a latent print, the expert compares

the points in the latent print with the points in an inked print. If a

point appearing in a latent print does not appear in the inked print,

or vice versa, the expert concludes that the two prints were not made

by the same finger or palm. An identification is made only if there

are no inconsistencies between the inked and latent prints, and the

points of similarity and their relative positions are sufficiently

distinctive, and sufficient in number, to satisfy the expert that an

identity exists.[A10-106]

There is some disagreement concerning whether a minimum number of

points is necessary for an identification. Some foreign law-enforcement

agencies require a minimum number of 16 points. However, in the

United States, in which there has been a great deal of experience

with fingerprints, expert opinion holds there is no minimum number

of points, and that each print must be evaluated on its own

merits.[A10-107]

Palmprints are as distinctive as fingerprints, but are not as popularly

known. Possibly this is because law enforcement agencies usually record

only fingerprints for their identification files, since fingerprints

can be much more readily classified and filed than palmprints. Also,

latent fingerprint impressions are probably more common than latent

palmprint impressions, because persons generally touch objects with

their fingers rather than their palms. However, palmprints will

frequently be found on heavy objects, since the palms as well as the

fingers are employed in handling such objects.[A10-108]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 634-A

Ridge Characteristics

Used by Experts in Comparing Fingerprints]

A latent print is the result of perspiration exuded by the sweat pores

in the ridges. This perspiration is composed of water, protein or

fatty materials, and sodium chloride (salt). A latent print can be

developed--made visible--in several ways. Sometimes a latent print can

be developed merely by the use of correct lighting. A second method

is to brush the print very lightly with a powder, which adheres to

its outline. Once a print is powdered it can be photographed, lifted,

or both. (In lifting, an adhesive substance, such as scotch tape, is

placed over a powdered print. When the adhesive is lifted the powder

clings to its surface. The adhesive is then mounted.) However, powder

is usually effective only on objects which have a hard, smooth,

nonabsorbent surface, such as glass, tile, and various types of highly

polished metals and is usually not effective on absorbent materials,

such as paper or unfinished wood or metal, which absorb perspiration

so that there is nothing on the material’s surface to which the powder

can adhere. Prints on absorbent materials can sometimes be developed

by iodine fumes, which may react with fatty or protein materials which

have been absorbed into the object, or by a silver nitrate solution,

which may react with sodium chloride which has been absorbed into the

object.[A10-109]

Not every contact of a finger or palm leaves a latent print. For

example, if the surface is not susceptible to a latent print, if the

finger or palm had no perspiration, or if the perspiration was mostly

water and had evaporated, no print will be found.[A10-110]

Objects in the Texas School Book Depository Building

A number of objects found in the Texas School Book Depository Building

following the assassination were processed for latent fingerprints by

the FBI--in some cases, after they had been processed by the Dallas

police. These objects included the homemade wrapping paper bag found

near the southeast corner window; the, C2766 rifle; three small cartons

which were stacked near that window (which were marked “Box A,” “Box

B,” and “Box C”),[A10-111] and a fourth carton resting on the floor

nearby (marked “Box D”);[A10-112] the three 6.5-millimeter cartridge

cases found near the window; and the cartridge found in the rifle. The

results were as follows:

_The paper bag._--The FBI developed a palmprint and a fingerprint

on the paper bag by silver nitrate. These were compared with the

fingerprints and palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald taken by the Dallas

police, and were found to have been made by the right palm and the left

index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-113]

_The C2766 rifle._--The wood and metal of the rifle was absorbent,

and not conducive to recording a good print.[A10-114] However, the

Dallas police developed by powder some faint ridge formations on the

metal magazine housing in front of the trigger and also developed

by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the

barrel.[A10-115] The faint ridge formations were insufficient

for purposes of effecting an identification,[A10-116] but the

latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey

Oswald.[A10-117]

_The cartons._--Using the silver nitrate method, the FBI developed

nine identifiable latent fingerprints and four identifiable latent

palmprints on Box A,[A10-118] seven identifiable fingerprints and

two identifiable palmprints on Box B,[A10-119] and two identifiable

fingerprints and one identifiable palmprint on Box C.[A10-120] One of

the fingerprints on Box A was identified as the right index fingerprint

of Lee Harvey Oswald,[A10-121] and one of the palmprints on Box A was

identified as the left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-122] All the

remaining prints on Box A were the palmprints of R. L. Studebaker, a

Dallas police officer, and Forest L. Lucy, an FBI clerk, who shipped

the cartons from Dallas to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and

fingerprints of Detective Studebaker. All but one of the fingerprints

on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of

Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy

and the palmprint was Studebaker’s.[A10-123] One palmprint on Box B was

unidentified.[A10-124]

The FBI developed two fingerprints on Box D by silver nitrate, and the

Dallas police developed a palmprint on Box D by powder.[A10-125] The

fingerprints belonged to Lucy. The palmprint was identified as the

right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-126] While the age of a print

cannot be generally determined,[A10-127] this palmprint must have been

relatively fresh, because the carton was constructed of cardboard,

an absorbent material, and if a long period had elapsed between the

time the print was made and the time it was powdered, the perspiration

would have been absorbed into the cardboard, and the print could not

have been developed by powder.[A10-128] Tests run by the FBI show that

usually a latent impression on such cardboard cannot be developed by

powder more than 24 hours after it is made.[A10-129] Latona felt that

the maximum age of the palmprint on Box D at the time of development

(which was shortly after the assassination), would have been 3

days;[A10-130] Mandella felt that the maximum time would have been a

day and a half.[A10-131]

_The three cartridge cases and the cartridge case found in the

rifle._--No prints were developed on the cartridge found in the rifle

or on the three expended cartridge cases.[A10-132]

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS

Two experts gave testimony concerning questioned documents: Alwyn

Cole[A10-133] and James C. Cadigan.[A10-134] Cole apprenticed as a

questioned document examiner for 6 years, from 1929 to 1935, and has

been examiner of questioned documents for the U.S. Treasury Department

since then. Cadigan has been a questioned document examiner with the

FBI for 23½ years, following a specialized course of training and

instruction. Both have testified many times in Federal and States

courts.[A10-135] Their conclusions were identical, except as noted.

Both experts examined and testified on the following questioned

documents: (1) The mail order to Klein’s Sporting Goods of Chicago,

in response to which Klein’s sent the C2766 rifle; the accompanying

money order; and the envelope in which the mail order and the money

order were sent--all of which bore the name “A. Hidell” and the

address “P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas”;[A10-136] (2) the mail order

to Seaport Traders, Inc., of Los Angeles, bearing the same name and

address, in response to which the Seaport Traders sent the V510210

revolver;[A10-137] (3) part of an application for Post Office Box

2915, Dallas, Tex., opened October 9, 1962 and closed May 14, 1963,

and two change-of-address orders relating to that box, dated October

10, 1962 and May 12, 1963--all signed “Lee H. Oswald,” and part of an

application for Post Office Box 30061, New Orleans, La., naming “A. J.

Hidell” as a party entitled to receive mail through the box, signed “L.

H. Oswald”;[A10-138] (4) a spurious selective service system notice

of classification and a spurious certificate of service in the U.S.

Marine Corps, found in Oswald’s wallet after his arrest, both in the

name “Alek James Hidell”;[A10-139] (5) a spurious smallpox vaccination

certificate, found among Oswald’s belongings at his room at 1026

North Beckley, purportedly issued to Lee Oswald by “Dr. A. J. Hideel,

P.O. Box 30016, New Orleans, La.”;[A10-140] and (6) a card, found in

Oswald’s wallet after his arrest, reading “Fair Play for Cuba Committee

New Orleans Chapter,” dated “June 15, 1963,” bearing the name “L. H.

Oswald” and the signature “Lee H. Oswald,” and signed “A. J. Hidell”

as chapter president.[A10-141] Cadigan also examined (7) the unsigned

note, Commission Exhibit No. 1, written almost entirely in Russian,

which Marina testified Oswald had left for her prior to his attempt on

the life of General Walker;[A10-142] and (8) the homemade paper bag

found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository following

the assassination.[A10-143]

_General principles._[A10-144]--The area of questioned document

examination encompasses many types of inquiries, the most familiar of

which is the identification of handwriting. Handwriting identification

is based upon the principle that every person’s handwriting is

distinctive. As Cole testified:

Q. Mr. Cole, could you explain the basis on which you were able

to make an identification of a questioned writing as being

authored by the person who wrote a standard writing?

Mr. COLE. This is based upon the principle that every

handwriting is distinctive, that since the mental and physical

equipment for producing handwriting is different in every

individual, each person produces his own distinctive writing

habits. Of course, everyone learns to write in the beginning

by an endeavor to repeat ideal letter forms but, practically

no one is able to reproduce these forms exactly. Even though a

person might have some initial success during the active period

of instruction, he soon departs from these and develops his

own habits. It may be said that habit in handwriting is that

which makes handwriting possible. Habit is that which makes

handwriting efficient. If it were not for the development of

habit, one would be obliged to draw or sketch.

Some habit would be included even in those efforts. But the

production of handwriting rapidly and fluently always involves

a recording of personal writing habit. This has been confirmed

by observation of a very large number of specimens over a long

period of time, and it has further been demonstrated by, on my

part, having a formal responsibility for rendering decisions

about the identification of handwriting based upon an agreement

of handwriting habit in situations where there would be a

rigorous testing of the correctness of these decision by field

investigators, for example, of the law-enforcement agencies,

and a demonstration that these results were confirmed by other

evidence.

This is the basis for identification of handwriting.[A10-145]

The same principles are generally applicable to hand printing,[A10-146]

and in the balance of this section the term “handwriting” will be used

to refer to both cursive or script writing and hand printing.

Not every letter in a questioned handwriting can be used as the

basis of an identification. Most people learn to write letters in

a standard or “copybook” form: a handwriting is distinctive only

insofar as it departs significantly from such forms.[A10-147]

Correspondingly, not every variation indicates nonidentification;

no two acts are precisely alike and variations may be found within

a single document. Like similarities, variations are significant

only if they are distinctive.[A10-148] Moreover, since any single

distinctive characteristic may not be unique to one person, in order

to make an identification the expert must find a sufficient number of

corresponding distinctive characteristics and a general absence of

distinctive differences.[A10-149]

The possibility that one person could imitate the handwriting of

another and successfully deceive an expert document examiner is very

remote. A forger leaves two types of clue. First, he can seldom

perfectly simulate the letter forms of the victim; concentrating on

the reproduction of one detail, he is likely not to see others. Thus,

the forger may successfully imitate the general form of a letter, but

get proportions or letter connections wrong. In addition, the forger

draws rather than writes. Forged writing is therefore distinguished by

defects in the quality of its line, such as tremor, waver, patching,

retouching, noncontinuous lines, and pen lifts in awkward and unusual

places.[A10-150]

To make a handwriting identification, the handwriting in the document

under examination (the questioned document) is compared against the

handwriting in documents known to have been prepared by a suspect (the

known or standard documents). This is exemplified by Cole’s examination

of Commission Exhibit No. 773, the photograph of the mail order for the

rifle and the envelope in which it was sent:

Q. Now, Mr. Cole, returning to 773, the questioned document,

can you tell the Commission how you formed the conclusion that

it was prepared by the author of the standards, that is, what

steps you followed in your examination and comparison, what

things you considered, what instruments or equipment you used,

and so forth?

Mr. COLE. I made first a careful study of the writing on

Commission Exhibit 773 without reference to the standard

writing, in an effort to determine whether or not this writing

contained what I would regard as a basis for identification,

contained a record of writing habit, and as that--as a result

of that part of my examination, I concluded that this is a

natural handwriting. By that I mean that it was made at a

fair speed, that it doesn’t show any evidence of an unnatural

movement, poor line quality, tremor, waver, retouching, or the

like. I regard it as being made in a fluent and fairly rapid

manner which would record the normal writing habits of the

person who made it.

I then made a separate examination of the standards, of all of

the standard writings, to determine whether that record gave a

record of writing habit which could be used for identification

purposes, and I concluded that it, too, was a natural

handwriting and gave a good record of writing habit.

I then brought the standard writings together with the

questioned writing for a detailed and orderly comparison,

considering details of letter forms, proportion, pen pressure,

letter connections, and other details of handwriting habit * *

*.[A10-151]

The standards used by Cole and Cadigan consisted of a wide variety

of documents known to be in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald,

including indorsements on his payroll checks, applications for

employment, for a passport, for membership in the American Civil

Liberties Union, and for a library card, and letters to the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, the Marine Corps, the State Department, and

the American Embassy in Russia.[A10-152]

The Mail Order for the C2766 Rifle, the Related Envelope, and the Money

Order

The mail order and envelope for the C2766 rifle were photographed

by Klein’s on microfilm, and then destroyed.[A10-153] To identify

the handwriting an enlarged photograph was made which showed the

handwriting characteristics with sufficient clarity to form the

basis of an identification.[A10-154] Based on a comparison with the

standards, the handwriting on the purchase order and the envelope

were identified as Lee Harvey Oswald’s.[A10-155] The money order,

which was retained by the post office after having been cashed

by Klein’s,[A10-156] was also identified as being in Oswald’s

handwriting.[A10-157] These identifications were made on the basis

of numerous characteristics in which the writing in both the

questioned and standard documents departed from conventional letter

forms.[A10-158] For example, in the return address on the envelope, the

left side of the “A” in “A. Hidell” was made by a downstroke followed

by an upstroke which almost exactly traced the down-stroke, the “i”

showed an elongation of the approach stroke and an exaggerated slant to

the right, and the second “l” was somewhat larger than the first; the

“B” in “Box” had an upper lobe smaller than the lower lobe; the “D” in

“Dallas” exhibited a distinctive construction of the looped form at the

top of a letter, and the “s” was flattened and forced over on its side;

and the “x” in “Texas” was made in the form of a “u” with a cross bar.

These characteristics were also present in the standards.[A10-159] In

addition, these items, as well as other questioned documents, resembled

the standards in their use of certain erroneous combinations of capital

and lowercase letters.[A10-160] For example, in the mail order, “Texas”

was printed with a capital “T,” “X,” “A,” and “S,” but a lowercase “e”;

a similar mixture of capital and lowercase letters in “Texas” was found

in the standards.[A10-161]

The writing on the purchase order and envelope showed no significant

evidence of disguise (subject to the qualification that the use of hand

printing on the mail order, rather than handwriting, may have been used

for that purpose).[A10-162] However, it is not unusual for a person

using an alias not to disguise his writing. For example, Cole, who is

document examiner for the Treasury Department, has frequently examined

forgeries evidencing no attempt at disguise. [A10-163]

Mail Order for the V510210 Revolver

Based on a comparison with the standards, the handwriting on the mail

order[A10-164] for the V510210 revolver was also identified as Lee

Harvey Oswald’s.[A10-165]

Post Office Box Applications and Change-of-Address Card

A post office box application consists of three parts: The first

contains directions for use. The second provides applicant’s name,

address, signature space, box number, date of opening and closing. The

third part provides instruction space concerning delivery of mail and

names of persons entitled to use the box.[A10-166] Under post office

regulations[A10-167] the second part was retained by the Dallas Post

Office for box 2915; it destroyed the third part after the box was

closed. Based on the standards, the signature “Lee H. Oswald,” and

other handwriting on the application, was identified as that of Lee

Harvey Oswald.[A10-168] The postal clerk appeared to have filled in the

balance.[A10-169]

The Fort Worth and Dallas post offices retained two change-of-address

orders signed “Lee H. Oswald”: One to “Postmaster, Fort Worth, Tex.,”

dated October 10, 1962, to send mail to “Oswald, Lee H” at 2703

Mercedes Av., Fort Worth, Texas” and forward to “Box 2915, Dallas,

Texas”; the other to “Postmaster, Dallas, Texas” dated May 12, 1963,

requested mail for post office box 2915 be forwarded to “Lee Oswald” at

“4907 Magazine St., New Orleans, La.”[A10-170] Based on a comparison

with the standards, the handwriting on these orders was identified as

that of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-171]

The New Orleans post office retained the third part of the application

for post office box 30061, New Orleans, La., dated June 11, 1963, and

signed “L. H. Oswald.” [A10-172] Inserted in the space for names of

persons entitled to receive mail through the box were written the names

“A. J. Hidell” and “Marina Oswald.” On the basis of a comparison with

the standards, the writing and the signature on the card was identified

as the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-173]

The Spurious Selective Service System Notice of Classification and U.S.

Marine Corps Certificate of Service

When Oswald was arrested he had in his possession a Selective

Service System notice of classification and a certificate of service

in the U.S. Marine Corps in the name of “Alek James Hidell,” and

a Selective Service System notice of classification, a Selective

Service System registration certificate, and a certificate of service

in the U.S. Marine Corps in his own name.[A10-174] (See Cadigan

Exhibits Nos. 19 and 21, p. 573.) The Hidell cards where photographic

counterfeits.[A10-175] After Oswald’s arrest a group of retouched

negatives were found in Mr. Paine’s garage at 2515 West Fifth Street,

Irving, Tex.,[A10-176] among which were retouched negatives of the

Oswald cards.[A10-177] A comparison of these retouched negatives

with the Hidell and Oswald cards showed that the Hidell cards had

been counterfeited by photographing the Oswald cards, retouching

the resulting negatives, and producing photographic prints from the

retouched negatives.

The Hidell Notice of Classification

_Face side._--The face of the Hidell notice of classification[A10-178]

was produced from the face of the Oswald notice of

classification[A10-179] by a two-step process. First, the counterfeiter

photographed the Oswald notice, making a basic intermediate

negative.[A10-180] He then opaqued out of this intermediate negative

all of the information typed or handwritten onto the Oswald notice,

including the name “Lee Harvey Oswald,” the selective service No.,

“41-114-39-532,” the signature of the official of the local board, and

the mailing date. In addition, he made another intermediate negative

of the lowermost third of the Oswald notice, which contained a printed

legend setting forth various instructions relating to draft board

procedures.[A10-181] This negative reproduced the printed material

exactly, but reduced it in size.[A10-182] The two intermediate

negatives were combined to produce a third negative, substantially

identical to the basic intermediate negative except that, by virtue of

the reduction in the size of the printed legend, a square space had

been created in the lower left-hand corner.[A10-183] The counterfeiter

then made a photographic print of this third negative, which contained

blanks wherever typed or handwritten material had appeared on the

original Oswald notice and a new space in the lower left-hand corner.

Finally, new material was inserted into the blanks on the Hidell

notice where typed or handwritten material had appeared on the Oswald

notice.[A10-184] Thus the name “ALEK JAMES HIDELL,” the selective

service No. “42-224-39-532,” and the mailing date “Feb. 5, 1962,”

were typed into the appropriate blanks on the Hidell notice. Two

typewriters were used in this typing, as shown by differences in the

design of the typed figure “4,”[A10-185] and by differences in the

strength of the typed impression.[A10-186] Probably the counterfeiter

switched typewriters when he discovered that the ribbon of his first

typewriter was not inked heavily enough to leave a clear impression (a

problem which would have been aggravated by the fact that the glossy

photographic paper used to make the Hidell notice did not provide a

good surface for typewriting).[A10-187] The face of the notice also

bore many uninked indentations, which could only be made out under

strong side lighting.[A10-188] These indentations were apparently

made with the typewriter set at stencil--that is, set so that the

typewriter key struck the notice directly, rather than striking it

through the inked typewriter ribbon.[A10-189] This may have been done

as a dry-run practice, to enable the counterfeiter to determine how to

properly center and aline the inserted material.[A10-190] A sidelight

photograph showed that the names “ALEK,” “JAMES,” and “HIDELL” had

each been typed in stencil at least twice before being typed in with

the ribbon.[A10-191] A capital letter “O” had been stenciled prior to

one of the stenciled “ALEK’s.”[A10-192] A serial number and a date of

mailing had also been typed in stencil.[A10-193]

In addition to the typed material, a signature, “Alek J. Hidell,” was

written in ink in the blank provided for the registrant’s signature,

and another, somewhat illegible signature, apparently reading “Good

Hoffer,” was written in ink in the blank provided for the signature

of an official of the local board.[A10-194] This name differed from

the name written in ink on the Oswald notice, which appeared to

consist of a first name beginning with an “E” or a “G” and the surname

“Schiffen.”[A10-195] However, the legibility of the name on the Oswald

notice was also quite poor, and the counterfeiter might have been

attempting to duplicate it. A possible reason for deleting the original

name and substituting another is that if the name had not been deleted

it would have been reproduced on the Hidell notice as a photographic

reproduction, which would look less authentic than a pen-and-ink

signature.[A10-196]

Based on a comparison with the handwriting in the standards, the

signature “Alek J. Hidell” on the Hidell notice was identified as being

in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-197] The signature “Good

Hoffer” could not be positively identified, being almost illegible;

however, it was not inconsistent with Oswald’s handwriting.[A10-198]

To complete the face of the Hidell notice a picture of Lee Harvey

Oswald was inserted into the space in the lower left-hand corner which

had been created by reducing the size of the printed legend at the

bottom.[A10-199]

[Illustration: CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 19

Face and reverse sides of the Oswald Notice of Classification.

CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 21

Face and reverse sides of the Oswald Selective Service System

Registration Certificate and the Oswald Certificate of Service in the

U.S. Marine Corps.]

[Illustration: CADIGAN EXHIBITS NOS. 15 AND 16

Face and reverse sides of the Hidell Selective Service System Notice of

Classification.

Face and reverse sides of the Hidell Certificate of Service in the U.S.

Marine Corps.]

In creating the face of the Hidell notice, the counterfeiter left

traces which enabled the experts to link together the Hidell notice,

the retouched negatives, and the Oswald notice. To retouch the

negatives the counterfeiter simply painted a red opaque substance on

one side of the negative over the material he wished to delete. When

the negative was printed, the opaquing prevented light from passing

through, so that the print showed blanks wherever the negative had been

opaqued. However, the original material was still clearly visible on

the negative itself.[A10-200] In addition, at several points the typed

or handwritten material in the Oswald notice had overlapped the printed

material. For example, the signature of the official of the local

board overlapped the letters “re” in the printed word “President,”

“l” and “a” in the printed word “local,” and “viola” in the printed

word “violation.” When this signature was opaqued out, the portions of

the printed material which had been overlapped by the signature were

either removed or mutilated. The consequent distortions were apparent

on both the retouched negative and the Hidell notice itself. Similarly,

the selective service number typed on the Oswald notice overlapped

the margins of the boxes into which it was typed. Although the

counterfeiter opaqued out the numerals themselves, the margins of the

boxes remained thickened at the points where they had been overlapped

by the numerals. These thickened margins were apparent on both the

retouched negative and the Hidell notice.[A10-201]

_Reverse side._--The reverse side of the Hidell notice, which was

pasted back-to-back to the face, was actually a form of the reverse

side of a Selective Service System registration certificate.

Essentially, it was counterfeited the same way as the face of the

notice: a photograph was made of the reverse side of the Oswald

registration certificate, the material which had been typed or stamped

on the Oswald registration certificate was opaqued out of the resulting

negative, and a photographic print was made from the retouched

negative. This is shown by the negative, in which the opaqued-out

information is still visible, and by defects in the printed material

on the Hidell notice at point where typed-in material had overlapped

printed material on the Oswald registration certificate.[A10-202]

As the final step, new information was typed on the print in the blanks

which resulted from the retouching operation.[A10-203] Thus “GR” was

substituted for “Blue” under color of eyes; “BROWN” was substituted

for “Brn” under color of hair; “FAIR” was substituted for “Med.” under

complexion; “5” [ft.] “9” [in.] was substituted for “5” [ft.] “11”

[in.] under height; and “155” was substituted for “150” under weight.

The name and address of the local board on the Oswald registration

certificate were opaqued out, but substantially the same name and

address were typed back onto the Hidell notice.[A10-204] As in the

signature of the local board official on the face of the notice, a

possible reason for deleting the original draft board name and the

address and substituting substantially similar material in its place

is that if the original material had not been deleted it would have

reproduced as a photographic reproduction, which would look much less

authentic than typed-in material.[A10-205]

A limited number of typed uninked indentations are also present.

Thus the indented letters “CT” appear before the letters “GR” (under

color of eyes) and the indented letters “EY” follow “GR.” An indented

“9” appears above the visible “9” for the inch figure of height, and

an indented “i” appears before the weight, “155.” Much of the typed

material on the reverse side of the Hidell notice was not very legible

under ordinary lighting, since it was typed with a typewriter which

left a very weakly inked impression.[A10-206] In fact, it is difficult

to tell whether some of the material, particularly the word “Brown”

under color of hair, was put in by stencil or by ribbon.

The Hidell Certificate of Service

The face and reverse side of the Hidell certificate of service were

produced from the face and reverse side of the Oswald certificate of

service[A10-207] by photographing the Oswald certificate, retouching

the resulting negatives to eliminate typed and handwritten material,

and making a photographic print from the retouched negative.[A10-208]

As in the case of the notice of classification, this is shown by the

negative itself, in which the opaqued-out information is still visible,

and by defects in the printed material on the Hidell certificate at

points where handwritten material had crossed over printed material

on the Oswald certificate. Thus, in the Oswald certificate the upper

portion of the name “Lee” in Oswald’s signature crosses the letter

“u” in the printed word “signature.” The consequent mutilation of the

printed letter “u” can be seen on the Hidell certificate. Similarly,

the ending stroke in the letter “y” in the name “Harvey” in Oswald’s

signature crosses the letter “n” in the printed word “certifying.”

This stroke was not removed at all, and can be seen as a stroke

across the “n” in the Hidell certificate.[A10-209] As the final step

in producing the Hidell certificate, new material was typed into the

blanks on the photographic print. On the face, the words “ALEK JAMES

HIDELL” were typed into the blank where “LEE HARVEY OSWALD 1653230”

had appeared. A sidelight photograph shows that these words had been

typed in stencil at least twice before being typed in with the ribbon

apparently to determine proper centering and alignment.[A10-210] In

producing the reverse side of the Hidell certificate, the signature

“Lee Harvey Oswald,” and the dates “24 October 1956” and “11 September

1959,” showing the beginning and end of the period of active service,

had been opaqued out. No signature was inserted into resulting blank

signature space. However, just below the word “of” in the printed line

“signature of individual,” there are two vertical indentations which

fill about three-fourths of the height of the signature blank, and a

diagonal indentation which slants from approximately the base of the

left vertical to approximately the midpoint of the right vertical--the

total effect being of a printed capital letter “H.” Also, just below

the second and third “i’s” in the printed word “individual” are two

more vertical indentations, which could be the vertical strokes of

“d’s” or “l’s”--although the circular portion of the letter “d” is

not present.[A10-211] These indentations could have been made by any

sharp instrument, such as a ballpoint pen which was not delivering ink,

a stylus of the type used in preparing mimeograph forms, or even a

toothpick.[A10-212] The indentations are brought out rather clearly in

a sidelight photograph, but can also be seen on the card itself if the

card is held so that light strikes it at an angle.[A10-213]

Into the space for the beginning of active service was typed the date

“OCT. 13 1958.” The space for the end of active service contains

several light-impression and stencil typewriting operations. It

was apparently intended to read “OCT. 12 1961,” but because of the

lightness of the impression and the many stenciled characters, the

date is barely legible.[A10-214] Interestingly, one of the stenciled

impressions in the blank for end of active service reads “24 October

1959,” as determined under a microscope, while a stenciled impression

in the blank for beginning of active service reads “24 October

1957.”[A10-215]

The counterfeiting of the Hidell cards did not require great skill,

but probably required an elementary knowledge of photography,

particularly of the photographic techniques used in a printing

plant.[A10-216] A moderate amount of practice with the technique would

be required--perhaps half a dozen attempts. Practicing retouching on

the balance of the negatives found at the Paine garage would have been

sufficient.[A10-217] The retouching of the negatives could have been

accomplished without any special equipment. However, the preparation

of the negative, apart from retouching, would probably have required

a very accurate camera, such as would be found in a photographic

laboratory or printing plant.[A10-218]

The Vaccination Certificate

A government-printed form entitled “International Certificates of

Vaccination or Revaccination against Smallpox”[A10-219] was found

among Oswald’s belongings at his room at 1026 Beckley Avenue,

Dallas.[A10-220] The form purported to certify that “LEE OSWALD” had

been vaccinated against smallpox on “JUNE 8, 1963” by “DR. A.J. HIDEEL,

P.O. BOX 30016, NEW ORLEANS, LA.” The card was signed “Lee H. Oswald”

and “A. J. Hideel,” and the name and address “Lee H. Oswald, New

Orleans, La.” were hand printed on the front of the card. All of this

material, except the signatures and the hand printing, had been stamped

onto the card. The Hideel name and address consisted of a three-line

stamp--“DR. A. J. HIDEEL/P.O. BOX 30016/NEW ORLEANS, LA.” A circular,

stamped, illegible impression resembling a seal appeared under a

column entitled “Approved stamp.”[A10-221]

On the basis of a comparison with the standards, Cole identified all of

the handwriting on the vaccination certificate, including the signature

“A. J. Hideel,” as the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-222] Cadigan

identified all of the writing as Oswald’s except for the “A. J. Hideel”

signature, which in his opinion was too distorted to either identify

or nonidentify as Oswald’s handwriting.[A10-223] The stamped material

on the certificate was compared with a rubber stamping kit which

belonged to Oswald.[A10-224] In this kit was a rubber stamp with three

lines of print assembled: “L. H. OSWALD/4907 MAGAZINE ST/NEW ORLEANS,

LA.”[A10-225] Cole found a perfect agreement in measurement and design

between the letters stamped on the certificate and the letters he

examined from Oswald’s rubber stamping kit. However, he was unable

to determine whether the characteristics of Oswald’s rubber stamping

kit were distinctive, and therefore, while he concluded that Oswald’s

rubber stamping kit could have made the rubber stamp impressions on the

certificate, he was unable to say that it was the only kit which could

have made the impressions.[A10-226] On the basis of the comparison

between the words “NEW ORLEANS, LA.” set up in the rubber stamp in

Oswald’s kit, and the words “NEW ORLEANS, LA.” on the certificate,

Cadigan concluded that these words had been stamped on the certificate

with Oswald’s rubber stamp. However, he could draw no conclusion as to

the remaining stamped material, which was not directly comparable to

the remaining lines set up on Oswald’s rubber stamp.[A10-227]

On close examination, the circular impression resembling a seal

consisted of the words “BRUSH IN CAN,” printed in reverse.[A10-228]

Apparently, the impression was made with the top of a container of

solvent or cleaning fluid which bore these words in raised lettering.

In the center of the impression was a mottled pattern which was similar

to the blank areas on a date stamp found in Oswald’s rubber stamping

kit.[A10-229]

The Fair Play for Cuba Committee Card

The Fair Play for Cuba Committee card had two signatures: “L. H.

Oswald” and “A. J. Hidell.” Based on the standards, both Cole and

Cadigan identified “L. H. Oswald” as the signature of Lee Harvey

Oswald,[A10-230] but both were unable to identify the “A. J. Hidell”

signature.[A10-231] Cadigan noted differences between the Hidell

signature and Oswald’s handwriting, indicating the possibility that

someone other than Oswald had authored the signature.[A10-232] Cole

believed that the signature was somewhat beyond Oswald’s abilities

as a penman.[A10-233] On the basis of a short English interlinear

translation written by Marina Oswald, Cole felt that she might have

been the author of the signature,[A10-234] but the translation did

not present enough of her handwriting to make possible a positive

identification.[A10-235] In subsequent testimony before the

Commission, Marina stated that she was indeed the author of the Hidell

signature on the card.[A10-236] Cadigan confirmed this testimony by

obtaining further samples of Marina Oswald’s handwriting and comparing

these samples with the signature on the card.[A10-237]

The Unsigned Russian-Language Note

Cadigan’s examination confirmed Marina’s testimony that the handwriting

in the unsigned note, Commission Exhibit No. 1, was that of Lee Harvey

Oswald.[A10-238] Since the note was written almost entirely in the

Russian language, which uses the Cyrillic alphabet (as opposed to the

Latin alphabet used in the English language), in making his examination

Cadigan employed not only Oswald’s English language standards, but also

letters written by Oswald in the Russian language.[A10-239]

The Homemade Wrapping Paper Bag

In the absence of watermarks or other distinctive characteristics,

it is impossible to determine whether two samples of paper came from

the same manufacturer.[A10-240] The homemade paper bag found on

the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository following the

assassination was made out of heavy brown paper and glue-bearing

brown paper tape, neither of which contained watermarks or other

distinctive characteristics.[A10-241] However, Cadigan compared the

questioned paper and tape in the paper bag with known paper and tape

samples obtained from the shipping department of the Texas School Book

Depository on November 22, 1963, to see if the questioned items could

have come from the shipping room.[A10-242] The questioned and known

items were examined visually by normal, incidental, and transmitted

natural and electric light, and under ultraviolet light;[A10-243]

examined microscopically for surface, paper structure, color, and

imperfections;[A10-244] examined for their felting pattern, which

is the pattern of light and dark areas caused by the manner in

which the fibers become felted at the beginning stages of paper

manufacture;[A10-245] measured for thickness with a micrometer

sensitive to one one-thousandth of an inch,[A10-246] subjected to a

fiber analysis to determine the type of fibers of which they were

composed, and whether the fibers were bleached or unbleached;[A10-247]

and examined spectrographically to determine what metallic ions were

present.[A10-248] The questioned and known items were identical in all

the properties measured by these tests.[A10-249] (The width of the tape

on the paper sack was 3 inches, while the width of the sample tape

was 2.975, or twenty-five thousandths of an inch smaller; however,

this was not a significant difference).[A10-250] In contrast, a paper

sample obtained from the Texas School Book Depository shipping room

on December 1, 1963, was readily distinguishable from the questioned

paper.[A10-251]

Examination of the tape revealed other significant factors indicating

that it could have come from the Texas School Book Depository shipping

room. There were several strips of tape on the bag.[A10-252] All but

two of the ends of these strips were irregularly torn; the remaining

two ends had machine-cut edges. This indicated that the person who made

the bag had drawn a long strip of tape from a dispensing machine and

had torn it by hand into several smaller strips.[A10-253] Confirmation

that the tape had been drawn from a dispensing machine was supplied

by the fact that a series of small markings in the form of half-inch

lines ran down the center of the tape like ties on a railroad track.

Such lines are made by a ridged wheel in a tape dispenser which is

constructed so that when a hand lever is pulled, the wheel, which is

connected to the lever, pulls the tape from its roll and dispenses it.

Such dispensers are usually found only in commercial establishments. A

dispenser of this type was located in the Texas School Book Depository

shipping room. The length of the lines and the number of lines per

inch on the tape from the paper bag was identical to the length of the

lines and the number of lines per inch on the tape obtained from the

dispenser in the Texas School Book Depository shipping room.[A10-254]

WOUND BALLISTICS EXPERIMENTS

Purpose of the Tests

During the course of the Commission’s inquiry, questions arose as

to whether the wounds inflicted on President Kennedy and Governor

Connally could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found

on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and

Western Cartridge Co. bullets and fragments of the type found on the

Governor’s stretcher and in the Presidential limousine. In analyzing

the trajectory of the bullets after they struck their victims, further

questions were posed on the bullet’s velocity and penetration power

after exiting from the person who was initially struck. To answer

these and related questions, the Commission requested that a series of

tests be conducted on substances resembling the wounded portions of

the bodies of President Kennedy and Governor Connally under conditions

which simulated the events of the assassination.

The Testers and Their Qualifications

In response to the Commission’s request, an extensive series of

tests were conducted by the Wound Ballistics Branch of the U.S. Army

Chemical Research and Development Laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal,

Md. Scientists working at that branch are engaged in full-time efforts

to investigate the wound ballistics of missiles in order to test their

effects on substances which simulate live human bodies.[A10-255] The

tests for the Commission were performed by Dr. Alfred G. Olivier under

the general supervision of Dr. Arthur J. Dziemian with consultation

from Dr. Frederick W. Light, Jr.[A10-256] Dr. Olivier received his

doctorate in veterinary medicine from the University of Pennsylvania in

1953. Since 1957 he has been engaged in research on wound ballistics

at Edgewood Arsenal and is now chief of the Wound Ballistics

Branch.[A10-257] His supervisor, Dr. Dziemian, who is chief of the

Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, holds a Ph. D. degree from

Princeton in 1939, was a national research fellow in physiology at

the University of Pennsylvania and was a fellow in anatomy at Johns

Hopkins University Medical School.[A10-258] Since 1947, Dr. Dziemian

has been continuously engaged in wound ballistics work at Edgewood

Arsenal.[A10-259] In 1930, Dr. Light was awarded an M.D. degree from

Johns Hopkins Medical School and in 1948 received his Ph. D. from the

same institution.[A10-260] After serving a residency in pathology, he

worked as a pathologist until 1940 when he returned to Johns Hopkins

University to study mathematics. Since 1951, Dr. Light has been engaged

in the study of the pathology of wounding at Edgewood Arsenal.[A10-261]

All three of these distinquished scientists testified before the

Commission.

General Testing Conditions

The Commission made available to the Edgewood Arsenal scientists

all the relevant facts relating to the wounds which were inflicted

on President Kennedy and Governor Connally including the autopsy

report on the President, and the reports and X-rays from Parkland

Hospital.[A10-262] In addition, Drs. Olivier and Light had an

opportunity to discuss in detail the Governor’s wounds with

the Governor’s surgeons, Drs. Robert R. Shaw and Charles F.

Gregory.[A10-263] The Zapruder films of the assassination were viewed

with Governor and Mrs. Connally to give the Edgewood scientists their

version.[A10-264] The Commission also provided the Edgewood scientists

with all known data on the source of the shots, the rifle and bullets

used, and the distances involved. For purposes of the experiments, the

Commission turned over to the Edgewood testers the Mannlicher-Carcano

rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building.[A10-265]

From information provided by the Commission, the Edgewood scientists

obtained Western bullets of the type used by the assassin.[A10-266]

Tests on Penetration Power and Bullet Stability

Comparisons were made of the penetrating power of Western bullets

fired from the assassination rifle with other bullets.[A10-267] From

the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, the Western bullet was fired through

two gelatin blocks totaling 72½ centimeters in length.[A10-268] As

evidenced by Commission Exhibit No. 844, which is a photograph from a

high-speed motion picture, the Western bullets passed through 1½ blocks

in a straight line before their trajectory curved.[A10-269] After

coming out of the second gelatin block, a number of the bullets buried

themselves in a mound of earth.[A10-270]

Under similar circumstances, a bullet described as the NATO round M-80

was fired from a M-14 rifle.[A10-271] The penetrating power of the

latter is depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 845 which shows that

bullet possesses much less penetrating power with a quicker tumbling

action. Those characteristics cause an early release of energy which

brings the bullet to a stop at shorter distances.[A10-272] A further

test was made with a 257 Winchester Roberts soft-nosed hunting bullet

as depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 846. That bullet became deformed

almost immediately upon entering the block of gelatin and released its

energy very rapidly.[A10-273] From these tests, it was concluded that

the Western bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano had “terrific

penetrating ability” and would retain substantial velocity after

passing through objects such as the portions of the human body.[A10-274]

Tests Simulating President Kennedy’s Neck Wound

After reviewing the autopsy report on President Kennedy, the Edgewood

scientists simulated the portion of the President’s neck through which

the bullet passed. It was determined that the bullet traveled through

13½ to 14½ centimeters of tissue in the President’s neck.[A10-275]

That substance was simulated by constructing three blocks: one with a

20-percent gelatin composition, a second from one animal meat and a

third from another animal meat.[A10-276] Those substances duplicated as

closely as possible the portion of the President’s neck through which

the bullet passed.[A10-277] At the time the tests were conducted, it

was estimated that the President was struck at a range of approximately

180 feet, and the onsite tests which were conducted later at Dallas

established that the President was shot through the neck at a range

of 174.9 feet to 190.8 feet.[A10-278] At a range of 180 feet, the

Western bullets were fired from the assassination weapon, which has a

muzzle velocity of approximately 2,160 feet per second, through those

substances which were placed beside a break-type screen for measuring

velocity.[A10-279] The average entrance velocity at 180 feet was 1,904

feet per second.[A10-280]

To reconstruct the assassination situation as closely as possible both

sides of the substances were covered with material and clipped animal

skin to duplicate human skin.[A10-281] The average exit velocity was

1,779 feet from the gelatin, 1,798 feet from the first animal meat and

1,772 feet from the second animal meat.[A10-282] Commission Exhibit

No. 847 depicts one of the animal meats compressed to 13½ to 14½

centimeters to approximate the President’s neck and Commission Exhibit

No. 848 shows the analogous arrangement for the gelatin.[A10-283]

The photograph marked Commission Exhibit No. 849 shows the bullet

passing through the gelatin in a straight line evidencing very stable

characteristics.[A10-284]

Commission Exhibit No. 850 depicts the pieces of clipped animal

skin placed on the points of entry and exit showing that the holes

of entrance are round while the holes of exit are “a little more

elongated.”[A10-285] From these tests, it was concluded that the bullet

lost little of its velocity in penetrating the President’s neck so

that there would have been substantial impact on the interior of the

Presidential limousine or anyone else struck by the exiting bullet.

In addition, these tests indicated that the bullet had retained most

of its stability in penetrating the President’s neck so that the exit

hole would be only slightly different from the appearance of the entry

hole.[A10-286]

Tests Simulating Governor Connally’s Chest Wounds

To most closely approximate the Governor’s chest injuries, the Edgewood

scientists shot an animal with the assassination weapon using the

Western bullets at a distance of 210 feet.[A10-287] The onsite tests

later determined that the Governor was wounded at a distance of 176.9

feet to 190.8 feet from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner

of the Depository Building.[A10-288] The average striking velocity of

11 shots at 210 feet was 1,929 feet per second and the average exit

velocity was 1,664 feet per second.[A10-289]

One of the shots produced an injury on the animal’s rib very similar

to that inflicted on Governor Connally.[A10-290] For purposes of

comparison with the Governor’s wound, the Edgewood scientists studied

the Parkland Hospital report and X-rays, and they also discussed

these wounds with Dr. Shaw, the Governor’s chest surgeon.[A10-291]

The similar animal injury passed along the animal’s eighth left rib

causing a fracture which removed a portion of the rib in a manner very

similar to the wound sustained by the Governor.[A10-292] The X-ray

of that wound on the animal is reproduced as Commission Exhibit No.

852.[A10-293] A comparison with the Governor’s chest wound, shown

in X-ray marked as Commission Exhibit No. 681, shows the remarkable

similarity between those two wounds.[A10-294]

The bullet which produced the wound depicted in Commission Exhibits

Nos. 851 and 852 was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 853 and possessed

characteristics very similar to the bullet marked as Commission

Exhibit No. 399 found on Governor Connally’s stretcher and believed

to have been the bullet which caused his chest wound.[A10-295] Those

bullets, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 399 and 853, were

flattened in similar fashion.[A10-296] In addition, the lead core was

extruded from the rear in the same fashion on both bullets.[A10-297]

One noticeable difference was that the bullet identified as Commission

Exhibit No. 853, which penetrated the animal, was somewhat more flat

than Commission Exhibit No. 399 which indicated that Commission

Exhibit No. 853 was probably traveling at somewhat greater speed than

the bullet which penetrated the Governor’s chest.[A10-298] After the

bullet passed through the animal, it left an imprint on the velocity

screen immediately behind the animal which was almost the length of

the bullet indicating that the bullet was traveling sideways or end

over end.[A10-299] Taking into consideration the extra girth on the

Governor, the reduction in the velocity of the bullet passing through

his body was estimated at 400 feet.[A10-300] The conclusions from

the animal shots are significant when taken in conjunction with the

experiments performed simulating the injuries to the Governor’s wrist.

Tests Simulating Governor Connally’s Wrist Wounds

Following procedures identical to those employed in simulating the

chest wound, the wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal

reproduced, as closely as possible, the Governor’s wrist wound. Again

the scientists examined the reports and X-rays from Parkland Hospital

and discussed the Governor’s wrist wound with the attending orthopedic

surgeon, Dr. Charles F. Gregory.[A10-301] Bone structures were then

shot with Western bullets fired from the assassination weapon at a

distance of 210 feet.[A10-302] The most similar bone-structure shot was

analyzed in testimony before the Commission. An X-ray designated as

Commission Exhibit No. 854 and a photograph of that X-ray which appears

as Commission Exhibit No. 855 show a fracture at a location which is

very similar to the Governor’s wrist wound depicted in X-rays marked as

Commission Exhibits Nos. 690 and 691.[A10-303]

The average striking velocity of the shots was 1,858 feet per

second.[A10-304] The average exit velocity was 1,786 feet per second

for the 7 out of 10 shots from bone structures which could be

measured.[A10-305] These tests demonstrated that Governor Connally’s

wrist was not struck by a pristine bullet, which is a missile that

strikes an object before hitting anything else.[A10-306] This

conclusion was based on the following factors: (1) Greater damage

was inflicted on the bone structure than that which was suffered

by the Governor’s wrist;[A10-307] and (2) the bone structure had a

smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound which is characteristic

of a pristine bullet as distinguished from the Governor’s wrist which

had a larger wound of entry indicating a bullet which was tumbling

with substantial reduction in velocity.[A10-308] In addition, if the

bullet found on the Governor’s stretcher (Commission Exhibit No. 399)

inflicted the wound on the Governor’s wrist, then it could not have

passed through the Governor’s wrist had it been a pristine bullet, for

the nose would have been considerably flattened, as was the bullet

which struck the bone structure, identified as Commission Exhibit No.

856.[A10-309]

Conclusions From Simulating the Neck, Chest, and Wrist Wounds

Both Drs. Olivier and Dziemian expressed the opinion that one bullet

caused all the wounds on Governor Connally.[A10-310] The wound to the

Governor’s wrist was explained by circumstances where the bullet passed

through the Governor’s chest, lost substantial velocity in doing so,

tumbled through the wrist, and then slightly penetrated the Governor’s

left thigh.[A10-311] Thus, the results of the wound ballistics tests

support the conclusions of Governor Connally’s doctors that all his

wounds were caused by one bullet.[A10-312]

In addition, the wound ballistics tests indicated that it was most

probable that the same bullet passed through the President’s neck

and then proceeded to inflict all the wounds on the Governor. That

conclusion was reached by Drs. Olivier and Dziemian based on the

medical evidence on the wounds of the President and the Governor and

the tests they performed.[A10-313] It was their opinion that the wound

on the Governor’s wrist would have been more extensive had the bullet

which inflicted that injury merely passed through the Governor’s chest

exiting at a velocity of approximately 1,500 feet per second. Thus,

the Governor’s wrist wound indicated that the bullet passed through

the President’s neck, began to yaw in the air between the President

and the Governor, and then lost substantially more velocity than 400

feet per second in passing through the Governor’s chest.[A10-314] A

bullet which was yawing on entering into the Governor’s back would

lose substantially more velocity in passing through his body than a

pristine bullet.[A10-315] In addition, the greater flattening of the

bullet that struck the animal’s rib (Commission Exhibit No. 853) than

the bullet which presumably struck the Governor’s rib (Commission

Exhibit No. 399) indicates that the animal bullet was traveling at a

greater velocity.[A10-316] That suggests that the bullet which entered

the Governor’s chest had already lost velocity by passing through the

President’s neck.[A10-317] Moreover, the large wound on the Governor’s

back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing although that type

of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking.[A10-318]

Dr. Frederick W. Light, Jr., the third of the wound ballistics experts,

testified that the anatomical findings alone were insufficient for

him to formulate a firm opinion on whether the same bullet did or did

not pass through the President’s neck first before inflicting all the

wounds on Governor Connally.[A10-319] Based on the other circumstances,

such as the relative positions in the automobile of the President and

the Governor, Dr. Light concluded that it was probable that the same

bullet traversed the President’s neck and inflicted all the wounds on

Governor Connally.[A10-320]

Tests Simulating President Kennedy’s Head Wounds

Additional tests were performed on inert skulls filled with a 20

percent gelatin substance and then coated with additional gelatin to

approximate the soft tissues overlying the skull.[A10-321] The skull

was then draped with simulated hair as depicted in Commission Exhibit

No. 860.[A10-322] Using the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the Western

bullets, 10 shots were fired at the reconstructed skulls from a

distance of 270 feet which was the estimated distance at the time those

tests were conducted.[A10-323] It was later determined through the

onsite tests that President Kennedy was struck in the back of the head

at a distance of 265.3 feet from the assassination weapon.[A10-324]

The general results of these tests were illustrated by the findings on

one skull which was struck at a point most nearly approximating the

wound of entry on President Kennedy’s head.[A10-325] The whole skull,

depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 860, was struck 2.9 centimeters

to the right and almost horizontal to the occipital protuberance or

slightly above it, which was virtually the precise point of entry on

the President’s head as described by the autopsy surgeons.[A10-326]

That bullet blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a

manner very similar to the head wounds of the President.[A10-327] The

consequences on that skull are depicted in Commission Exhibits Nos. 861

and 862, which illustrate the testimony of Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who

supervised the experiments.[A10-328] Based on his review of the autopsy

report, Dr. Olivier concluded that the damage to the reconstructed

skull was very similar to the wound inflicted on the President.[A10-329]

Two fragments from the bullet which struck the test skull closely

resembled the two fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential

limousine. The fragment designated as Commission Exhibit No. 567 is a

mutilated piece of lead and copper very similar to a mutilated piece

of copper recovered from the bullet which struck the skull depicted

in Commission Exhibit No. 860. The other fragment, designated as

Commission Exhibit No. 569 which was found in the front seat of the

Presidential limousine, is the copper end of the bullet.[A10-330]

Commission Exhibit No. 569 is very similar to a copper fragment of the

end of the bullet which struck the test skull.[A10-331] The fragments

from the test bullet are designated as Commission Exhibit No. 857 and

are depicted in a photograph identified as Commission Exhibit No.

858.[A10-332] A group of small lead particles, recovered from the test

bullet, are also very similar to the particles recovered under the

left jump seat and in the President’s head. The particles from the

test bullet are a part of Commission Exhibit No. 857 and are depicted

in photograph designated as Commission Exhibit No. 859.[A10-333] That

skull was depicted as Commission Exhibit No. 862.[A10-334]

As a result of these tests, Dr. Olivier concluded that the Western

bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at a distance of 270

feet would make the same type of wound found on the President’s

head.[A10-335] Prior to the tests, Dr. Olivier had some doubt that such

a stable bullet would cause a massive head wound like that inflicted

on the President.[A10-336] He had thought it more likely that such a

striking bullet would make small entrance and exit holes.[A10-337] The

tests, however, showed that the bones of the skull were sufficient

to deform the end of the bullet causing it to expend a great deal of

energy and thereby blow out the side of the skull.[A10-338] These tests

further confirmed the autopsy surgeons’ opinions that the President’s

head wound was not caused by a dumdum bullet.[A10-339] Because of the

test results, Dr. Olivier concluded that the fragments found on and

under the front seat of the President’s car most probably came from

the bullet which struck the President’s head.[A10-340] It was further

concluded that the damage done to Governor Connally’s wrist could not

have resulted from a fragment from the bullet which struck President

Kennedy’s head.[A10-341]

HAIRS AND FIBERS

Testimony on hairs and fibers was given by Paul M. Stombaugh[A10-342]

of the FBI. Stombaugh has been a specialist in hairs and fibers

since 1960, when he began a 1-year period of specialized training in

this field. He has made thousands of hair and fiber examinations,

and has testified in Federal and State courts in approximately 28

States.[A10-343] Stombaugh examined and gave testimony on the

following objects: (1) The green and brown blanket found in the Paine’s

garage, Commission Exhibit No. 140; (2) the homemade paper bag found

on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository following the

assassination, Commission Exhibit No. 142; (3) the shirt worn by Oswald

on November 22, 1963, Commission Exhibit No. 150; and (4) the C2766

rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 666

DIAGRAM OF A HAIR]

General Principles

_Hairs._--As shown in Commission Exhibit No. 666 (p. 587), a hair

consists of a central shaft of air cells, known as the medulla; a

cortex containing pigment granules (which give the hair its color)

and cortical fusi (air spaces); and a cuticle and an outer layer of

scales. Unlike fingerprints, hairs are not unique. However, human hairs

can be distinguished from animal hairs by various characteristics,

including color, texture, length, medullary structure and shape, shape

of pigment, root size, and scale size. In addition, hairs of the

Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid human races can be distinguished

from each other by color, texture, size and degree of fluctuation of

diameter, thickness of cuticle, shape and distribution of pigment,

and shape of cross-section. Moreover, even though individual hairs

are not unique, the expert usually can distinguish the hairs of

different individuals. Thus, Stombaugh, who had made approximately

1,000 comparison examinations of Caucasian hairs and 500 comparison

examinations of Negroid hairs, had never found a case in which he

was unable to differentiate the hairs of two different Caucasian

individuals, and had found only several cases in which he could

not distinguish, with absolute certainty, between the hairs of two

different Negroid individuals.[A10-344]

_Fibers._--Like hairs, the various types of natural and artificial

fibers can be distinguished from each other under the microscope. Like

hairs too, individual fibers are not unique, but the expert usually

can distinguish fibers from different fabrics. A major identifying

characteristic of most fibers is color, and under the microscope many

different shades of each color can be differentiated--for example,

50-100 shades of green or blue, and 25-30 shades of black. The

microscopic appearance of three types of fibers--cotton, wool, and

viscose--is illustrated in Commission Exhibit No. 665 (p. 589). Two of

these, cotton and viscose, were the subject of testimony by Stombaugh.

Cotton is a natural fiber. Under the microscope, it resembles a twisted

soda straw, and the degree of twist is an additional identifying

characteristic of cotton. Cotton may be mercerized or (more commonly)

unmercerized. Viscose is an artificial fiber. A delustering agent

is usually added to viscose to cut down its luster, and under the

microscope this agent appears as millions of tiny spots on the outside

of the fiber. The major identifying characteristics of viscose, apart

from color, are diameter--hundreds of variations being possible--and

size and distribution of delustering agent, if any.[A10-345]

_The blanket._--Stombaugh received the blanket, Commission Exhibit No.

140, in the FBI Laboratory at 7:30 a.m., on November 23, 1963.[A10-346]

Examination showed that it was composed of brown and green fibers, of

which approximately 1-2 percent were woolen, 20-35 percent were cotton,

and the remainder were delustered viscose.[A10-347] The viscose fibers

in the blanket were of 10-15 different diameters, and also varied

slightly in shade and in the size and distribution of the delustering

agent. (The apparent cause of those variations was that the viscose

in the blanket consisted of scrap viscose.)[A10-348] The cotton also

varied in shade, about seven to eight different shades of green cotton

being present, but was uniform in twist.[A10-349]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 665

TEXTILE FIBERS

COTTON

WOOL

VISCOSE]

When received by Stombaugh, the blanket was folded into approximately

the shape of a narrow right triangle.[A10-350] A safety pin was

inserted in one end of the blanket, and also at this end, loosely

wrapped around the blanket, was a string.[A10-351] On the basis of

creases in the blanket in this area it appeared that the string had

been tied around the blanket rather tightly at one time while something

was inside the blanket.[A10-352] Other creases and folds were also

present, as illustrated in Commission Exhibit No. 663.[A10-353] Among

these was a crease or hump approximately 10 inches long.[A10-354] This

crease must have been caused by a hard protruding object approximately

10 inches long which had been tightly wrapped in the blanket, causing

the yarn to stretch so that the hump was present even when the object

had been extracted.[A10-355] The hump was approximately the same length

and shape as the telescopic sight on the C2766 rifle, and its position

with respect to the ends of the blanket was such (based on the manner

in which the blanket was folded when Stombaugh received it) that had

the rifle been in the blanket the telescopic sight could have made the

hump.[A10-356]

The string wrapped around the blanket was made of ordinary white

cotton.[A10-357] It had been tied into a granny knot (a very common

knot tied right over right, right over right) and the dangling ends had

been further tied into a bow knot (the knot used on shoelaces).[A10-358]

After receiving the blanket, Stombaugh scraped it to remove the foreign

textile fibers and hairs that were present.[A10-359] He found numerous

foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, and a number of

limb, pubic, and head hairs, all of which had originated from persons

of the Caucasian race, and had fallen out naturally, as was shown by

the shape of their roots.[A10-360] Several of the limb and pubic hairs

matched samples of Oswald’s limb and pubic hairs obtained by the Dallas

police in all observable characteristics, including certain relatively

unusual characteristics.[A10-361] For example, in both Oswald’s pubic

hairs and some of the blanket pubic hairs, the color was a medium

brown, which remained constant to the tip, where it changed to a very

light brown and then became transparent, due to lack of color pigments;

the diameters were identical, and rather narrow for pubic hairs; the

hairs were very smooth, lacking the knobbiness characteristic of pubic

hairs, and the upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs;

the tips of the hairs were sharp, which is unusual for pubic hairs; the

cuticle was very thin for pubic hairs; the scales displayed only a very

small protrusion; the pigmentation was very fine, equally dispersed,

and occasionally chained together, and displayed only very slight

gapping; cortical fusi were for the most part absent; the medulla was

either fairly continuous or completely absent; and the root area was

rather clear of pigment, and contained only a fair amount of cortical

fusi, which was unusual.[A10-362] Similarly, in both Oswald’s limb

hairs and some of the limb hairs from the blanket the color was light

brown through its entire length; the diameter was very fine and did not

noticeably fluctuate; the tips were very sharp, which is unusual; the

scales were of medium size, with very slight protrusion; there was a

very slight gapping of the pigmentation near the cuticle; there was an

unusual amount of cortical fusi, equally distributed through the hair

shaft; and the medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and

very uneven.[A10-363]

Other limb, pubic, and head hairs on the blanket did not come from

Oswald.[A10-364]

_The paper bag._--Stombaugh received the paper bag, Commission

Exhibit No. 142, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.[A10-365] No

foreign material was found on the outside of the bag except traces

of fingerprint powder and several white cotton fibers, which were of

no significance, since white cotton is the most common textile, and

at any rate the fibers may have come from Stombaugh’s white cotton

gloves.[A10-366] Inside the bag were a tiny wood fragment which was too

minute for comparison purposes, and may have come from the woodpulp

from which the paper was made; a particle of a waxy substance, like

candle wax; and a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several

light-green cotton fibers.[A10-367]

The fibers found inside the bag were compared with brown viscose and

green cotton fibers taken from the blanket. The brown viscose fiber

found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the

blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade, diameter,

and size and distribution of delustering agent.[A10-368] The green

cotton fibers found in the bag were, like those from the blanket, of

varying shades, but of a uniform twist. Each green cotton fiber from

the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket in

all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and degree of twist. Like

the blanket cotton fibers, the cotton fibers found in the bag were

unmercerized.[A10-369]

_The shirt._--Stombaugh received the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150,

at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.[A10-370] Examination showed that

it was composed of gray-black, dark blue, and orange-yellow cotton

fibers.[A10-371] The orange-yellow and gray-black cotton fibers were

of a uniform shade, and the dark-blue fibers were of three different

shades.[A10-372] All the fibers were mercerized and of substantially

uniform degree of twist.[A10-373]

_The C2766 rifle._--The rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139, was received

in the FBI Laboratory on the morning of November 23, 1963, and

examined for foreign material at that time.[A10-374] Stombaugh noticed

immediately that the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints, “and at

the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be

any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find

some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man

dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust

with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time *

* *.”[A10-375] In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either

adhering to greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices,

and were so dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine

what type of fibers they were.[A10-376] However, Stombaugh found that

a tiny tuft of fibers had caught on a jagged edge on the rifle’s metal

butt plate where it met the end of the wooden stock, and had adhered

to this edge, so that when the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints

the brush had folded the tuft into a crevice between the butt plate

and the stock, where it remained.[A10-377] Stombaugh described these

fibers as “fresh,”[A10-378] by which he meant that “they were clean,

they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were

not fragmented.”[A10-379] However, it was not possible to determine how

long the fibers had been on the rifle, in the absence of information

as to how frequently the rifle had been used.[A10-380] Examination

showed that the tuft was composed of six or seven orange-yellow,

gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. These fibers were compared

with fibers from the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, which was also

composed of orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. The

orange-yellow and gray-black tuft fibers matched the comparable shirt

fibers in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and twist. The

three dark-blue fibers matched two of the three shades of the dark-blue

shirt fibers, and also matched the dark-blue shirt fibers in degree

of twist.[A10-381] Based on these facts, Stombaugh concluded that the

tuft of fibers found on the rifle “could easily” have come from the

shirt, and that “there is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could

have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate

the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical

shirt.”[A10-382]

PHOTOGRAPHS

Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among

Oswald’s possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine’s garage at 2515 West Fifth

Street, Irving, Tex.[A10-383] In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A,

Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the

other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his

right. Also found at Mrs. Paine’s garage were a negative of 133-B and

several photographs of the rear of General Walker’s house.[A10-384]

An Imperial reflex camera,[A10-385] which Marina Oswald testified she

used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert

Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother.[A10-386] Testimony concerning

the photographs, the negative, and the camera was given by Lyndal

D. Shaneyfelt of the FBI.[A10-387] Shaneyfelt has been connected

with photographic work since 1937. He has made 100-300 photographic

examinations, and has testified frequently on the subject in

court.[A10-388]

_Photographs 133-A and 133-B._--The background and lighting in 133-A

and 133-B are virtually identical; the only apparent difference

between the two photographs is the pose. However, in 133-A the rifle

is held in a position showing many more of its characteristics than

are shown in 133-B.[A10-389] In order to bring out the details in the

rifle pictured in 133-A, Shaneyfelt rephotographed 133-A and prepared

prints of varying densities from the new negative.[A10-390] He also

took two new photographs of the C2766 rifle itself: one shows the

rifle in approximately the same position as the rifle pictured in

133-A. The other shows a man holding the rifle simulating the pose in

133-A.[A10-391] Shaneyfelt compared the actual rifle, the photograph

133-A, his rephotographs of 133-A, and the two new photographs to

determine whether the rifle pictured in 133-A was the C2766 rifle.

He found it to be the same in all appearances, noted no differences,

and found a notch in the stock of the C2766 which also appeared very

faintly in 133-A. However, he did not find enough peculiarities

to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C2766 rifle, as

distinguished from other rifles of the same configuration.[A10-392]

The rifle’s position in 133-B is such that less of its characteristics

were visible than in 133-A; essentially, 133-B shows only the bottom

of the rifle. However, the characteristics of the rifle visible in

133-B are also similar to the observable characteristics of the C2766

rifle, except that while the C2766 rifle was equipped with a homemade

leather sling when it was found after the assassination, the rifle

in 133-B seems to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.[A10-393]

The portion of the sling visible in 133-A is too small to establish

whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope,

and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in

133-B.[A10-394]

_The negative._--Shaneyfelt’s examination of the negative, Commission

Exhibit No. 749, showed that the photograph, 133-B, had been printed

directly or indirectly from the negative. It was Shaneyfelt’s opinion

that 133-B had been directly from the negative, but he could not

absolutely eliminate the possibility of an internegative, that is,

the possibility that a print had been produced from the negative 749,

a photograph had been taken of that print, and 133-B had been produced

from the new negative, rather than from the original negative.[A10-395]

“I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a

copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect,

such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to the

added process.”[A10-396] In any event, any “intermediate” print would

have been virtually indistinguishable from 133-B, so that Shaneyfelt’s

testimony conclusively established that either 133-B or a virtually

indistinguishable print had been produced from the negative 749.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 751

Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera, with the back removed to show the

camera’s film-plane aperture.]

_The camera._--The Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, was

a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, one-shutter-speed, box-type

camera, made in the United States.[A10-397] Shaneyfelt compared this

camera with the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, to determine

whether this negative had been taken with the camera.[A10-398] To make

this determination, Shaneyfelt compared the margins of the image on

Commission Exhibit No. 749 with the margins of the image on a negative

he himself had taken with the camera. Microscopic examination shows

that the margins of a negative’s image, although apparently straight,

are actually irregular. The irregularities usually do not show on

a finished print, because they are blocked out to give the print a

neat border.[A10-399] The cause of these irregularities can be best

understood by examination of Commission Exhibit No. 751 (p. 594), a

photograph of the Imperial camera with the back removed to show the

camera’s film-plane aperture. When the camera’s shutter is opened,

light exposes that portion of the film which is not blocked off by

this aperture. The edges of the aperture, therefore, define the edges

of the image which will appear on the developed negative. In effect,

the edge of the image is a shadowgraph of the edge of the aperture. As

Shaneyfelt testified:

* * * the basis of the examination was a close microscopic

study of the negative made in the camera to study the

shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture.