Chapter XXXIII: Part 33

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I usually put the suspect on the left.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, in the photographs at any rate, in all the photographs we are going to see, the test cartridge is on the right, and the suspect cartridge is on the left?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Usually.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the magnification of this photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is approximately 91 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go on, please?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. On the left you will see the stamping, "SP", which is in the cartridge case itself. And over here next to the hairline you will see the individual characteristic marks. And you will see similar marks continuing on the other side of the hairline.

On the C-15, the revolver side, you will see a dark portion running vertically down through. That is the space that the Congressman was asking about--how it fits the primer. That is the small space at the top where the primer fits into the base of the cartridge. And over here to the right of that dark mark you will see a lighter colored object with more individual characteristic marks, that is actually the primer, the individual characteristic marks on the primer of the test cartridge case.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, as I understand it, in effect this picture can be viewed as a composite cartridge? That is, the picture on the left begins where the picture on the right ends, in terms of position on the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In essence; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the point of the picture is to show that when you make this composite, the lines on each case show up as if there were no composite at all, but as if they were simply one case, because they are so close together in microscopic markings?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; in proximity. And they are brought together.

Representative BOGGS. And so similar?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. What is the magnification again?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is approximately 91 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any dissimilarities on the two--on the test and the suspect cartridge cases, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; there are always dissimilarities. However, the similarities so outweigh the dissimilarities that it is an identification. If there are no dissimilarities, I would be suspicious that it would be faked--using the same photograph and just cut and put together.

There are always dissimilarities.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why there are always dissimilarities when the two cartridge cases are fired in the very same weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The metal is different; one cartridge case is slightly harder than another; for some reason the cartridge case wasn't driven back, upon firing, into the breech face exactly the same way. In other words, these marks are reproducing, but you don't get exactly the same hit. It would not be possible to get exactly the same hit time after time with different cartridge cases.

Representative FORD. What ratio of similarities and dissimilarities do you have to have?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There is no ratio. Based upon the examiner's training and experience, he comes to the conclusion that a particular cartridge case or bullet has been fired from a particular weapon. As in this photograph, you can see the dissimilarity is very slight. These are excellent marks.

Representative FORD. There was never any doubt in your mind, then?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. You say these are particularly strong marks?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These are very, very, good marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, these marks are on the brass, so to speak, of the cartridge case, rather than in the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; that is correct. Actually, it is brass, it is nickelplated brass.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that unusual, to be able to pick up such strong marks in the brass as opposed to the primer of the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not really unusual; no. It depends upon the particular weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine the microscopic markings on the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you found what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could identify the weapon on the basis of the imperfections, individual characteristic marks, in the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. The firing-pin impression. And what about the area of the primer around the firing-pin impression?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, each of these three areas--the brass, the primer, and the firing-pin impression--carries individually characteristic microscopic marks which would be the basis of identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, you cannot make a flat statement.

Mr. EISENBERG. No; in this case.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this particular case, I knew at the time I was examining it, all of the firing-pin impressions were excellent, and some portions of the breech-face marks were. But you cannot say they will mark in exactly the same place, due to the fact that these cases will mark in different areas, they are different cartridges, they have been fired at a different time. You will get good areas, and then in another area your marks will not be sufficient. In other words, it is just the way the cartridge case was driven back at the time of the explosion in the primer, and the bullet is fired.

They can hit slightly different, hit deeper on one side, be lighter on the other. When a primer is set in a little bit deeper, it will not pick up these marks on the primer part, whereas the firing-pin impression can be excellent--one portion of the case will be excellent. But each one is a different examination. And many times they will mark in different places.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us the next photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. This is Commission document No. 597. This is a photograph, photomicrograph, rather, of the breech face marks on two cartridge cases. The one on the left is C-49, which is our number C-49, and the one on the right of the hairline is a test cartridge case from this revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This one was approximately 120 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the magnification equal on both sides?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true of all the pictures you are showing us today?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The negative is taken at exactly the same time. You are photographing through a single eyepiece, with a focusable hairline down the middle, whatever is on both stages of your comparison microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn that picture around again?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. These marking are also on the brass, or outside of the primer?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And again it is a sort of a composite photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, these markings seem a little less distinct than the others.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is in a different area. On this particular case, the marks are excellent. You can see down in here some nice fine marks, and then the heavier marks coming across there. They are good marks.

Representative FORD. Could you point out, as you look at the photograph, what you consider good similarities, which would help you in the identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Now, this is not the only point of similarity. These strictly demonstrate the type of marks. There are many more marks on these cartridge cases, all over the base of the cartridge cases, as well as in the firing-pin impressions. But Mr. Eisenberg asked that we have a photograph to demonstrate the type of marks on each particular cartridge case.

Representative FORD. This is only illustrative, then?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. My identification was not based on this picture. It was based on my complete microscopic examination and comparison of test cartridge cases from the revolver with this particular cartridge case.

Representative FORD. Could you show me the similarities?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. You see, you have your large--it is slightly out of focus up towards this end----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, as you demonstrate this, could you mark with circles and with a number what you are talking about, so when the record is looked at it is clear what you are talking about?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. All right--up here, near the top, you will find a very deep ridge, which I will mark "1." As you are coming down, you will find another real deep ridge, which I will mark "2."

When you consider this is 120 times, this is actually quite close together, except it has been magnified--you have a set of marks resembling "railroad tracks," which I will mark "3."

You will find over here--you go down to your next step. There are similarities in between there. The next big set of "railroad tracks" I will mark "4."

Then you move down, and you will find another similarity, four nice marks down near the bottom. This whole area is similar. You are going out of focus, but you can see these "railroad tracks." They are running along very nicely, and that is being marked "No. 5."

The next photograph is a photograph--on the left of the hairline----

Mr. EISENBERG. What Commission exhibit is that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. 598.

On the left of the hairline is our number C-47, the cartridge case. On the right is a test from the C-15 revolver, which is Commission Exhibit 143. These also are breech-face marks in the base of the cartridge cases.

On the right you can see the space between the primer and the base of the cartridge case, and also the individual characteristic marks in the primer.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This is approximately 123-1/2 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Congressman Ford, would you care for a discussion of this?

Representative FORD. No. The one previously gave the basis.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Actually, this seems to be a slightly larger area. You have again the same "railroad tracks," all up and down, going across the two cartridge cases.

Representative FORD. To the layman that seems even more----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Demonstrative, yes. I don't know if you saw the photographs of the cartridge cases in the rifle, the assassination rifle. Those marks are just as distinctive as the more demonstrative marks in this particular breech face. But to a trained examiner, they stand out. They are harder to see than those on these particular photographs. And even in these photographs, the photograph you were asking me, they were not quite as vivid as they are on this photograph.

But there, again, it goes back to what I told you--each cartridge case will strike the breech face in a slightly different way, and you don't get complete similarity.

Mr. EISENBERG. To illustrate your point, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you Commission Exhibit 565, which is a photograph, which was explained yesterday, of the cartridge case fired in the rifle, and a test cartridge.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, this demonstrates it very well.

This is the very rough surface on the bolt of the assassination rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bolt face?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; the bolt face, and it is just as distinctive as these striae on my photographs of the breech-face marks of the revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. By "striae" you mean lines?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; just lines. But it is more difficult to see, due to the character of these marks--even though one type of mark is just as characteristic as the other type.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand your testimony, to the trained observer the photograph shown--the cartridges shown in the photographs on 565 can be as easily identified with each other as the cartridges shown on, let's say, 598?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. But to the layman it is easier to see the similarities on 598, with its striae, than 565 with its grosser imperfections?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; due to the type of marks on each of the cartridge cases, one is easier for the layman to see.

The next photograph is Commission document No. 599. On the left of the hairline is our number C-48, the cartridge case. On the right is the test cartridge case from Oswald's revolver.

Now, here you asked about what happens--somebody asked what happens on the other side. Here you have the other side. In this particular cartridge case----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the other half of the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. In other words, you are seeing the primer, the space between the primer and the brass on the cartridge case itself--on the questioned cartridge case this time--and the base of the cartridge case of the test is on the right. It looks like it is one. It is just the opposite side of the cartridge case from the other photographs.

In other words, you take the photograph of the most demonstrative marks--which look real good, naturally. The examination is of all the marks. That is the big difference. And this time you will see--it is very demonstrative--on each side of the hairline, a great deal of similarity between these marks.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification here?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is approximately 96 times.

Mr. RHYNE. Why do you vary the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The magnification of every photograph you take, sir, depends on the length of the bellows of the camera. The microscope will have a set magnification. But each time that you focus the length of the bellows can change, which will increase or decrease the magnification. Also with some photographs you mask off areas which are out of focus. You certainly would not want to print a whole negative where you have distortion. You bring into focus one small portion of the surface of that bullet.

If, say, one surface of the bullet is slightly flattened and the other surface is rounded--the rounded surface will be going out of focus much faster than the flattened side, and it would be very confusing. That is the type of thing. You mask differently.

Then when you have the negatives enlarged, you can enlarge one negative more than you do the other. So it can be based either on the length of the bellows, or on the amount you have enlarged it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that all the photographs?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, there is one more.

This photograph is a photograph of the firing-pin impression of the C-49 cartridge case, and the firing-pin impression on the test from Oswald's revolver, and this is Commission document 600.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 120 times, approximately.

Now, here you have very distinctive marks, but it is much more difficult for a layman to pick them out. That is the reason I have circled these marks and numbered them, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, on each side of the hairline. On the left is C-49, and on the right is the cartridge case obtained from C-143.

You have this very large, very distinctive imperfection.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to circle number 1?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In number 1. Also, in number 2, it looks like a little set of railroad tracks, and this one with the same shape coming down through. You can see this little piece and this little piece. Over here you have a real small "railroad track."

Mr. EISENBERG. That is number 3?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is number 3. And it looks like a little hump or bump, and that is very distinctive.

There is a slight overlapping here, but you can see it is sort of a =V= shape--in number 4, very distinctive. Down here you have a =Z= line with a line through it, number 6. I only brought those out to show six of the similarities. If you go through you can pick out places in the firing-pin impressions, that are similar, by yourself.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the top of each of these photos, C-49 and C-15, there is a large comma-shaped indentation, or comma-shaped mark. What is that caused by, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is caused by a very large imperfection--a very distinctive imperfection in the firing pin itself. And here it is.

Here I am looking at Commission document 601, the breech face and firing pin. If you will look at the firing pin in this photograph, you will see over on this side, this very large imperfection. It is like a facet--it is a flattened side. It shows up in the photograph of the firing pin.

It is indented--since it is missing from the firing pin, it will show as a flattened area in the firing-pin impression. In other words, what is concave on the firing pin itself, will be convex in the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the cartridge cases, I will move on to the bullets.

Representative FORD. Mr. Boggs?

Representative BOGGS. Just one question. What you are saying is that there is no doubt about the fact that the cartridges that you examined came from this revolver?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. And, of course, there is no question about the fact that this was Mr. Oswald's revolver. Is that so?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be proved, I hope, before the end of the hearings. This witness cannot himself testify.

Representative BOGGS. I understand that. I am asking you.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is no question, I don't think, about that. That will be the subject of testimony.

Representative BOGGS. I know--we are not following the exact rules of evidence around here.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will connect it up.

Representative BOGGS. In that connection--how many bullets were recovered?

Mr. EISENBERG. Four were recovered from the body of the officer. But as you will see from the testimony which we will get into right now, that doesn't mean four shots were fired, because there is a slight problem here. I would rather have the witness develop it.

Representative BOGGS. You are being very mysterious now, but it is all right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four bullets in plastic cases marked C-251, C-252, Q-13, and C-253, which have also certain other markings on them, and I ask you if you are familiar with these bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on these bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I would like to state these four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.

When did you receive these bullets, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Q-13 bullet was delivered to the Laboratory the first time on the morning of November 23d, and it was delivered to the Laboratory by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas office of the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. By the way, it was returned to Dallas, and then it was returned to the Laboratory, delivered again by Special Agent Vincent Drain, of the Dallas office, also, Special Agent Warren De Brueys. They delivered our Q-13 a second time on November 27th.

Representative FORD. When you say "our," what do you mean by "our"?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, to facilitate reporting in the Laboratory, we usually give these items a Q or a K number. A Q number is a questioned item, like a bullet from a body, and a known is a gun, the K is a known, like a weapon.

That is for reporting purposes. But since this case began, we have so much evidence, and we have received so much evidence, it was considered practical to reassign a C number by us--like Mr. Eisenberg said, they are C-253, C-262, and C-251. They also have a Q number. Q-13 is C-13. That is the reason why I said "our" Q-13.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you examine Q-13, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. November 23d, the first time. That was when I made my examination. It was returned on the other date. But it was examined on 11-23.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Q-13 has in it a brass colored object, as well as a bullet--that is, the box containing Q-13, your Q-13.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. That was identified as the button--the button--from the coat of Officer Tippit. The bullet struck that button and when the bullet was removed from the body, the button was also removed.

Representative BOGGS. Went right in?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. I have no first-hand knowledge. But that is what it was identified as.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these four bullets admitted as 602, 603, 604, and 605.

Representative FORD. They will be admitted.

(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 602 through 605, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive what are now marked 603, 604, and 605, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were received in the FBI Laboratory on March 16th of this year, and they were submitted to the Laboratory by the Dallas office of the FBI.

Mr. EISENBERG. When were they examined?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were examined on March 17, 1964.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the great time difference between the receipt and examination of the first bullet and the receipt and examination of the last three bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At your request, you asked us to postpone the examination of these three bullets in order to facilitate other examinations you wished more expedited than the examinations of these bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now you are explaining the time between the receipt and the examination?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why these three bullets----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, between the first submission and the second?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; between the submission of the first bullet, and the submission to you of the second three bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it is my understanding the first bullet was turned over to the FBI office in Dallas by the Dallas Police Department. They reportedly said this was the only bullet that was recovered, or that they had. Later at the request of this Commission, we went back to the Dallas Police Department and found in their files that they actually had three other bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you examine these four bullets to determine whether they had been fired in the revolver, Exhibit No. 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sorry.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the four bullets which have just been marked into evidence to determine whether those four bullets had been fired in the revolver, No. 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give us your results, your conclusions?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

First of all, Commission Exhibit 602, which is our Q-13 bullet, I found to be a .38 Special, copper-coated lead bullet of Western-Winchester manufacture which had been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist. I also found the other three bullets----

Mr. EISENBERG. 603----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 603, 604, and 605, Commission Exhibits, which are C-253, C-252, and C-251, respectively. I found that 251 and C-253----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the Commission numbers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibits 605, 603, they, too, were .38 Special copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, which had been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist.

The grooves in the barrel ran in a right-hand direction, a right twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. That accounts for three bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

And Commission Exhibit 604, which is C-252, is a .38 Special Remington-Peters lead bullet, which has been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. Winchester-Western, you say?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; that is Remington----

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's go over that.

We have 603----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 602, 603, and 605 are your copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture.

Mr. EISENBERG. And 604?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And 604 is a Remington-Peters lead bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.

However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.

Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.

Representative FORD. When you say this weapon, will you identify what you mean by "this weapon"?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.

Mr. EISENBERG. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that the gun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled for the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know if wobble is the correct word. But as the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably getting an erratic passage, so the marks won't reproduce.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to say that the bullets were not fired from this weapon, No. 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is not; since the rifling characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143--this revolver--are the same as those present on the four bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.

Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.

Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the bullet--you cannot match them up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.

Representative BOGGS. There is no way to do it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; other than what I have said. In other words, you can tell manufacture. But there is no way of--that I know of--of connecting or identifying a particular bullet having been loaded into a particular cartridge case.

Representative BOGGS. But there is no doubt about the fact that the four cartridge cases came from firing in that weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were fired in that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you said before that you would be missing a bullet--under the explanation you gave--would you be missing both a bullet and a cartridge case?

Representative BOGGS. Excuse me, before you answer that question. What testimony have we developed with reference to this delay in the transmission of these bullets to either the FBI or to the Commission?

Mr. EISENBERG. Just what you have heard. Would you like to have it developed further?

Representative BOGGS. Well, is this within his competence?

Mr. EISENBERG. I do not think so. I can state for the record myself that about 2 weeks ago I requested--I made a request of Mr. Conrad, who is the Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Laboratory--that the three Tippit bullets which had not theretofore been examined, be examined. At that point they had not yet been sent from the Dallas Police to the FBI, and no request had apparently been made for them.

Representative BOGGS. Well, the FBI obtained one almost immediately.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. And then there was how long a delay before the other three?

Mr. EISENBERG. You have the dates there, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The date was--we obtained the first one on November 23, 1963, and then----

Representative BOGGS. The day after the killing of Officer Tippit?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it was delivered at the same time as all the other material. And then it was returned November 17, 1963.

As far as the FBI is concerned, sir, we have no jurisdiction in that case. We were doing the lab work for the Dallas Police Department, but in the investigation of the death of Officer Tippit we do not have jurisdiction.

Representative BOGGS. How did the Commission ascertain that these additional bullets were there?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, upon review of the underlying materials, it developed that while one bullet had been taken out of Officer Tippit as soon as he got to the hospital, which was apparently the first bullet, the one examined November 23, three further bullets were taken out at the autopsy. And since we knew that only one bullet had been examined by the FBI, and since we knew at that point that three further bullets had been taken out, we asked that those three further bullets be examined.

Representative BOGGS. What proof do you have though that these are the bullets?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, again, we will have to connect it up at a subsequent time. They were turned over to the FBI Dallas Office, were they, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. I am talking about the three bullets now, not the first bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; turned over to the FBI Dallas Office by the Dallas Police. Now, we will have to connect up by deposition or testimony before the Commission on the origin of those bullets, and proof is not in the record now, as it is not in the case of many of these items, as to origin. However, I have no doubt that we will be able to connect it up and put it all in the record.

Representative BOGGS. Has there been any inquiry made as to why there was this delay in removing the other three bullets to the FBI?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, as Mr. Cunningham stated, I was told since this was not within the jurisdiction of the FBI, they would only examine evidence which was given to them. And since it had not been given to them, they had not examined it.

When I asked for it, there was a formal request made for them, and they made their examination at that point.

Is that your understanding, Mr. Cunningham?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, sir. In other words, we will do laboratory examinations for any duly constituted law-enforcement agency upon request. And we did it in this case. We offer our facilities but do not go out and ask for work. Since we have no jurisdiction in the killing of Officer Tippit, we would make no investigation and therefore, we would have no reason to go and ask for additional bullets, until of course this Commission asked us to, and then we did on behalf of the Commission.

Representative BOGGS. Do you have any theory, and this is just a theory, you understand, as to this discrepancy in these results as compared to the cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Inasmuch as there are three Western bullets, you would be missing one Western cartridge case, and one Remington bullet. You are missing one of each. He could have missed one of the shots. I do not know how many times he actually fired the weapon. But he could have missed once. It is very possible that he could have. And depending on the angle, it would be very difficult to find that bullet unless it struck some close intervening object. Also I have no first-hand information, again, but I believe that some neighbor turned in these cartridge cases to the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that is correct.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You have received a letter from the Dallas office of the FBI just recently, I believe, setting forth that information.

Representative BOGGS. That would account for one. There would still be another one, would there not?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There would be just one cartridge case missing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other logical theory which could explain the results?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of course, he could have had an empty cartridge case remaining in the weapon at the time he fired it. Then he would only have fired four shots, and then a bullet is still unaccounted for. That would explain it also.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, if he had an unejected R-P cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No--a Western.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean an unejected Western cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And he fired two Winchester and two R-P bullets--now in that case--and, if he then ejected he would get three Winchester and two R-P bullets, would he not--that is, cartridge case--if he had an extra cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If he had an extra cartridge case----

Mr. EISENBERG. He would get five cartridge cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, if he had an extra cartridge case, say a Remington----

Mr. EISENBERG. I was right the first time. Suppose he has an extra Remington?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, then you would have lost a Western. If he fires four times?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And he has the fifth one in. You would still have to have three Western cartridges loaded in and one Remington cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. But then----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Which is four.

Mr. EISENBERG. But then you only have to lose one cartridge case. You do not have to lose a bullet and a cartridge case.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right. You do have to lose one case.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the case you lose would be a Western case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Western.

Representative FORD. Is it unusual to have a mixture of this kind in a pistol?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Usually they are all the same brand. Although if you have two boxes--.38 Special cartridges come in boxes of 50. And you will see hand-loaders once in a while. By the way, we found no indication that they had been hand loaded.

Representative BOGGS. Is this a police weapon as well?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; and a very good one. Not in that particular caliber. In other words, the caliber----

Representative BOGGS. That is what I meant.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge in this country. The .38 Special is.

Representative BOGGS. .38 Special is?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That cartridge.

Representative BOGGS. With police forces?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We use it. Most of your larger police forces use the .38 Special. It is a better cartridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the example we were using before as a second possible theory--the cartridge case that would be lost would be a Western case, I believe actually?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, it would be a Western case.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, also getting back to a subject we were discussing, I will quote in part from a letter from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Rankin dated March 31, 1964.

"On March 30, 1964, Mr. Eisenberg requested that the Dallas Police Department be contacted to determine whether any additional cartridge cases had been recovered." And I say parenthetically I mean in addition to the four which we have seen here.

"On March 30, 1964, Lieutenant Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, advised the Dallas office of this Bureau that all of the cartridge cases and bullets recovered had been previously submitted to the FBI."

You mentioned or discussed the question of hand loading. Can you describe what you mean by hand loading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Hand loading is nothing more than taking components and by means of a press you make your own cartridges. You put them together.

Mr. EISENBERG. In this process, would you be able to take a bullet of one manufacturer and a cartridge case of another?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said that you found no evidence that that had been done in this case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We found no sizing marks on the cartridge cases, which after the first time it has been fired, you many times have to resize it, due to the fact that one chamber can be too large. They always full-length resize, for in a police department many officers will be using this ammunition. You might not resize if one were only firing them in one gun. In other words, you are limiting the chambers of your cylinder that they will fit into. But normally they are full-length resized, and from this you get these sizing marks. Actually they are scrape marks from the sizing die.

Mr. EISENBERG. In a hand-loading operation, is the equipment needed bulky or small?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is quite bulky.

Mr. EISENBERG. If Oswald had hand-loading equipment, would it have been likely to have been turned up among his personal effects? Could it be easily missed?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You could not miss it; no, sir.

Representative FORD. When you say bulky----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A "C" press or an "O" press will stand anywhere from 10 to 12 inches high with a 2-foot handle. Your turret-type would run almost a foot and a half high above the table. And they are all made very heavy because of your full-length resizing--not only on your small revolver cartridges, but for all your hunting cartridges--that takes great pressure. They are heavy duty. And you need quite a bit of equipment. Most of the time there will be a case trimmer, your complete press--there is a primer press, and then you have to have dies for the cartridge you are loading--your sizing dies and your bullet dies that you use to press the bullet into the cartridge case. Then there are all sorts of sundry equipment that go along with hand loading--your powder measurer, which is usually quite large if it is one that will do it volumetrically. True, you can have a balance and weigh out a particular amount for each one, but it takes an awful lot of time. Normally they are volumetric powder measures. You tip it and it puts a certain amount of powder into the cartridge case.

Representative FORD. Is it expensive equipment to buy?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Originally, yes. Comparatively so. A good press, I think you can buy one anywhere from $29 to over $100. You will have to invest, I would say, $150 to have a fairly good outfit. But over the years it is a cheap investment. Instead of paying $2.80 a box, or $2.85 a box, you are turning out cartridges, once you have your brass, for--even rifle, hunting cartridges--for about 7 cents, and lead bullet cartridges down to around 3 cents apiece.

Representative FORD. $2.80 a box?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have the component list here from Western. I do not have the cost per box of ammunition, but it can run anywhere from $2.25 all the way up to $6 to $8 for some of your larger hunting rifle cartridges--boxes of 20 in hunting ammunition, boxes of 50 in your revolver and pistol ammunition.

Even buying components, it is comparatively cheap. If you buy them by the hundred, and they will run, for instance the .38 Special, 158 grain lead bullets per hundred, only $2.80, and that is for original components. If you have the brass, your powder cost is negligible--probably a penny a cartridge, half a cent a cartridge for a .38 Special. So it saves you so much money if you are a target shooter, for instance, it is advantageous to do it if you like to shoot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a skilled operation, hand loading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Basically, no. Once you have the basic--if you do any reading on it, and you take your time, and are very careful, it is not a difficult operation at all.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would a----

Representative BOGGS. How are these cartridges loaded mechanically--not like this hand loading.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is all done on large machines. They buy their lead, for instance, in rods. They ask for a lead alloy of a certain hardness. Then these machines--they feed in the rods in the bullet-making machines, and they cut them off to length. They have different diameter rods. For a .38 the rod diameter would be approximately .357" or .358". Then this machine comes down in a swaging operation.

Another machine puts the knurling around--forming the lubricating grooves, and another groove. They tumble out as fast as the machine can run.

Then you have your case formation. They buy their cases--they look like little cups of copper. Actually it is a copper alloy. And then you go through a drawing process, and then an annealing, and a drawing and annealing, and a drawing and annealing of these brass cases. And then once you get them to approximate length, you full-size them and form the cases. The machine keeps tumbling them out.

And a small lathe--as these cases are going around--turns the case and puts in the extraction groove--all automatically. Another machine comes up from the bottom and puts the head stamp in. Another one is a drilling operation, and it puts in the holes for the primer and also the flash holes into the case. All done automatically. And they tumble into a big box.

Then they take those components and they put them on the line. The primers are all done by hand, except for shotgun primers at Western.

There are girls sitting at these presses who do 50 or 100 at a time. They put guide plates into the machine in which the girls put the primers. They are automatically loaded. All the primers are put in by hand, in essence.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, what is the advantage of hand loading in terms of cost, if you do not have your own shells to start with?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again your initial cost is fairly expensive. For instance, for the .38 Special, unprimed cases, the list price per hundred last year, was $4.60 a hundred. The primed cost $5. The primers cost 20 cents----

Mr. EISENBERG. So there is a saving even if you do not provide your own shells?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, yes--and the bullets would cost----

Mr. EISENBERG. How many primers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One hundred. And 158 grain lead, .38 Special bullets are $2.80. So $7.80 plus $2.00 worth of powder and you are in business.

Mr. EISENBERG. For $9.80?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how much would the bullets cost you if you bought them commercially already prepared?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think it is $2.50 per 50.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, that is more. $2.25 per 50, did you say?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. $2.85? I never buy any ammunition of that type. I do not know.

Mr. EISENBERG. So for a hundred that would be $5.90.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say it is closer to $8 per hundred for .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. So it is cheaper to buy them that way than to buy the components?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is cheaper to buy your components when you do not have to buy the cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, now, is it possible that a gunsmith would buy the components, including new cases, and reload together a case from Western-Winchester and a bullet from Remington-Peters?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't think that a gunsmith would buy the new cases. That is what I was saying. For instance, used .30-.06 brass, right here in town--you can buy it locally. You can buy National Match Cases, which are excellent brass. I think they are a nickel a piece; $5 a hundred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they as good as the new cases?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are once-fired cases. They are excellent.

Mr. EISENBERG. So in you opinion does the possibility that this discrepancy in bullets and cartridge cases can be explained in terms of reloading make much sense? Does it have a high degree of probability or a low degree of probability, would you think?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sorry.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you think it probable or improbable, in light of all your testimony, that the discrepancy between the number of recovered bullets and the number of recovered cartridge cases can be explained in terms of a reloading operation of some kind, or hand loading?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I do not. It is improbable, because we found no indication of any reloading operation. And in an examination of all the cartridges that we had examined, there was no indication of a reloading operation on those. They looked like factory bullets and factory cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if you were going to reload, you would use used cartridges rather than new ones?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You would use used brass, because you usually can pick it up at ranges and places like that. You would not even have to buy it.

Representative BOGGS. By that you mean you would use these? (Referring to Commission Exhibit No. 595.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; well--these would be very difficult--in other

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; well--these would be very difficult on account of the case. They would be hard to resize on account of the fact the case is pushed out due to the rechambering. But they could be used; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say there is no indication, would there be an indication if they were resized?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; usually--unless the sizing die was extremely clean--usually you will get your resizing marks from the resizing die.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in particular you say the cartridge cases from this particular weapon show a substantial amount of bulge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They do. As you brought to my attention, there is a crack in the one case. I would not care to use this type of brass if I were hand loading. I would find brass that had been fired in a .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, by the way, the various cartridge cases, the four cartridge cases and four bullets that you have identified, and that you obtained from your Dallas Office and other sources, that is, Exhibits 594 and 602, 603, 604, and 605, are these now in the same condition as they were when you originally got them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Substantially. A small sample was taken off the noise which was run spectrographically. But the major portions of all these bullets are the same as when they were received in the laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean them in any way or alter them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we had to clean them. They were removed from the body and were bloody. You could not see the surfaces. We had to put them in haemo-sol, which is nothing more than a material that will take out the blood.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true of all four bullets? That is true of the last three bullets as well as the original bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Q-13 was cleaned of blood tissue in haemo-sol. I do not think I have anything in the notes that the last three were cleaned at all.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that indicate they were not cleaned?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say so, because I would have put it down.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the substance removed from the first bullet tested to see whether it was blood, or did you just assume it was blood?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No examination was made of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any dirt on the cartridge case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't remember any.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would your notes show if you had cleaned it up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they do not show any cleaning up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said these revolver bullets were sold in boxes of how many?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Fifty.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will a storekeeper, a gun man who sells bullets, sell less than 50 usually, in your experience?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Maybe some small outfit would. But I just don't know of any around here that will.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Oswald was found with two types of ammunition, two makes of .38 Special cartridges. Would you infer than that----

Representative BOGGS. What two types?

Mr. EISENBERG. R.-P., or Remington-Peters, and Western-Winchester.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were Westerns.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you infer on the basis of your previous statement that he had probably bought a larger quantity?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The inference would be that he had at least two boxes.

Mr. EISENBERG. At some point?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; either that or he had obtained them from another individual.

Mr. EISENBERG. How about the rifle ammunition, this 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle ammunition--how is that commonly sold--the Western brand?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would depend on the surplus house, how it is sold.

Mr. EISENBERG. You think that might be sold in less than fixed minimum quantities?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many times that type of ammunition, surplus ammunition, is sold in any amount. They will give a single price, single cartridge price--or they will take off some if you buy them by the thousand or the hundred. That is a lot different than commercially made ammunition for sale in this country.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to examine this witness now on the paraffin test, if there are no further questions on the areas we have been covering up to now.

Representative FORD. Any questions, Mr. Boggs?

Representative BOGGS. I don't think so.

Representative FORD. Mr. Rhyne?

Mr. RHYNE. Yes; you said that you were positive that these cartridge cases that were found near where Officer Tippit was killed, and which are over in front of Representative Boggs now, were fired in this gun.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I stated the first time, in my opinion those cartridge cases were fired in that particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun. However, the rifling characteristics on the bullets are the same as produced by that weapon. Also, I could not identify consecutive tests obtained from that revolver, using .38 Special ammunition, and I could not identify, even though there are microscopic marks on three of these bullets for comparison purposes--I could not identify them with each other.

Mr. RHYNE. Now, based on your many, many years of experience, is this usual or unusual, that you are unable to identify bullets from such a gun under these circumstances?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual in this particular case. I have had other cases with these rechambered .38 S&W revolvers, that are rechambered to a .38 Special; it is not unusual to not be able to identify them. And especially when the barrel has been cut off 2-3/4 inches, it even cuts down the possibility a little bit more.

Mr. RHYNE. I was under the impression that you people down at the FBI could identify almost any bullet as coming from almost any gun. That is not strictly true, then?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, but it is not.

Representative BOGGS. How much has this barrel been cut off?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. About 2-3/4 inches. You measure the length of the barrel from--you see the cylinder----

Representative BOGGS. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the portion coming out from the frame, that is a portion of the barrel. And the barrel is measured from there to the muzzle. And the barrel now is 2-1/4 inches long. The original barrel was 5 inches long--or at least it is similar to the model that would have a 5-inch barrel.

Representative BOGGS. What is the advantage of reducing the length of the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two things--sales appeal and concealment.

Representative BOGGS. Does it affect the firing quality of the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It affects your accuracy inasmuch as it cuts down on your sight radius. Your longer barrel will be more accurate than a shorter barrel, due to the longer sight radius. The reason that rifles are inherently more accurate than a hand weapon is due, in part, to the longer sight radius. That is the reason the farther you can get away from the sight when you are firing a revolver, the more accurate. Lengthening your sight radius will increase the accuracy.