Chapter XXXIV: Part 34

Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.

Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they could have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they could have been. However, no conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.

Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. There are not sufficient similarities to effect an identification.

Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, these bullets could have been fired by another weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Either this weapon or another weapon which has the same rifling characteristics.

Representative FORD. You are limiting that to the bullets now?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.

Mr. RHYNE. Yes; my question related just to the bullets.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.

Mr. RHYNE. He was positive about the cartridge cases, but not about the bullets.

Representative BOGGS. Now, would it be likely to find these cartridge cases, which you can positively identify as having been fired from this weapon--would it be likely that these bullets which you cannot identify as having been fired from this weapon--would it be likely that they would be fired from another weapon under those circumstances?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, that, sir, depends on other extraneous facts other than my comparisons and examinations. In other words, I can only testify to what I actually found from an examination and comparison of those bullets with these test bullets from that gun. And as to anything else, I cannot testify. I mean--that would be based upon other facts.

Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying some of these questions a little bit further, Mr. Cunningham, you say that this bullet could have been fired from this gun, and was fired from a gun with these rifling characteristics?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you said were five lands, five grooves, right twist?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the widths of the lands and grooves? Did you measure those?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; they were also the same. In other words, when I say it has similar rifling characteristics--the widths of the lands and the grooves is taken into account the rifling characteristics. It has the same width and number of lands and grooves and a right twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, how many other--well, before I ask that, you have also established that the bullets were .38 Specials?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the manufacturer of each bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say they had been fired therefore from a gun chambered for a .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; there was no indication that they were fired in a weapon other than .38 caliber.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the weapon was a .38 Special weapon with five lands, five grooves, right twist, and with the same dimensions for each land and each groove.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would the entire production run of this model conform to that description?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. And also there are other models.

Mr. EISENBERG. Other models also produced by Smith and Wesson?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; in .38 Special.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate the number of those guns?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. May I have the NRA reprint? My estimate comes from the figures that are set forth in Commission Exhibit 593, which states that by 1942 there were a million "Military and Police" revolvers, which is the prior model to the Victory model, which they produced.

Representative BOGGS. That is this model?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. But the model has similar rifling characteristics. You could not distinguish between them. In other words, one is a commercially made gun--this is strictly a wartime gun. Also production of the "S" series continued until 1948, when the "C" series was started, including over one million "M&P" models, including the Victory model, which was this model, were manufactured between 1942 through March of 1948; and since that date, Smith and Wesson has produced over 500,000 "M&P" revolvers in the "C" series, which, when you add them up--there are over two and a half million.

Mr. EISENBERG. Two and a half million?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Over 2-1/2 million.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, apart from specially handmade or equivalent weapons, how many other types of weapons have you encountered which have these rifling characteristics?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Other than possibly a Spanish-made copy of the Smith--the Smith is the only one in .38 Special now that will have similar rifling characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say Spanish-made, you are referring to the basement type of operation?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this weapon did not produce, and does not produce--that is, the weapon 143--does not produce identical microscopic characteristics from bullet to bullet, you have testified. And you have told us that the reason might be that the weapon was rechambered but not rebarrelled, so that the .38 Special is slightly undersized for the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has not been rebarrelled.

Mr. EISENBERG. That's right. So when you fire a .38 Special, it is slightly undersized, and this might affect the barrel characteristics? Wasn't that your testimony? That the .38 Special is slightly undersized?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; approximately four-thousandths of an inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you therefore limit the number of possible weapons from which the bullets might have been fired, not only to the 2-1/2 million S&W's which you discussed, plus the possibility of Spanish homemade weapons, but also to those weapons, that subcategory of weapons within those 2-1/2 million, which does not produce microscopic characteristics such that you can identify bullets fired from them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; you cannot, due to the fact that there was also the possibility that the inability to identify consecutive tests from that weapon could be caused from an accumulation of lead or from barrel wear--the barrel was actually physically changing.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is not quite what I meant. Out of every ten S&W .38 Specials, on the basis of your experience, how many do you think would produce rifling characteristics such that you could identify bullets fired from them?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, you could tell if the rifling characteristics are similar. But as far as the individual characteristic marks, that would be on an individual basis. Much depends on the imperfections in the barrel. Now, if you have some real deep imperfections in a barrel, it would be possible to pick them up each time. Even though you would have a lot of dissimilarities, the similarities would be so distinctive that there is always a possibility you could identify them. But not this weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Rhyne asked before whether it was usual or unusual to get this type of weapon not producing microscopic characteristics such that you could identify the bullet to the gun. You said it was not unusual.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I say out of every 10 such weapons, how many would you expect to be in this condition--that is, in a condition such that you cannot make an identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing that.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of your experience, the experience that led you to say it is not unusual to have this condition?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can only say that you find them, that you cannot identify them, so it is not unusual. But as to numbers, I could not say. When you go back and you take all the hundreds and hundreds of examinations I have made, it is not unusual. But I also will not say that it is usual. I will go to the negative, I will say it is not unusual.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you agree that out of the 2-1/2 million possible weapons it could only have been fired from a gun which will not produce microscopic characteristics such that you can identify the bullet to the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There is a good indication of that; yes. However, there is mutilation on all four of the bullets. But the three we are talking about, the ones that had marks for comparison purposes, now, even though the possibility is remote, it is still possible that there is mutilation in different areas of each bullet, so you would not be able to identify them. Even if the bullets--even if they had not been mutilated, you maybe still could not identify them. In other words, your mutilation on different parts of each bullet would preclude the possibility of identifying them with each other. So I cannot answer your question positively.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have one subject remaining with this witness. Mr. Cunningham, are you familiar with the paraffin test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you administered this test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the approximate number of times you have administered it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know the exact number, but I must have performed this test at least 100 times, and probably more.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will state for the record--I know you do not know of this of your own knowledge, Mr. Cunningham--but a paraffin test was performed on Lee Harvey Oswald by the Dallas Police. Three paraffin casts were made, one of the right cheek, one of the right hand, and one of the left hand. There was no reaction on the paraffin test of the right cheek. There was a reaction on the paraffin test of each of the right and left hands.

I will now hand you a sketch which was made by a participant in those tests, which shows the distribution of the blue or violet dots which constitute a positive reaction to this test on the left and right hands of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Representative BOGGS. Before you do that, Mr. Cunningham, will you describe briefly the procedure on a paraffin test? I want to understand exactly what it is.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The so-called paraffin test is the making of reinforced paraffin casts, of a person's hands, and then treating either with either one of two reagents. One is diphenylamine, and the other is diphenylbenzidine.

Representative BOGGS. Is that when the cast is on?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is definitely after it is removed.

Representative FORD. You actually make a cast of the individual's hand?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, yes.

Representative BOGGS. You make the casts. Then you take the casts off.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You slit it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how the cast is made?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. You first take warm paraffin. Each paraffin melts at a slightly different temperature. What we were using in our tests melts at about 130°. And this hot paraffin is placed on the hands. It is spread on with a brush, or it can be poured over. If you are sure that your brush is absolutely clean and will not react--and we checked all of our equipment so that we were not getting a reaction from the diphenylbenzidine--we let it pour on from the brush. Once you get a coating, you can just brush it on, because then you won't be disturbing any materials on the hands. And after you get a coat on, you take gauze bandages and lay them on top and put more paraffin on them. The gauze does nothing more than to give it reinforcement so it won't fall apart or crumble when it gets real cool. Then you cut them off the hands after they cool. Then they are chemically processed with either diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine.

Representative BOGGS. The cast?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; the portion of the cast next to the hand.

Representative BOGGS. Right. I understand now.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why paraffin is used? What is the action of the paraffin?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, the warm paraffin has the effect of opening up the pores of the skin and many times material that you cannot get off from washing will be picked up in the sticky paraffin. As it is cooling, the dirt and the foreign material on the hands will become embedded in the paraffin.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the paraffin acts as a base to pick up----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It acts as a medium in which the foreign material is picked up from the hands.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you add the reagent, what is considered to be a positive reaction?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It turns a blue color.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the cast? When you say "it," it is the cast?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, specks on the cast.

Mr. EISENBERG. Dots?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, or an area of the cast. The theory of the test is that it is a test for gunpowder residues. Now, that is the theory, and it is fallacious, inasmuch as the reagents used in these two tests are not specific for gunpowder residues. Now, it is true that the nitrates and nitrites in gunpowder residues will react positively with diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine, but they are not specific. They will react--these two reagents will react with most oxidizing agents.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us a few examples?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Urine, tobacco, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, soil, fertilizer--I have a list here of the different families or classes of compounds that will react.

In addition to nitrates and nitrites, substances such as dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorites, periodates, some oxides, such as selenium dioxide and so forth. Also, ferric chloride and chromates and chlorates. The list of oxidizing agents is so large--that will react--that you cannot specifically say it was a gunpowder residue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Supposedly it is to determine whether or not a person has fired a weapon. In actuality, in chemistry it is a good indication that an oxidizing agent is present. The reagents have a valid use in a chemistry laboratory.

Representative BOGGS. Let me put the question this way. Given a dozen ordinary people in the ordinary walk of life, what would be the chance of a positive reaction on any one of these 12 people?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has the FBI performed an experiment to determine this?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we have. The early sets of tests we ran with diphenylamine. And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands. That was the first test we ran.

The second test--we used people who had not washed their hands in any way. They were going about their duties during the day. Their hands were soiled. Nine people fired weapons out of 29--20 people just had the casts made.

The first person fired a revolver. Both right hand and left hand were positive. The second person fired a revolver. Both hands positive. A person fired an automatic pistol, where you would not expect to find residue. Both hands positive. Shooting with the right hand only, again one with a revolver and three people firing automatics, all positive. Shooting with the left hand only, one person with a revolver, one with an automatic, both hands positive.

Now, of the 20 people that had not come in contact with a gun--they definitely had just gone about their business--every one of them showed positive tests on either or both hands. A heavy smoker, for instance, would come up positive in the area of the hand where you expect to find residues from firing a gun.

Representative FORD. That is the hand that you use for smoking?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That's correct. And I noticed you with your pipe. You are also sure to react because you touch the tobacco in your pipe. You do it unconsciously. During another test we performed recently I did not know that the diphenylbenzidine was on the corner of the cast I was trying to pick up to wash off. I just touched it, and both my fingers which had touched my cigar turned a blue color. That is how sensitive it is.

Now, of these 20 people--true there were some that had one hand that did not get a reaction, but they all got a reaction, one hand or another, or both.

Now, recently in connection with the assassination we made casts--the three of us, Special Agents Frazier, Killion, and myself, for neutron-activation. However, two of the casts we treated with diphenylbenzidine. We obtained a cast of the left hand after firing this particular revolver four times and reloading. We obtained a cast of the right hand after firing that revolver four times, and reloading. We treated both casts, fronts and backs with diphenylbenzidine. This particular one was run on me. I washed my hands thoroughly with green soap--and the green soap, by the way, did not react because we checked it--the gauze used and the paraffin were all checked, to see if they would react, and they did not. We found numerous, numerous reactions on the casts of both hand. And I did not fire a weapon with my left hand. However, as I previously showed you, when I demonstrated how you ejected cartridge cases, all of those residues showed up, as well as, I am sure, other foreign material that the paraffin removed from my hands. And there were reactions on both hands, fronts and backs.

Now, theoretically, you should not find them on the backs over here, because I had my left hand behind me, and you would find it on the palm. We found reactions everywhere on the casts.

Representative FORD. It is 12:30 now. We will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.

Mr. DULLES. You are still under oath, Mr. Cunningham, so we won't swear you again. Will you proceed?

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I would like to take up a few things relating to this morning's testimony and then we will go back to paraffin test.

First, I hand you two bullets and I ask you whether you are familiar with these bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on those bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the nose; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify them to us?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These are two of the tests that I fired from Commission Exhibit 143, Oswald's revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. One is a----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One of them is a copper-coated lead bullet. In this case, I know that it is Western, because that was the cartridge I used, and the other one is a Winchester .38 Special lead bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted in evidence as Commission Exhibit 606?

Mr. DULLES. They may be admitted as 606.

(The bullets referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 606, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, using these bullets as demonstrations, could you tell us how you determined that the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, which you looked at this morning, and those were Exhibits 602 through 604, were respectively a Western-Winchester .38 Special and a Remington-Peters .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; however, I couldn't do it with these two bullets.

Mr. EISENBERG. Sure, use 602 to----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The copper-coated lead bullet. I could use and I did use it--I made a photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we discuss that further, let's see if we can mark that for identification. Can you describe what is in this photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. It is a photograph of four bullets. The first bullet starting from the left is Commission Exhibit No. 604. As you can see right on the label, it is Q-501, which would be Commission Exhibit 604. The next bullet to it is a test bullet that I fired from Commission Exhibit 143, which is a known 158-grain lead bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture.

The third bullet in the photograph is our number C-253, which is Commission Exhibit No. 603. And the fourth bullet in the photograph is this particular bullet which you have given Commission Exhibit 606. It is a copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I was present when it was taken. I compared the bullets with the negative, and I can testify that this photograph is a true representation--an accurate representation of the four bullets that were photographed.

Mr. DULLES. And this photograph is Commission Exhibit No.----

Mr. EISENBERG. If you will admit it into evidence, it will be 607.

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 607 and was received in evidence.)

(At this point Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)

Mr. DULLES. All right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, we have introduced a photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 607, which shows four bullets labeled "C-252," "R-P," "C-253," and "Western."

Are two of those bullets the bullets which you just identified as Exhibit 606?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; Commission Exhibit 606, the copper-coated Western bullet, is the same bullet that was in this photograph, labeled the Western bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you hold that up?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; that is the bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG. The copper-coated or copper-colored bullet in 606 corresponds with the far right-hand side bullet labeled "Western" in 607?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the lead-colored bullet in 606?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is a Remington-Peters 158-grain lead bullet. I do not have that one with me.

Mr. EISENBERG. This would be similar in appearance though to the bullet which was photographed as the "R-P" bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it isn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Because this is a Winchester.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why isn't it copper coated?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Corp. loads both lead- and copper-coated bullets into their .38 Specials.

As of today, Winchester is only loading--under that brand--uncoated bullets. That is what their latest catalog says.

Only Western is loading copper-coated bullets. They are both made in the same factory--they are both made by the Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. in East Alton, Ill.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you didn't give us an R-P test bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Did you use an R-P test bullet in attempting to make your identification?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; you asked for our first two tests.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Okay. Can you show by use of that photograph, Exhibit 607, how you were able to determine that certain of the bullets found in Officer Tippit were of R-P manufacture, .38 Special, and certain were Winchester-Western?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

First of all, in the manufacture of these bullets, each manufacturer has his own specifications for how they are to look. By that I mean generally that both manufacturers' bullets are similar. They are similar in weight. They are generally similar in size and diameter as well as length. However, the number and the spacing between the grooves--these grooves, the cannelures, are not similar. It is actually a knurling process, you can see the knurling marks.

Mr. DULLES. What is the purpose of those?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Lubrication grooves. .38 Specials being lead bullets--in order to keep down excessive leading they put in a lubricant--Remington-Peters--they use a very dark heavy lubricant. Western-Winchester, they use a very light-colored waxy type of lubricant.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Up above you will see a small groove. It is nothing more than just a slight groove. That can be caused when the case is crimped, the bullet is crimped into the case.

Representative FORD. That is in the R-P?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On both of them, sir.

Representative FORD. That is on both?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; you see one here, that has actually been put in. They load up to that certain place and they crimp into that groove, which is known as a crimping groove.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say crimping groove, do you mean the cartridge is tightened around the case?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The neck of the case is tightened around--is crimped into the bullet. The distance between the base to the first cannelure, and the width of the cannelure, the portion of the bullet between the two cannelures, and the width of the next cannelure, is individual with Remington-Peters bullets.

In other words, Western-Winchester bullets are not made with the same width cannelures and the same distances between the two of them. Each manufacturer prefers to have a certain distance between cannelures and a certain width of cannelure, and it is strictly individual to each company. By these specifications--and also another very important thing is the base shape--you can determine whether or not a bullet is of one manufacture or another.

If you will take these two, one of the tests in Commission Exhibit No. 606, you will see that the number, the width and everything about the copper-coated Western and the uncoated Winchester are the same. In other words, they put a flash coat of the gilding metal on the bullet and as I testified previously its chief value is for sales appeal, and, a secondary value to prevent leading.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record again. Continue please.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, as of November 22, 1963, how many major manufacturers were there in the United States who were manufacturing .38 Special bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Three.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who were they?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First, is the Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., East Alton, Ill., which manufactures ammunition under the trade names "Western" as well as "Winchester."

The next major manufacturer is Du Pont, and they manufacture in their Remington Cartridge Division ammunition under the trade names "Remington" and "Peters," and the third manufacturer is Federal Cartridge Co. in Minneapolis.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many manufacturers of .38 Special ammunition are there outside the United States, approximately?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing all of them. I know it is manufactured in Canada by Dominion, and Norma also manufactures it.

Mr. DULLES. What was that name?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Norma.

Mr. DULLES. N-o-r-m-a?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. In Canada too?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it is in Sweden.

DWM in Germany must manufacture it, I am just recalling these larger manufacturers that should manufacture it. Also, some English manufacturers.

Mr. EISENBERG. How are you certain that one of the bullets found in Officer Tippit was not manufactured by one of the foreign manufacturers, either one you are acquainted with or one you are not?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We maintain a Test Specimen and a Standard Ammunition File, and we have foreign ammunition in them, although I don't think we have all of the foreign. But we have never come across a foreign-made bullet with the same physical characteristics as the bullets represented by those removed from the body of Officer Tippit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you attempt to get a complete file of .38 Special ammunition?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We definitely maintain an up-to-date file in our Standard Ammunition File in the laboratory of all domestic manufactured ammunition as well as some foreign, for instance, Norma and Dominion, and we have specimens from other foreign manufacturers.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you say that of the specimens you do have which you feel are as complete as possible you have never come across two types which are similar at least to these .38 Specials?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now Mr. Frazier yesterday said that the Walker bullet seemed to be a 6.5 millimeter bullet or may have been fired from the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, had the same general rifling characteristics as was found on that rifle which is in evidence as Commission Exhibit----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 139.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; 139.

Now do you have a complete file of 6.5 or a large file of 6.5 millimeter ammunition?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have some.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel it is as complete as your .38 Special file?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I do not. However, we have never found any foreign manufacturer manufacturing 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition that was similar to this.

From its general appearance, it has all the similarities of a western-world-manufactured bullet----

Mr. EISENBERG. Now this is Commission----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the knurling is typical--the physical characteristics were similar to those of the bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is Commission Exhibit 573, which is the--as to which Mr. Frazier has testified, and which is believed to be the bullet found in the Walker residence.

Are you familiar with it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have examined it as well as Mr. Frazier?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this bullet was a 6.5-mm. Western copper-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would.

Mr. EISENBERG. As definitely as you say the bullets which we have just been looking at are respectively Remington-Peters and Western-Winchester .38 Special bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Could I see that just a moment?

What did that hit, the brick wall of the house?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have no idea, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You don't know?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know. I have no first-hand knowledge of it. It is in essentially the same condition as when we received it in the laboratory, and all I know would be what has already been furnished your Commission by report.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now given the fact that that was a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that have been fired in any other 6.5-millimeter rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it has to be a rifle that is chambered specifically for this particular cartridge. In other words, there are other 6.5-millimeter cartridges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, as I understand it, your conclusion and Mr. Frazier's was only that this cartridge, that this bullet, could have been fired from Exhibit 139 or a rifle with similar----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the basis of the rifling characteristics it could have been fired from 139. However, there are insufficient marks remaining to determine whether or not it had actually been so fired.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now the testimony yesterday as I recall it was that it was fired either from Exhibit 139 or from a rifle with similar, or from a weapon with similar rifling characteristics?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. But according to your testimony it would have to be similar to a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I did not so testify. You asked if you could fire another 6.5-mm. cartridge other than the cartridge----

Mr. EISENBERG. I asked if that cartridge, if a Western manufacture 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could be fired in a gun other than the 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. And you said, as I recall it, "It could only be fired from a gun chambered for that cartridge."

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. That 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could only be fired in a weapon that is chambered for that particular cartridge. Further we have never found another cartridge that this particular type bullet has been loaded into.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any reason to believe there is another 6.5-millimeter rifle manufactured that is chambered for that cartridge?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None that I know of. Maybe I misunderstood you. You mean, if the weapon is chambered for a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, then that is commonly known as its caliber?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But you can rechamber weapons for another cartridge, as they do all the time with the military surplus Springfield rifles. You can have them rebarreled and rechambered.

Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from rechambering, talking just about original manufacture, do I understand that the only weapon which you have encountered, the only 6.5 millimeter weapon you have encountered which would fire the particular type of cartridge which is Exhibit 573 is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the various models of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.

Before the luncheon--are there any further questions along this line?

Before the luncheon recess we were talking about the paraffin test and we were discussing the significance of a positive result, and you had given testimony concerning two experiments which the FBI had run which indicated that positive results might be obtained even by a person who had not recently fired a weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you expect to find residues on a person who has fired a revolver such as Commission Exhibit 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again, by its design, you would expect to find something, although there are cases where you won't find it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you expect to find a residue in the case of the revolver as opposed to the rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A revolver has a revolving cylinder. There is a space between the barrel and the front portion of the cylinder.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show that by use of Exhibit 143?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can see when you close the cylinder, and each chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp and then into the rifling.

The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues around the entrance to the rear portion of the barrel which is next to the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself.

So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands after he fired a revolver.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that there is no equivalent gap in the manufacture of a rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you run any kind of a test with this revolver which would indicate whether it did in fact leave residues?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; I did, or we did, three of us, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Killion, and myself. The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with green soap and rinsed them in distilled water.

Mr. EISENBERG. The purpose of this washing was what?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet-recovery room, four times--and then after firing I opened it up and ejected the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the cartridge cases was in my hand at the time.

I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of diphenylbenzidine.

The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, you testified this morning that many common substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-called paraffin test.

Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this test so unreliable. Handling a recently fired weapon, that is covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and in some cases more--especially up here and around here you would.

Mr. DULLES. Does the time between the tests, between the firing and the test, make very much difference, within a few hours?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the residues are on the skin they will react. In other words, if the material has been washed off completely, then you are all through, but if it remains on the skin or is imbedded in the pores of the skin it would still react, but so will so many other things.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review for a second your testimony this morning, in the experiments that the FBI ran, a revolver or automatic pistol were used as opposed to rifles, as I recall it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any negative results following the shooting of the revolver or automatic pistol?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None of those were negative results, but they were not run under the same conditions. By the way, with an automatic pistol you shouldn't expect to find any residues, for the same reason as with a rifle--the cartridge is chamber, and the boltface comes in right behind.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you look at your notes for your first experiment, because as I recall there were some negative results on that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am talking about the first experiment now, not the second one.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The first experiment--yes; that was true. This test was a little bit different.

In other words, they were not just taking people from their work. These people had washed their hands.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, their hands were cleaned before they fired the weapon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. But then some of them fired a revolver and still didn't get a residue, as I remember your testimony?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.

We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not tired a gun that day.

Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.

Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?

Representative FORD. Based on your testimony this morning, and what you have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted and how extensively are they?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the cast and we will process them.

However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction.

Representative FORD. Is this a test that has been conducted by law-enforcement agencies for some time. Is it a new test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the first test that I reported on here were conducted in 1935.

There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons.

Mr. DULLES. Explain that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, "We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now," and they will--it is--

Mr. DULLES. I get your point.

Mr. EISENBERG. Following up Congressman Ford's question, does the FBI run paraffin tests except on request from other law-enforcement agencies?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't, no. Basically, the paraffin test is the preparing of the cast. We don't do that. We will run the chemical processing of these casts at the request of the local law-enforcement agency.

Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.

Representative FORD. Is that because of the feeling that it is not as reliable as it should be?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon. It is positive, and diphenlybenzidine solution is very positive and very sensitive, as to whether or not an oxidizing agent is present and it is used in chemistry.

Mr. DULLES. You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here, wouldn't we?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I mentioned that this morning.

Representative FORD. He brought it out this morning.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would be willing to state right now if we processed both of your hands you would come up positive, because invariably pipe smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would get a positive reaction.

I am a cigar smoker, I also would come up positive.

Mr. EISENBERG. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any further questions?

Representative FORD. I have no questions.

Mr. RHYNE. I take it in sum and substance that these paraffin tests are practically worthless?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For the determination of whether or not a person has fired a weapon.

Mr. RHYNE. A gun?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Now the test is not worthless in chemistry.

Mr. DULLES. What use are they then except possibly from this psychological angle that you have mentioned?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't----

Mr. DULLES. Are they useful in other ways than but for the psychological reasons you mentioned?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As far as whether or not a person has fired a gun?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. Even with the mere handling of this weapon I could pick up residues. One could not testify that a person has fired a weapon because he had residues on his hands, which I showed you this morning, for example.

There is a spot right there on my hand, and all I have done is empty the weapon.

Representative FORD. Did the FBI conduct a paraffin test on Oswald?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the Dallas Police Department did.

Representative FORD. The FBI did not?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did not, sir.

Representative FORD. You didn't analyze it?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did not. We obtained the paraffin casts and another agent in the spectographic unit took them to Oak Ridge and had them subjected to neutron activation, with which I am not familiar. But we did not do the original examination and the reporting. I don't know definitely as to what the Dallas Police Department did.

Mr. EISENBERG. It was under the supervision of the Dallas Police Department. I think a doctor performed the test, I am not sure whether it was a police doctor or not.

By the way, after the paraffin test is run, does the positive reaction stay evident on the paraffin cast?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it does not, due to the fact you have to wash it off. The solution of diphenylbenzidine is 70 percent sulphuric acid. The solution we were using in these tests was .25 grams of diphenylbenzidine to 100 ml. of 70 percent sulphuric acid, and sulphuric acid is corrosive. In other words, the majority of the solution is 70 percent sulphuric acid.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the casts as they are now don't show anything except white paraffin?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. You have no further questions?

Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. Thank you very much, sir.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH D. NICOL

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Nicol, I am presiding at the request of the Chief Justice.

Will you kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. NICOL. I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, would you state your name and position?

Mr. NICOL. Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly describe your qualifications in the field of firearms investigation?

Mr. NICOL. I began studying this field in 1941 in the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory under Charles Wilson, remained there as a firearms technician for approximately 9 years, and then moved to Pittsburgh, where I directed and set up the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Crime Laboratory, also working in the field of ballistics.

Then I went to Miami, Fla., and set up the Dade County Crime Laboratory and worked there for 5 years. I went to Michigan State and taught for 4 and now I am back in Illinois, in Springfield, as Superintendent of the Bureau.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us approximately how many bullets and cartridge cases you have examined to identify them or attempt to identify them to suspect weapons?

Mr. NICOL. This would number in the thousands, I do not have an exact figure, but our caseload in Chicago is approximately 4,000 guns annually, of which we would make approximately between 10 and a dozen comparisons, so the comparisons that would be conducted by myself or those under my direct supervision would be approximately 50,000 a year. Now this is just a rough figure.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any publications or lectures?

Mr. NICOL. I have one minor publication in the field of firearms. Most of my publication work has been with the "Journal of Criminology" in the area, of the technical note and abstract section.

I do not have any major publications in the firearms field.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your association with that Journal?

Mr. NICOL. I am associate editor of the "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology."

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you lecture on any regular basis?

Mr. NICOL. At the present time I am lecturing with the University of Illinois in criminal investigation, at the Chicago campus, and prior to that I had been on the staff at Michigan State University for approximately 4 years.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your education before you went into this field?

Mr. NICOL. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Northwestern, and during the period that I was with the Chicago Crime Laboratory I got a Master's in Physics also from Northwestern.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to take Mr. Nicol's testimony as an expert witness in the field of firearms identification.

Mr. DULLES. You may proceed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I will hand you 3 exhibits, 3 items, Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 569, which I will describe for the record as being a bullet and 2 bullet fragments, and I ask you whether you are familiar with those 3 Commission Exhibits?

Mr. NICOL. May I examine them?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, you may.

Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.

Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?

Mr. NICOL. This being 399.

Exhibit 567, this was referred to as Q-2, and also accompanied the other exhibit.

Commission Exhibit 569, this is Q-3.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on those exhibits?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, I have marked my initials on an unrifled portion of each one of these exhibits. There were also other marks on it at the time I received the specimens.

Mr. EISENBERG. I don't know whether you gentlemen have seen these. These are rifle bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that was found on the stretcher?

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit 399 is the bullet that was found on the stretcher. Exhibits 567 and 569 were found in the front portion of the President's car.

Mr. DULLES. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?

Mr. NICOL. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether they come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose portion and the other is a base.

Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that is the nose portion?

Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission Exhibit 569.

Mr. NICOL. No, that would be the base portion.

Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same bullet possibly?

Mr. NICOL. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of approximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area where one begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least I couldn't to express an opinion.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of the same bullet?

Mr. NICOL. Two parts of the same or separate bullets that is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit 572, which for the record consists of two bullets, and ask you whether you are familiar with those bullets?

Mr. NICOL. These are the two projectiles which were given to me as K-1, and were used by me as standards or tests.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say "standards or tests," could you amplify that?

Mr. NICOL. On the basis of information on the cartridge, or on the envelope, rather, it was my understanding that these had been fired from a weapon. I have not any personal knowledge of the weapon from which they were fired, but they were used as comparison standards to be compared against rifling impressions on the other three exhibits.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you obtained these four exhibits which you have just looked at?

Mr. NICOL. All these exhibits were obtained from Mr. Eisenberg on March 24, here in this office.

Mr. EISENBERG. And for the record, I obtained these items from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and transmitted them directly to Mr. Nicol for his examination.

Now, Mr. Nicol, you therefore did not fire the two test bullets which you used in your comparison?

Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you go into that at any length as to--do you have any reason for that?

Mr. NICOL. Well, probably two very basic reasons. One, the matter of time, and secondly the fact that I did not have facilities in the area where I was working for the collection of such tests from a high-powered weapon.