TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT
Mr. McCLOY. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give in this case, this hearing, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so held you God?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do.
Mr. McCLOY. You know why we are here? It is to ascertain all the facts and circumstances which seem to be relevant to the assassination of the President and the death of his alleged assassin, and there are certain identifications which I believe you can be helpful to us with, and with that I will just ask you to respond to the questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, can you state your full name, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.
(At this point, the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937. I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8 years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive experience in photography.
I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations you have made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court on the subject?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG Mr. Chairman, may this witness testify as an expert in the area of photography?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; I think he is qualified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you two small photographs which have been already marked "Commission Exhibit 133," and I ask you whether you are familiar with these photographs?
279
Page 280
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, these photographs appear to show Lee Harvey Oswald in two different poses, and they were found by police officers, following his apprehension, at one of the premises at which he resided.
Mr. Chairman, I would like your permission to mark these Photographs "A" and "B" for easy identification; they have already been marked "Commission Exhibit 133."
Again for the record, there are two poses represented in these photographs. In one the rifle is held--a rifle is held--in front of the body, and in one it is held somewhat above the torso. I am marking the rifle the photograph in which the weapon is held in front of the body--as A, and the photograph in which the weapon is held somewhat above the body as B.
Mr. McCLOY. When you say above the body, you mean above and to the right side of the body as Oswald faces the viewer?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you prepared reproductions of Exhibit 133A to show the weapon pictured therein in further detail?Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those reproductions? Did you prepare these yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did. They were prepared by rephotographing Commission Exhibit 133A, to preparing a negative from which I made a variety of prints of different densities to bring out the devil of the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "of different densities," could you explain that in lay terns?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; to try to get greater variation between the light and dark areas of the photograph, or to bring out or enhance the contrast so that the detail is more apparent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these photographs admitted as Commission Exhibit 746.
Mr. McCLOY. You want to put them all into one exhibit?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; and I will subnumber them A, B, C, D, E.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you identified these sufficiently?Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I have.
Mr. McCLOY. I wonder whether you have?
Mr. EISENBERG. The witness has identified these as subphotographs of 133A. There are five photographs, is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Different dimensions?
Mr. EISENBERG. Two photographs being what size?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Two 11 by 14 inches, and three 8 by 10 inches.
(At this point Representative Ford entered hearing room.)
Mr. McCLOY. Very well, they will be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 746 was marked and received in evident.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show I have marked these "Exhibits 746 A, B, C, D, E", the two larger photographs being marked "A" and "B," and three smaller photographs being marked "C," "D," and "E."
Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you a rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, which for the record I will state is the rifle which was used in the assassination, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of this weapon, Mr. Shaneyfelt, showing it in approximately the same manner as it is shown in Commission Exhibit 133A, but without it being held by anyone?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare this photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I prepared it myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8- by 10-inch photograph, is it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 747?
280
Page 281
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 747, and received into evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a simulated photograph showing this weapon, Commission Exhibit 139, held in approximately the same pose as it appears to be held in Commission Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8-by 10-inch photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which you prepared yourself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I prepared the photograph myself, having the rifle held in approximately the same position as in Exhibit 133A, and I attempted to duplicate the lighting of the photograph, Exhibit 133A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 748, and was received into evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Where was this photograph prepared, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was prepared in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this inside or outside?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Outside.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the roof?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the roof of the Justice Building.
Mr. EISENBERG. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences
. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, looking at this Commission Exhibit 139, the weapon, I see that the stock is curved downward, about 8 inches--at a point approximately 8 inches--from the butt of the weapon, and that it then re-curves upward at an angle of approximately 10° to the plane of the forepart of the butt--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will hand you Commission Exhibits 746 A through E, and I will ask you to select from those exhibits the photograph which best brings out the various details of the weapon.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that the contour of the stock is best shown in Commission Exhibit 746E.
281
731-220 O--64--vol.IV----19
Page 282
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you take----
Mr. McCLOY. Is that better shown than in the larger pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe it is; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a marking pencil, Mr. Shaneyfelt, and circle the point at which the curve and recurve appear to show, and mark that circle with an A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You circled a point which is marked predominantly by a highlight, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, without tampering with the original, 133A, I wonder whether you could show to the Commissioners the highlight as it appears on the original photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the highlight is right at that point there, the bright spot at that point.
Mr. McCLOY. I think I might say for the record, I don't believe you identified the place where these photographs were purported to be sited. As I understand it these are from the Neely residence?
Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; I think they were located in the Paine garage. The Neely residence----
Mr. McCLOY The photographs were located in the Paine garage. I am talking about the site of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; I think we will show that with independent testimony.
Mr. McCLOY In the garden of the Neely residence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I will hand you Exhibits 747 and 748, which are the pictures of the rifle and the simulated picture approximating 133A, and I will ask you to again mark with a circle designated A the curve and recurve of the stock of 139.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you compare the manner in which the curve and re-curve marked "A" appears on these photographs with the manner in which it appears on 746, the photograph you have- 746E, the photograph you circled earlier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At a point approximately 6 to 8 inches from the base of the stock, where the stock curves downward, there is a nob formed, and on that nob there is a strong highlight which appears in photograph 746E, and in the simulated photograph, and the photograph of the rifle. The actual stock curves slightly around that highlight, and then recurves back up toward the bolt, and this is visible in Exhibit 746E, and in the simulated photographs 748 and 747.
Mr. EISENBERG. So again in 747 and 748 the recurve appears primarily as a highlight; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. That is the most outstanding point.
Mr. EISENBERG. I also observe, Mr. Shaneyfelt, the telescopic sight on Exhibit 139, the weapon. Referring again to 746E, your reproduction, which shows somewhat greater detail because of the contrast, could you circle the telescopic sight appearing in that picture, and mark it "B"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right here.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could again show to the Commissioners the telescopic sight on the original 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Along that area, just at the base of the hand. It runs right across from this area to the base of the hand below the rifle and above the bolt.
Mr. McCLOY. It is quite apparent, isn't it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is quite apparent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, again referring to 746E, could you circle the end of the weapon, the end of the barrel of the weapon, and mark it "C"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, towards the upper right of the point you have marked as the end of the weapon there is a little mark of some type right near the point which you have marked "C."
Is that mark part of the end of the weapon?
282
Page 283
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I interpret that mark as a shadow on the building, a slight shadow on the building.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to make that clear, could you draw an arrow within your circle pointing to the end of the weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a negative which, for the record, appears to be a negative of 133B, which is the photograph showing the weapon held slightly above and to the right, and I ask you if you are familiar with this negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you examined this negative to deter- mine whether the picture 133B is in fact a print made directly or indirectly from the negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I have examined it for that purpose and determined that Exhibit 133B is a print from this negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this negative introduced into evidence as Exhibit 749?
Mr. McCLOY. Have you any other identification as to this negative as to where it was found?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record only, nothing that this witness can testify to----
Mr. McCLOY. State for the record where it was found.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this was also found at one of Oswald's residences, I believe the Paine address at which Marina was staying at the time Oswald was apprehended.
Mr. McCLOY. This will be proved?
Mr. EISENBERG. This will be proved separately.
The CHAIRMAN. Will this negative deteriorate as time goes on?Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.
The CHAIRMAN. It will not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It should not.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Normally this depends on the processing, how well it has been processed and how well it has been fixed and washed. If it were going to deteriorate it would have begun by now.
The CHAIRMAN. I see and it has not yet begun?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has not begun. There is no indication that there will be any extensive deterioration.
Representative FORD. Have we shown any place in the record that that print or a negative came from a camera----
Mr. EISENBERG. That is what I was going to proceed to do, sir. Mr. Chairman, may we have this admitted as Exhibit 749?
Mr. McCLOY. Admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 749 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I asked you before whether you could say whether this negative, which is now 749, had been used directly or indirectly to make the print 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you say whether it had been used either directly or indirectly?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print
. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was made.I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process.
Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.
283
Page 284
Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. Let me state for the record, that this camera was turned over to the FBI by Robert Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, on February 2 1964.Robert Oswald identified the camera as having belonged to Lee Oswald and stated that he, Robert, had obtained it from the Paine residence in December 1963, several weeks after the assassination.
On February 25, 1964, Marina was given the camera and she identified it as the one which she had used to take the pictures 133A and 133B.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, are you familiar with this camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 750?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 750 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the camera, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was--I can't pinpoint the date exactly, I don't have the notes here for that. It was, I would say, the latter part of February, not too long after it had been recovered on February 24.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it in working order when you received it?Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it had been slightly damaged.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In order to be able to make a photograph with the camera, I had to make slight repairs to the shutter lever, which had been beat. I straightened it and cleaned the lens in order to remove the dirt which had accumulated. These were the only things that had to be done before it was usable to make pictures with it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean the inside or the outside of the lens?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The outside of the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the shutter lever you are referring to is the little red-tipped lever protruding at the outside of the camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. What did you do with it exactly?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I bent it out straight. It was bent over.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could a layman have performed these repairs?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he could have.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you were able to arrive at such a conclusion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I can.
In order to make an examination of this type, it is necessary to make a negative with the camera, using the camera, because the examination is based on the aperture
at the back of the camera, at the film plane.
284
Page 285
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of that aperture at the film plane?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have an enlarged photograph of that aperture, that I made so that it would better show the back of the camera, with the back removed to show the film plane opening or aperture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph of the back of the camera yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made under my supervision.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 751?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 751 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement here, by the way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately two and a half times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, having reference to the chart, Mr. Shaneyfelt, could you explain it in a little more detail, the basis of your examination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the basis of the examination was a close microscopic study of the negative made in the camera to study the shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture.
As the film is placed across the aperture of the camera, and the shutter is opened, light comes through and exposes the film only in the opening within the edges. Where the film is out over the edges of the aperture it is not exposed, and your result is an exposed negative with a clear edge, and on the negative then, the edges of that exposure of the photograph, are actually shadowgraphs of the edges of the aperture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle or mark with arrows the edges you are referring to as "these edges" or "this edge," that is, the edges of the aperture opening at the plane of the film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. This would be true in every picture taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That would be true of every picture taken and is true of virtually every camera--every roll-film type camera. It would not be true of a press-type camera where the film is loaded into separate holders; then the holder becomes the thing that will leave identifying characteristics.
On any 35 mm. or Leica camera, roll-film camera, box cameras of all types, having an arrangement, where the film goes across an opening leaving an exposed area at the aperture and unexposed area around the aperture, this would be true.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "virtually every camera" you are including every type of camera with this type of aperture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I would include every camera with this type of film arrangement and aperture.
Mr. EISENBERG. You held up a negative before----
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, gentlemen, you will excuse me, I must go over to the Court now. You will be able to proceed the rest of the day, will you?
Fine. I will be back as soon as I finish.
(At this point the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, you were holding up a negative which appears to be a negative of a simulated photograph you showed us before, Exhibit 748. Is it such a negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is true. That is the negative from which that exhibit was made. The negative was exposed in the camera which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 750. I exposed it myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this negative admitted as 752?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. That is the negative from which that exhibit was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
(Commission Exhibit No. 752 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. And you took that picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I took that picture myself.
Representative FORD. Is this a recognized technique or procedure used in or among experts such as yourself?
285
Page 286
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. We have used this technique of camera identification with film on several occasions. It doesn't arise too often. As it normally arises, the majority of examinations that I have made in this connection are the identification of a camera that has been stolen and the serial number removed so that it can't be identified, the owner cannot identify it. We then take the owner's film and the camera that has been recovered and make this examination and determine that this is in fact the camera that the owner's film was exposed in, thereby showing ownership.
So, it is a recognized technique, we do it regularly.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have performed such examinations yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is the basis of your statement, the theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold.
In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very similar, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a chart on which you have illustrated some of the more prominent points which led you to your identification, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this chart shows on the left a copy of your simulated picture number 748 and on the right a copy of the picture 133B, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you prepared this chart yourself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 753, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 753 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Before we get to this chart, I wonder whether you could take the negative itself, that is, Exhibit 749, and place it over the camera, Exhibit 750, so that the Commissioners can see how it runs across these across the sides of the aperture you have been discussing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I might state that this film at the time it is put in the camera is in a long strip, and at the time of processing it is cut apart into separate negatives. There is an unexposed area between each exposure, and they are cut apart for printing and storage and returning. So that then this would be in a long strip of film--the camera being held in this position, which is the normal position for taking a photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is upright?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Upright--will give you an image which on the film is upside down because of the light reflecting from the face, going through the lens and going down here; so this negative, Commission Exhibit 749, would have been on the film plane in this manner at the time the exposure was made.
The blackened area that you see would be the area that was exposed, and because of the aperture frame, the clear area around the edge was not exposed.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And this edge between the dark and the light then becomes the shadowgraph of this aperture of the camera.
Mr. EISENBERG. Your Commission Exhibit 753 illustrates that shadowgraph, or actually shows that shadowgraph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, the charts were printed to show the entire
286
Page 287
negative and reproduce the shadowgraphs of Commission Exhibit 749 and Commission Exhibit 752.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you refer now to that chart?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir. Referring to the chart then, the examination was made by comparing the edges, not only for size but general contour, and I have marked with numbers from 1 through 8 some of the more outstanding points of identification.
The eight points are not all that accounted for the identification. The identification is based on the fact that not only those eight points but every place else is the same on both negatives.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the contours are also the same?
Mr. SHANEYFELT, The contours are the same, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. So you have taken these eight points for demonstrative purposes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Rather than as being actually what you rested your identification on, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Point No. 1 which is in the lower right hand corner, as you view the picture of the chart----
Mr. McCLOY. Lower left-hand corner?
Mr. EISENBERG. As you view it, lower left hand?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. As you view it, lower left hand of both of the charts, shows a notch that makes the shadowgraph other than a straight line.
Representative FORD. This is very clear.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This appears the same in both charts. Point No. 2 is another similar notch except that it is a double one, and the little notches are smaller. This again is the same in both charts.
Point No. 3 is more of an indentation, a slight curvature where the edge curves out a little and back in toward the corner. It is not as pronounced a dent.
Point No. 4 is only visible by looking at the chart in this direction because----
Mr. EISENBERG. This direction being from left to right as you look?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Left to right, because although this line looks straight it actually dips down and back up again.
Mr. EISENBERG. "This line" is the line at the top of that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The line of the shadowgraph at the top of the photograph.
Representative FORD. That is point No. 4?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Four. Point No. 5 again is a slight dent or bulge in the edge and shows in both charts.
No. 6 is a more shallow and wide indentation along the edge.
Point No. 7 is again the same type of a characteristic as the others, but a little different shape.
Point No. 8 is a little fragment of bakelite or debris extending out from the edge, that shows in both of the charts in the same manner. In addition the corner at eight tends to curve in towards the picture as it approaches the corner, there tends to be a curvature in and not a nice neat square corner.
In addition, between points 2 and 3 there is a very definite S-curve where the bakelite from which the camera is made apparently warped slightly making this S-curve, and this is apparent in both charts. Again, more apparent as you hold the photograph flat and look down the line.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the margins of the shadowgraph in the right-hand side of the chart, which is based upon 133B, look somewhat larger than the margins on the left-hand side.
Could you explain that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was merely a matter of masking during the printing process.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say it is the interior which is crucial rather than the width of the margin?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. This mark along the bottom appears in one. How do you explain that?
287
Page 288
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. McCloy is pointing to a mark along the right-hand side, a white mark along the bottom of the shadowgraph.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the cut edge of the negative, where this particular negative has been cut very close to the shadowgraph line and this then appears as a white line along the chart and represents the actual edge of the negative.
The other three edges of that negative and all four edges of the other negative do not show in the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart actually prepared by use of exhibits--by the negatives, Exhibits 749 and 752, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I made the charts directly from those negatives.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately what is the enlargement here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately eight times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why eight times?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Six to eight, it is in that area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why the enlargement of 133B is haloed with a white, light halo?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the reason for that was to print the photograph so that it would be clearly a photograph of the negative and show the individual in the picture but not print too dark around the outside edges to give the best possible reproduction of the shadowgraph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect, that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some type.Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture. I found no such characteristics in this picture.In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched out.
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
Representative FORD. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.In addition, in this instance regarding Commission Exhibit 133B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.
288
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 289
This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn't seem that it-would be at all possible, in this particular photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph area.
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why does it not show on either 133 A or B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because they are printed in a normal processing procedure, where this area is normally blocked out to give a nice white border and make the picture a little more artistic. In the printing process, masks are placed over the area, or the shadowgraph, in order to cover it up, and the resulting print is a photograph with a nice white border.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind of identification you have made for us earlier?Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at 133B, are the observable characteristics of the weapon pictured in this picture----shown in this picture similar to the observable characteristics of Exhibit 139, the weapon used in the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they are less apparent in this photograph because it is a photograph of the bottom, or the base of the rifle, the bottom of the rifle along the trigger-guard area, but it does show this bottom of the rifle in that photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at 133A and 133B, do the lighting conditions seem to have been similar?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They are consistent, entirely consistent, in both photographs, the lighting on the face is the same, the lighting on the background is identical, there appear to be no major differences or no significant differences.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the, rifle.
However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has that appearance.
Representative FORD. Can you tell from a negative about when it was, the picture was taken, or can you develop any time from that?Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is possible on some negatives. In this instance it is not. On some negatives there is a numbering system along the edge that is ceded by the company that indicates manufacturing date, approximate manufacturing date, and it is usually by year, so that you could state that a film was coded by the company in 1947, therefore, it could not have been used prior to 1947.
289
Page 290
This is about as far as one can go in the establishment of time that a picture was taken from the actual film. This cannot be done in this instance.
Representative FORD. I notice on some prints which are now developed commercially that they have a date on the edge.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. Is this a universal practice now?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; this varies with the different processors. It is used by the large companies. I believe Eastman Kodak uses it. Your larger processing companies use it, but your smaller, maybe one-man shop or small photographic shop will probably not use it. It is at the discretion of the shop actually.
Representative FORD. Can you tell from a print which has been developed which processing plant processed that print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Not without some specific stamp of the processing company on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. I think we should add here for the record that the sling which is presently on the rifle is, as any other sling, a removable sling, and not one that is fixed into the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. It seems to me that this band here in Exhibit 746 is a, might very well be a reproduction of this, this lighter side of this rather enlarged leather part of the sling.
It seems to be just about the same length.
Representative FORD. That is, what is on the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. Which is on the rifle. I wonder, and here it is again in Commission Exhibit 133A--133A has that---of which it is an enlargement. Isn't it possible that is a reproduction of that leather sling?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It could be possible.
Mr. McCLOY. This is not a string by any means.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true; it is broader. I get the impression by this shadow at the top, closest to the rifle, just below the bolt, there is a faint shadow there that would indicate a double string or rope, and it then becomes narrower as you are looking at the edge of two ropes lying together. On the Exhibit 133B I get the same interpretation of a double-rope effect, partly because of the knot-tying and so on, and you see the shadow between the strands slightly in some areas, and, as I stated before, I cannot, because of the limited amount of that showing, say that it is not the sling. I find it more consistent with the sling showing in Exhibit 133B, which is very definitely----
Mr. McCLOY. A bowknot--133B seems to have a knot at the swivels.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Which doesn't appear on the rifle now.
Mr. EISENBERG. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you the cover of Life magazine for February 21, 1964, which consists of a photograph quite similar to Exhibit 133A, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this photographic cover?Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced, Mr. Chairman, as 754?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 754 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you compared Exhibit 754 with Commission Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it is the same picture reproduced on the front of Life magazine, which is Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does Commission Exhibit 754 appear to have been retouched in any significant way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission that retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I could. I might state that it has been my experience in the field of reproduction of photographs for publication, in which a halftone screen is made from which the photograph is then printed, it is normal procedure, and was at the time I worked for a newspaper, to retouch the photograph to intensify highlights, take out undesirable shadows, generally enhance the picture by retouching the photograph so that when it is then made into a halftone
290
Page 291
strip pattern for reproduction by printing, this retouching, if it is done well, does not show as retouching but appears to be a part of the original photograph.
This retouching is done either by brush or by airbrush, which is a device for spraying gray or shades of gray or black, onto the photograph. I point to the area between the legs of the individual on Life magazine.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that and mark it A on Exhibit 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Suppose I use arrows.
Mr. EISENBERG. Oh, sure.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Exhibit 746B, there is a shadow between the individual's legs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I will mark that A. In that same area of the photograph on Exhibit 754, that dark shadow has been removed in this area, I will mark that A.
Mr. EISENBERG. It appears there is a continuous fence slat there, where none appears----
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the shadow has been removed. Lower down in that same area of the legs, near the calf of the leg, again, and I will mark that B, the shadow----
Mr. EISENBERG. B on 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 754; has been softened but not entirely eliminated. That same area is marked B on Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the weapon been retouched?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The weapon has been retouched by placing a highlight along the stock almost up to the end of the bolt. The highlight is brushed right across the top of the highlight that we have previously discussed at the nob or the curvature of the stock where it goes down and then back up to the curve.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you put an arrow pointing to the brushed-in highlight and mark it C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you put an arrow pointing to the original highlight and mark it D; both on 754 and 746B? You had earlier marked with a circle 746E at point A, showing the highlight as it appears in 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Of course, this highlight does not appear in that same area of Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean the highlight marked C on 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at the photograph, at the weapon, the stock appears to be straight, which does not correspond to the Exhibit 139. As I understand your testimony, this is simply a retouching; this effect of a straight stock is simply achieved by retouching the photograph or doctoring it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is my opinion. I would refer to it as retouching rather than doctoring, because what has been done has been retouched, and doctoring infers an attempt to disguise.
Mr. EISENBERG. I didn't mean to imply such a thing--but retouched, then?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the actual highlight showing the curve and recurve still appears as point D?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you circle--do you see a telescopic sight on the Life cover of 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you draw an arrow marking that E? Would it have been possible to retouch the photograph so that the telescopic sight does not appear?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Oh, yes; that is possible. With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your
291
Page 292
experience as a photographer generally, could you state the possible purpose of such retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The purpose of the retouching in reproduction work is merely to enhance the detail so that it will not be lost in the engraving process.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "enhance the detail," why would a stock be retouched so as not only to enhance the detail, but actually to change the apparent configuration? Could you conceive of any reason for that?Mr. SHANEYFELT. I think the reason that the stock was retouched straight in the photograph on Life magazine, and my interpretation would be that the individual retouching it does not have a familiarity with rifles and did not realize there was curvature there, and in doing it just made a straight-line highlight without even considering whether that curved or not. There was curvature in that area which is not readily apparent--it is quite indistinct--and I think it was just made without realizing that there was curvature there.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the individual might have thought he was actually enhancing detail rather than putting in detail which was not present in the original?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything else you would like to point out in this photograph, Exhibit 754?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is other retouching at the shoulder, to the left of the photograph as we view it; that area has had some retouching of the highlights. Along the barrel of the gun, or the stock of the gun above the hand, there is retouching, a little highlight enhancement there. These are all generally consistent with the type of retouching that we have previously discussed and I have previously pointed out.
Representative FORD. I am not clear why they would retouch, from a photographic point of view.Mr. SHANEYFELT. They retouch because in the halftone process there is a loss of detail, and had they not retouched this photograph, had they not put the highlight along the rifle stock, then you would only have seen a black area. They were afraid you would only see a black area and you wouldn't get the definition here of the rifle. You lose the detail, and you would lose the view of the rifle. You wouldn't see the rifle there because this line would be lost. The same way along here. This one very definitely, had they not retouched it, it would have blended in and been a continuous tone of dark gray all across there.
Representative FORD. That is--up here that is, above the hand on the stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you said a highlight "along the rifle stock," you actually meant on top, above the rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper edge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it the upper edge, or is it a place that does not correspond to the rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is an edge along the rifle stock that corresponds. I am speaking now of the highlight above the hand.
Mr. EISENBERG. No; you said before, in describing the highlight which you can see, you said they drew a highlight "along" the rifle the rifle stock. Actually it was drawn, as I understand it, considerably above the edge of the actual rifle stock?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you used this technique yourself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done retouching of photographs for halftones; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you said before that this retouching is done by air-brush or brush, what medium is used in the brush or airbrush to achieve the effect?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a water-soluble pigment, and it is available in varying shades of from white to black; it is available in different shades of gray tones, so that you could actually match the gray tone of the picture since in these instances we are dealing entirely with gray, shades of gray---and you
292
Page 293
select a gray that is not too prominent that would give you a highlight that would look normal.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the negative is painted, so to speak?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The actual photograph is painted.
Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph is painted. Now, would there be any conceivable reason for eliminating in a retouching the telescopic sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The only reason again would be to enhance the detail. I cannot determine from Commission Exhibit 754 whether there was retouching around the stock. There are indications that there is some retouching--I mean around the telescopic sight. It appears to me they did do some retouching around the telescopic sight which we have marked as point E on Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr. EISENBERG. Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it could be done.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you have anything?
Representative FORD. No further questions.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be because I am, and I am sure it is, because of my ignorance in regard to this composition of photographs, but the negative of which we have a copy is that from which this photograph was taken; isn't that right? [Referring to Exhibit 133A.]
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We do not have the negative of this photograph.
Mr. McCLOY. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have the negative of 133B.
Mr. McCLOY. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.
Mr. McCLOY. So that the only composition that could have been made would have been in this process which you have described of picture on picture and negative and then photographing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.
Mr. McCLOY. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. There is nothing in Exhibit 754 that, to you, insinuates any sinister type of touching up?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. This is entirely innocent retouching, completely normal operation for a newspaper cut or a magazine reproduction.
Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no other questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just two other questions. Is there anything in the negative of 133B--that is, Commission Exhibit 749---to indicate whether it was developed commercially or not commercially?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I cannot determine that from the negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. And finally, I hand you a page from that same issue of Life, the issue of February 21, 1964, page 80, which has a photograph similar to the cover photograph, and I ask you whether this photograph appearing on page 80 appears to you to be the same as the photograph used on the cover?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it appears to be the same photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the retouching appear to be the same in both?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The retouching is consistent; yes. It appears to be slightly clearer in the photograph on page 80; the highlight along the stock is sharper and more crisp and in more detail.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again you say "highlight along the stock."
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Along the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean the highlight introduced by the retoucher?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. And the scope appears to be much clearer in the photograph on page 80 than the photograph on the front cover, which is Exhibit 754, and is much clearer than is apparent in the photograph 133A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you account for that?
293
Page 294
Mr. SHANEYFELT. My only explanation would be retouching, from retouching" around the scope. The primary reason for the additional clarity between the entire photograph, without specific reference to the scope, the clarity that I mentioned in the entire photograph on page 80 as compared with the cover is, I believe, basically the fact that the cover is so enlarged. There is a tendency on big enlargements to separate the detail out by enlargement so it appears not as clear, so a smaller picture will sometimes look clearer than one of the same picture that has been enlarged. This would account for some of the additional detail and more distinct sharpness in the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this photograph on page 80 be introduced as 755?
Mr. McCLOY. It nay be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 755 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. One final question: Can you compare the sharpness of the scope on Exhibit 755 with the sharpness on Exhibit 746E, one of the reproductions-you prepared?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is the same difference in sharpness between the photograph on Commission Exhibit 755, which is page 80 of Life magazine, and the photograph which I made from the Government's Exhibit 133A, which is Commission Exhibit 746E. Again this difference in sharpness, I believe is due to retouching in part, and in part to the picture in Life magazine being smaller, and thereby the detail is not spread out so much. It is a combination of retouching of the photograph and size.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my examination.
Mr. McCLOY. I am further interested as you look at this rifle as it lies on the table you can see the highlight, even without any photograph, very clearly. The shine centers on the curvature of the stock. It is quite interesting.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is very apparent on Exhibit 748 also, where you get the duplication of the lighting. This nob tends to reflect more light.
Mr. McCLOY. It is obvious that it is right up there as a conspicuous highlight. I didn't realize that it was so indicative of the curve of the stock of the rifle.
Thank you very much indeed for your cooperation and very enlightening and very interesting testimony.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Thank you.
(Recess.)
Robert Inman Bouck
Page 294
SIMMONS III
TESTIMONY OF RONALD SIMMONS
Mr. EISENBERG. Our next witness will be Mr. Simmons.
Mr. McCLOY. Would you hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this hearing will he the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do.
Mr. McCLOY. Please be seated.
This, as you know--the constitution of the Commission and its purpose--we want to ask you something about the firearm aspect of our hearings, and certain characteristics of this rifle that we would like to hear from you about, and if there is anything else you have that can throw light on our problems. If you can state for the record, first, your name, and where you live.
Mr. SIMMONS. My name is Ronald Simmons. I live near Havre de Grace, Md.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Eisenberg?
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?
Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.
441
Page 442
Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the area of evaluation of weapons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Since 1951, in various classes of weapons.
Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the laboratories on small arms.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has part of it---of these---have part of these evaluations been conducted with military rifles, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Most of our evaluations have been associated with military rifles.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area?
Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continuously concerned with this since 1957.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons you have evaluated as to accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as developmental weapons.
Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. In the course of that you have examined hundreds of rifles, though, have you not?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be employed, and the wounding power of the projectiles.
Mr. McCLOY. In the course of this you have fired a great many rifles yourself?
Mr. SIMMONS. No, sir; I don't fire them.
Mr. McCLOY. Somebody else fires them?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. But you make the studies in relation to the accuracy of the weapons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. The firing is accomplished by employees of the development and proof services, which is the weapons testing facility at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an expert to testify in this area?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
442
Page 443
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.?
Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the course of this test from a machine rest, Mr. Simmons, did you also attempt to determine the muzzle velocity?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you test for yaw?
Mr. SIMMONS. We took spark shadowgraph pictures at various stations down range from the muzzle, so that we actually have pictures of the position of the bullet relative to the top and bottom of our range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring those pictures with you?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; I do not have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you furnish those to the Commission at a later date?
Mr. SIMMONS. They could be made available later. I would like to point out these are not pictures, however. They are on large pieces of glass, and they are not photos.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can they be read by a layman?
Mr. SIMMONS. That I do not know. I do not read them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, I wonder whether you can send them up, and we could take a look at them.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we can have them forwarded.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more
443
Page 444
convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.
Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you recognize these shims that I display to you, Mr. Simmons, as being the shims that were placed in the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I saw the shims only when they were in the weapon, but those look very much like what was evident from the external view, after they were in place.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, Mr. Chairman, these shims were given to me by the FBI who told me that they had removed them from the weapon after they had been placed there by Mr. Simmons' laboratory. May I have these introduced as evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
Mr. SIMMONS. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I wonder whether you could take these shims back after I have marked them to find out whether the three had been placed?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am marking these 576, 577, and 578. They consist of three shims in three small envelopes.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 576, 577, and 578, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.
I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?
Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?
Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.
Mr. SIMMONS. For our experiment, I do not see how a difference of a few feet would make any difference.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take pictures or have pictures taken showing what that range looked like?
444
Page 445
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; I have copies of these pictures here. I show you three pictures--the first showing the window from which the weapon was fired in our experiments; the second showing the view of the three targets from the window; and the third showing a rifleman in position.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you take these pictures yourself?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; these pictures were taken by one of the cameramen from the development and proof services.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see the scenes represented in these pictures?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these pictures accurate reproductions of these scenes
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the first, second, and third pictures described by Mr. Simmons admitted as exhibits. That will be 579 for the first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 579, 580, and 581 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, the targets were well, can you describe the targets for--
Mr. SIMMONS. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many marksmen were involved?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used three riflemen.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what their background was?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a rifleman, and also has a Master rating.
Mr. EISENBERG. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?
Mr. SIMMONS. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight--because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used.
Mr. EISENBERG. So the total number of rounds fired was what?
Mr. SIMMONS. 21.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. I brought photos of the targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take these photographs Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?
Mr. SIMMONS. These photographs were taken by the photographic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate reproductions of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583 and 584?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 582, 583, and 584 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photographs?
Mr. SIMMONS. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target.
As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of the weapon is quite good.
Mr. McCLOY. That first target is what distance?
Mr. SIMMONS. 175 feet. And we had to make an assumption here about the point of aim. It is quite likely that in fact each man was aiming at a different portion of the target--there were no markings on the target visible to the river.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did I understand you just told the rivers to aim at the target without referring to---
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
445
Page 446
Mr. EISENBERG. There is an apparent crossline running darkly through that photograph.
Mr. SIMMONS. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements from the actual impact point.
The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course, we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target
On the third target, the angle through which the weapon had to be moved to get to the third target from the second was relatively small, and there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One of these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where the iron sight was employed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, when you said that the firers had to make a large shift relatively in their firing position, and were in a hurry, is this your interpretation or is this based on discussions with them subsequently?
Mr. SIMMONS. This is based on discussions with the firers after the experiment.
Mr. EISENBERG. After these tests were finished, did you make a determination of the amount of error--average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the inter section of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming--the aiming error associated with the three riflemen--this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again, could you convert those at a hundred yards to inches?
Mr. SIMMONS. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. In arriving at these figures, had you discounted the round-to-round dispersion as determined in the bench rest test?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round dispersion.
Mr. EISENBERG. But the actual accuracy of the riflemen would have to include the round-to-round dispersion, would it not?
Mrs. SIMMONS. Yes; it would.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why did you then subtract the round-to-round dispersion figure, or discount it?
Mr. SIMMONS. We wanted to determine what the aiming error itself was associated with the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the times in which the various riflemen used to fire the three shots in each sequence?
Mr. SIMMONS Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of two readings on stop watches.
Mr. EISENBERG. For each rifleman?
Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise.
Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.
Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.
Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
446
Page 447
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Mr. EISENBERG. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you prepare a table showing the probability of hit at a given target at given ranges by riflemen with given degrees of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, we prepared a table which showed what the probability of a hit would be on specific sizes of target as a function of aiming error, and using the appropriate round-to-round dispersion also in these calculations.
Mr. EISENBERG. What were the targets that you used in your calculations?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used two circular targets, one of 4 inches in radius and one of 9 inches in radius, to approximate the area of the head and the area of the shoulders, or the thorax, actually. And a significant point to these calculations to us is that against the larger target, if you fire with the 0.7 mil aiming error which was observed against the first target, the probability of hitting that target is 1, and it is 1 at all three ranges, out to 270 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the meaning of the probability being 1?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, the probability is effectively one. Actually the number is 0.99 and several more digits afterwards. It is rounded off to 1. Simply implying that the probability of a hit is very high with the small aiming errors and short range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now of course this aiming error is derived from the three riflemen who you employed in the tests, is that correct?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed to the other two?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.2 mil aiming error, again at the larger targets, the probability of hitting the target at 175 feet is 1; at 240 feet it is 0.96; and at 270 feet it is 0.92.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the second two figures in terms of probability?
Mr. SIMMONS. These also are very high values.
Mr. EISENBERG. The mil figure was 1.2, was it?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
447
Page 448
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include, did you say, both aiming error and round; to-round dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. The 1.2 is the aiming error. When we include the round-to round dispersion, it becomes only 1.24 mils.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the probability reflect the 1.2 or the 1.24 figure?
Mr. SIMMONS. It reflects the total error, which is 1.24.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the same on the first series of calculations you gave us?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go on to the third?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.4 mil aiming error, and the round-to-round dispersion, giving a total error of 1.43 mils, the probability of hit at the 175 foot target is 0.99; at 240 feet it is 0.91; at 270 feet it is 0.85.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the figures for the smaller target?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 0.7 mil aiming error, the probability of a hit at 175 feet is 0.96; at 240 feet, 0.81; at 270 feet, 0.73.
For the 1.2 mil aiming error, the probability is 0.69 at 175 feet; 0.74 at 240 feet; 0.39 at 270 feet.
Using the----
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize those, or explain them in lay term?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, against a shorter target, the probability is still almost 0.7, which is a relatively high value. The effective-range increase is beginning to show, however, because at 270 feet the value of 0.4 tends to be small.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does 0.4 mean you have 4 chances in 10 of hitting?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Now, our assumption throughout all of this is that the actual target was probably not either a small--the small area, but tending to be a larger area, as indicated by the crosshairs in these targets which we placed at this point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have given us probabilities of hit with three variations of aiming error. You have selected these three variations in what manner, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Those were actually the three values which were demonstrated in the experiment.
Mr. EISENBERG. But each of those values is associated with one target?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, you have applied them to all three targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have a special reason for doing that?
Mr. SIMMONS. No. We are victims of habit, and we tend to provide such information in parametric form.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, of course the assassin's aiming error must be unknown. But do you have any opinion concerning the probable aiming error of an assassin using this weapon against the aiming error displayed by the three riflemen you employed?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, it looks like to achieve hits as indicated, the accuracy, overall accuracy of the three rounds would have to be of the order of 1.2 mils. And this is really not a small number as far as marksmanship goes. There have been many exercises in which we have been involved where the aiming error turns out to be much smaller, smaller than this. And in match competition, of course, the numbers actually turn out to be the total aiming error turns out to be about equal to the round-to-round dispersion.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you make the reference to many exercises, are you referring to exercises solely with skilled riflemen?
Mr. SIMMONS. If we have skilled riflemen, the values for aiming error tend to be of the order of 1 mil. As a matter of fact, to qualify as expert on Army rifle courses, about a 1 mil aiming error is required--a standard deviation of 1 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that with a rest or without a rest?
Mr. SIMMONS. This would be without a rest. This would be the actual aiming error from the fixed position, firing range.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is this with open or telescopic sights?
Mr. SIMMONS. This would be with the peepsight on the conventional rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you exercises which you feel would be applicable to the
448
Page 449
assassination--that is, exercises conducted with--under noncombat conditions, with a telescopic sight and a rest?
Mr. SIMMONS. The only experience that we have with the telescopic sight with which I am familiar is the exercise using this weapon. There have been experiments made using telescopic sights, but these are of limited interest militarily.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, what effect does the introduction of a rest and telescopic sight have on probable aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. From a position where the movement of the weapon is not great, and where the target is slowly moving, the fixed position on the telescope should enhance the probability of a hit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the belt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, has data been compiled showing the effect of the time taken between shots on the accuracy of the shots?
Mr. SIMMONS. There have been experiments run where aiming error has been measured as a function of the time one has to aim.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do those experiments show that aiming error is directly proportionate to the length of time one has to aim?
Mr. SIMMONS. Not directly proportionate, but aiming error decreases as time increases. But once you get to the area of about 4 seconds in time, then there is very small decrease in aiming error for increase in time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Translating that to this weapon, does that mean that taking more than 8 seconds between three shots should not appreciably affect the degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. The 8 seconds I was referring to is between shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. You said 4 seconds, I thought.
Mr. SIMMONS. I beg your pardon.
Mr. EISENBERG. And I was saying, if you took 4 seconds between the first and second, and 4 seconds between the second and third, for a total of 8 seconds, on the basis of this data would that mean after 8 seconds you would not be substantially increasing your accuracy by taking more time?
Mr. SIMMONS. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately how many bullets did you fire in the course of your tests?
Mr. SIMMONS. We fired 47 bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?
Mr. SIMMONS. None.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you aware when you performed your tests of the conclusions of any other body concerning the accuracy of this weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; we were not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you aware of such conclusions at this point?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; I am not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. You said that these riflemen, or one or two of them at least, had the rank of master. What is that?
Mr. SIMMONS. I again fall back on my comment earlier that I am not a shooter myself. A master is one of the ratings given to highly qualified riflemen
449
Page 450
by the National Rifle Association. These men have all participated in national match competitions in the National Rifle Association.
Mr. McCLOY. Is that a higher grade than sharpshooter in the Army?
Mr. SIMMONS. There is really no comparison between the rating of master in the NRA and the rating of sharpshooter in the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure whether or not you answered this question, but do you feel that if the target was moving, rather than having the rifle man move, there would have been a difference in aiming error, increased or decreased aiming error--if the target was moving 5 to 10 miles an hour?
Mr. SIMMONS. I think the movement of the target in this case would have practically no effect on the accuracy of fire, because from the map we are led to believe that the movement was primarily away from the firer, so that the back of the President was fully exposed to the rifleman at all times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that.
Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?
Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions.
Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony?
Mr. SIMMONS. I think not.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether we could have a copy of your table?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. From your experience, Mr. Simmons, do you feel that with a man who had been in the Marine Corps, with the rifle instruction he had there, using this rifle, and what you know of the shots that killed the President--do you think he was an extraordinarily good shot, do you think he was just shooting in accordance with what might be taken to be the skill that service in the Marine Corps would give him?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all.
Mr. EISENBERG. One thing, Mr. Chairman. May I have this admitted as 586, this table which Mr. Simmons prepared, from which he was giving testimony earlier? This is "Table I, Hit Probability as a Function of Range and Aiming Error."
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The table referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 586 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do you mean accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.
450
Page 451
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. One further question.
Looking at the figures for aiming error, as discounted by round-to-round dispersion, how would you characterize the actual performance of men with this rifle that is, not the accuracy of the weapon, but the accuracy of man and weapon.
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel on the basis of the aiming error, discounted for round-to-round dispersion or including it, that this weapon is an easy one with which to be accurate, or a difficult one?
Mr. SIMMONS. It appears to be relatively conventional in that regard, I assume. The telescope helps in the accuracy against a target which is well displayed, as was the case here. And the weapon is reasonably conventional. So that I think it would not be significantly different from any other weapon.
Mr. McCLOY. If you were having a dry run with this, you could certainly make yourself used to the drag in the trigger without discharging the rifle, could you not?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull. When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired, and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into the weapon.
Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is all.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful. We shall recess now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
SIMMONS, RONALD VOLUME III
TESTIMONY OF RONALD SIMMONS
Mr. EISENBERG. Our next witness will be Mr. Simmons.
Mr. McCLOY. Would you hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this hearing will he the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do.
Mr. McCLOY. Please be seated.
This, as you know--the constitution of the Commission and its purpose--we want to ask you something about the firearm aspect of our hearings, and certain characteristics of this rifle that we would like to hear from you about, and if there is anything else you have that can throw light on our problems. If you can state for the record, first, your name, and where you live.
Mr. SIMMONS. My name is Ronald Simmons. I live near Havre de Grace, Md.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Eisenberg?
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you held this position?
Mr. SIMMONS. This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.
441
Page 442
Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the area of evaluation of weapons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Since 1951, in various classes of weapons.
Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the laboratories on small arms.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has part of it---of these---have part of these evaluations been conducted with military rifles, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Most of our evaluations have been associated with military rifles.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long altogether have you spent in this area?
Mr. SIMMONS. In the area of rifles?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. SIMMONS. Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continuously concerned with this since 1957.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give a rough estimate of how many weapons you have evaluated as to accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. No. We have been concerned with almost all of the weapons which the Army has tested, either in preliminary stages or as developmental weapons.
Mr. EISENBERG. But your specialty is the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. In the course of that you have examined hundreds of rifles, though, have you not?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be employed, and the wounding power of the projectiles.
Mr. McCLOY. In the course of this you have fired a great many rifles yourself?
Mr. SIMMONS. No, sir; I don't fire them.
Mr. McCLOY. Somebody else fires them?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. But you make the studies in relation to the accuracy of the weapons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, that is correct. The firing is accomplished by employees of the development and proof services, which is the weapons testing facility at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an expert to testify in this area?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
442
Page 443
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.?
Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the course of this test from a machine rest, Mr. Simmons, did you also attempt to determine the muzzle velocity?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we also measured muzzle velocities for approximately 10 rounds of the ammunition. We gather from these measurements that the nominal velocity, the nominal muzzle velocity is of the order of 2,200 feet per second, and the velocity at about 200 feet from the muzzle is approximately 2,000 feet per second. And there is some variation in velocity from round to round as there is with all small-arms ammunition. But the variation is relatively small, and within the same order of magnitude as for conventional ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you test the bullets for yaw?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we measured yaw also, and all measurements of yaw were also small. We had no values in excess of 2 degrees, and many values were less than 1 degree in yaw, indicating that the round is quite stable.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you test for yaw?
Mr. SIMMONS. We took spark shadowgraph pictures at various stations down range from the muzzle, so that we actually have pictures of the position of the bullet relative to the top and bottom of our range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring those pictures with you?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; I do not have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you furnish those to the Commission at a later date?
Mr. SIMMONS. They could be made available later. I would like to point out these are not pictures, however. They are on large pieces of glass, and they are not photos.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can they be read by a layman?
Mr. SIMMONS. That I do not know. I do not read them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, I wonder whether you can send them up, and we could take a look at them.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we can have them forwarded.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more
443
Page 444
convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.
Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you recognize these shims that I display to you, Mr. Simmons, as being the shims that were placed in the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I saw the shims only when they were in the weapon, but those look very much like what was evident from the external view, after they were in place.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, Mr. Chairman, these shims were given to me by the FBI who told me that they had removed them from the weapon after they had been placed there by Mr. Simmons' laboratory. May I have these introduced as evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
Mr. SIMMONS. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, I wonder whether you could take these shims back after I have marked them to find out whether the three had been placed?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am marking these 576, 577, and 578. They consist of three shims in three small envelopes.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 576, 577, and 578, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.
I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?
Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?
Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, the figures which I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of what those distances are.
Mr. SIMMONS. For our experiment, I do not see how a difference of a few feet would make any difference.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take pictures or have pictures taken showing what that range looked like?
444
Page 445
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; I have copies of these pictures here. I show you three pictures--the first showing the window from which the weapon was fired in our experiments; the second showing the view of the three targets from the window; and the third showing a rifleman in position.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you take these pictures yourself?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; these pictures were taken by one of the cameramen from the development and proof services.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see the scenes represented in these pictures?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these pictures accurate reproductions of these scenes
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the first, second, and third pictures described by Mr. Simmons admitted as exhibits. That will be 579 for the first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 579, 580, and 581 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, the targets were well, can you describe the targets for--
Mr. SIMMONS. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many marksmen were involved?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used three riflemen.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what their background was?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a rifleman, and also has a Master rating.
Mr. EISENBERG. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?
Mr. SIMMONS. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight--because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used.
Mr. EISENBERG. So the total number of rounds fired was what?
Mr. SIMMONS. 21.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. I brought photos of the targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take these photographs Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?
Mr. SIMMONS. These photographs were taken by the photographic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate reproductions of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583 and 584?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 582, 583, and 584 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photographs?
Mr. SIMMONS. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target.
As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of the weapon is quite good.
Mr. McCLOY. That first target is what distance?
Mr. SIMMONS. 175 feet. And we had to make an assumption here about the point of aim. It is quite likely that in fact each man was aiming at a different portion of the target--there were no markings on the target visible to the river.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did I understand you just told the rivers to aim at the target without referring to---
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
445
Page 446
Mr. EISENBERG. There is an apparent crossline running darkly through that photograph.
Mr. SIMMONS. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements from the actual impact point.
The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course, we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target
On the third target, the angle through which the weapon had to be moved to get to the third target from the second was relatively small, and there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One of these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where the iron sight was employed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, when you said that the firers had to make a large shift relatively in their firing position, and were in a hurry, is this your interpretation or is this based on discussions with them subsequently?
Mr. SIMMONS. This is based on discussions with the firers after the experiment.
Mr. EISENBERG. After these tests were finished, did you make a determination of the amount of error--average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the inter section of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming--the aiming error associated with the three riflemen--this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again, could you convert those at a hundred yards to inches?
Mr. SIMMONS. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. In arriving at these figures, had you discounted the round-to-round dispersion as determined in the bench rest test?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round dispersion.
Mr. EISENBERG. But the actual accuracy of the riflemen would have to include the round-to-round dispersion, would it not?
Mrs. SIMMONS. Yes; it would.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why did you then subtract the round-to-round dispersion figure, or discount it?
Mr. SIMMONS. We wanted to determine what the aiming error itself was associated with the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the times in which the various riflemen used to fire the three shots in each sequence?
Mr. SIMMONS Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of two readings on stop watches.
Mr. EISENBERG. For each rifleman?
Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise.
Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.
Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.
Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
446
Page 447
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Mr. EISENBERG. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you prepare a table showing the probability of hit at a given target at given ranges by riflemen with given degrees of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, we prepared a table which showed what the probability of a hit would be on specific sizes of target as a function of aiming error, and using the appropriate round-to-round dispersion also in these calculations.
Mr. EISENBERG. What were the targets that you used in your calculations?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used two circular targets, one of 4 inches in radius and one of 9 inches in radius, to approximate the area of the head and the area of the shoulders, or the thorax, actually. And a significant point to these calculations to us is that against the larger target, if you fire with the 0.7 mil aiming error which was observed against the first target, the probability of hitting that target is 1, and it is 1 at all three ranges, out to 270 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the meaning of the probability being 1?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, the probability is effectively one. Actually the number is 0.99 and several more digits afterwards. It is rounded off to 1. Simply implying that the probability of a hit is very high with the small aiming errors and short range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now of course this aiming error is derived from the three riflemen who you employed in the tests, is that correct?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed to the other two?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.2 mil aiming error, again at the larger targets, the probability of hitting the target at 175 feet is 1; at 240 feet it is 0.96; and at 270 feet it is 0.92.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the second two figures in terms of probability?
Mr. SIMMONS. These also are very high values.
Mr. EISENBERG. The mil figure was 1.2, was it?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
447
Page 448
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include, did you say, both aiming error and round; to-round dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. The 1.2 is the aiming error. When we include the round-to round dispersion, it becomes only 1.24 mils.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the probability reflect the 1.2 or the 1.24 figure?
Mr. SIMMONS. It reflects the total error, which is 1.24.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the same on the first series of calculations you gave us?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go on to the third?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.4 mil aiming error, and the round-to-round dispersion, giving a total error of 1.43 mils, the probability of hit at the 175 foot target is 0.99; at 240 feet it is 0.91; at 270 feet it is 0.85.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the figures for the smaller target?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 0.7 mil aiming error, the probability of a hit at 175 feet is 0.96; at 240 feet, 0.81; at 270 feet, 0.73.
For the 1.2 mil aiming error, the probability is 0.69 at 175 feet; 0.74 at 240 feet; 0.39 at 270 feet.
Using the----
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize those, or explain them in lay term?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, against a shorter target, the probability is still almost 0.7, which is a relatively high value. The effective-range increase is beginning to show, however, because at 270 feet the value of 0.4 tends to be small.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does 0.4 mean you have 4 chances in 10 of hitting?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Now, our assumption throughout all of this is that the actual target was probably not either a small--the small area, but tending to be a larger area, as indicated by the crosshairs in these targets which we placed at this point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have given us probabilities of hit with three variations of aiming error. You have selected these three variations in what manner, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Those were actually the three values which were demonstrated in the experiment.
Mr. EISENBERG. But each of those values is associated with one target?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, you have applied them to all three targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have a special reason for doing that?
Mr. SIMMONS. No. We are victims of habit, and we tend to provide such information in parametric form.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Simmons, of course the assassin's aiming error must be unknown. But do you have any opinion concerning the probable aiming error of an assassin using this weapon against the aiming error displayed by the three riflemen you employed?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, it looks like to achieve hits as indicated, the accuracy, overall accuracy of the three rounds would have to be of the order of 1.2 mils. And this is really not a small number as far as marksmanship goes. There have been many exercises in which we have been involved where the aiming error turns out to be much smaller, smaller than this. And in match competition, of course, the numbers actually turn out to be the total aiming error turns out to be about equal to the round-to-round dispersion.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you make the reference to many exercises, are you referring to exercises solely with skilled riflemen?
Mr. SIMMONS. If we have skilled riflemen, the values for aiming error tend to be of the order of 1 mil. As a matter of fact, to qualify as expert on Army rifle courses, about a 1 mil aiming error is required--a standard deviation of 1 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that with a rest or without a rest?
Mr. SIMMONS. This would be without a rest. This would be the actual aiming error from the fixed position, firing range.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is this with open or telescopic sights?
Mr. SIMMONS. This would be with the peepsight on the conventional rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you exercises which you feel would be applicable to the
448
Page 449
assassination--that is, exercises conducted with--under noncombat conditions, with a telescopic sight and a rest?
Mr. SIMMONS. The only experience that we have with the telescopic sight with which I am familiar is the exercise using this weapon. There have been experiments made using telescopic sights, but these are of limited interest militarily.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, what effect does the introduction of a rest and telescopic sight have on probable aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. From a position where the movement of the weapon is not great, and where the target is slowly moving, the fixed position on the telescope should enhance the probability of a hit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the belt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, has data been compiled showing the effect of the time taken between shots on the accuracy of the shots?
Mr. SIMMONS. There have been experiments run where aiming error has been measured as a function of the time one has to aim.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do those experiments show that aiming error is directly proportionate to the length of time one has to aim?
Mr. SIMMONS. Not directly proportionate, but aiming error decreases as time increases. But once you get to the area of about 4 seconds in time, then there is very small decrease in aiming error for increase in time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Translating that to this weapon, does that mean that taking more than 8 seconds between three shots should not appreciably affect the degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. The 8 seconds I was referring to is between shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. You said 4 seconds, I thought.
Mr. SIMMONS. I beg your pardon.
Mr. EISENBERG. And I was saying, if you took 4 seconds between the first and second, and 4 seconds between the second and third, for a total of 8 seconds, on the basis of this data would that mean after 8 seconds you would not be substantially increasing your accuracy by taking more time?
Mr. SIMMONS. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately how many bullets did you fire in the course of your tests?
Mr. SIMMONS. We fired 47 bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?
Mr. SIMMONS. None.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you aware when you performed your tests of the conclusions of any other body concerning the accuracy of this weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; we were not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you aware of such conclusions at this point?
Mr. SIMMONS. No; I am not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. You said that these riflemen, or one or two of them at least, had the rank of master. What is that?
Mr. SIMMONS. I again fall back on my comment earlier that I am not a shooter myself. A master is one of the ratings given to highly qualified riflemen
449
Page 450
by the National Rifle Association. These men have all participated in national match competitions in the National Rifle Association.
Mr. McCLOY. Is that a higher grade than sharpshooter in the Army?
Mr. SIMMONS. There is really no comparison between the rating of master in the NRA and the rating of sharpshooter in the Army.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure whether or not you answered this question, but do you feel that if the target was moving, rather than having the rifle man move, there would have been a difference in aiming error, increased or decreased aiming error--if the target was moving 5 to 10 miles an hour?
Mr. SIMMONS. I think the movement of the target in this case would have practically no effect on the accuracy of fire, because from the map we are led to believe that the movement was primarily away from the firer, so that the back of the President was fully exposed to the rifleman at all times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that.
Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?
Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions.
Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony?
Mr. SIMMONS. I think not.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether we could have a copy of your table?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. From your experience, Mr. Simmons, do you feel that with a man who had been in the Marine Corps, with the rifle instruction he had there, using this rifle, and what you know of the shots that killed the President--do you think he was an extraordinarily good shot, do you think he was just shooting in accordance with what might be taken to be the skill that service in the Marine Corps would give him?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all.
Mr. EISENBERG. One thing, Mr. Chairman. May I have this admitted as 586, this table which Mr. Simmons prepared, from which he was giving testimony earlier? This is "Table I, Hit Probability as a Function of Range and Aiming Error."
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The table referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 586 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do you mean accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.
450
Page 451
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. One further question.
Looking at the figures for aiming error, as discounted by round-to-round dispersion, how would you characterize the actual performance of men with this rifle that is, not the accuracy of the weapon, but the accuracy of man and weapon.
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel on the basis of the aiming error, discounted for round-to-round dispersion or including it, that this weapon is an easy one with which to be accurate, or a difficult one?
Mr. SIMMONS. It appears to be relatively conventional in that regard, I assume. The telescope helps in the accuracy against a target which is well displayed, as was the case here. And the weapon is reasonably conventional. So that I think it would not be significantly different from any other weapon.
Mr. McCLOY. If you were having a dry run with this, you could certainly make yourself used to the drag in the trigger without discharging the rifle, could you not?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull. When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired, and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into the weapon.
Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is all.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful. We shall recess now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
CADIGAN Volume IV page 80-101
TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN
Mr. DULLES. Would you mind standing and raising your right hand?
Do you swear the testimony you give before the Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?
Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have a Master of Science degree from Boston College in Newton, Mass. Upon being appointed in the FBI, I was given on-the-job training, which consisted of working with various examiners, conducting experiments, reading books, attending lectures, and so forth.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, how long have you been in the questioned document field?
Mr. CADIGAN Twenty-three and a half years.
Mr. EISENBERG. And during that time have you examined papers to determine their possible origin?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of such examinations you have conducted?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; not with any degree of accuracy, except many, many specimens, many, many comparisons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified on that subject in court?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Many times?
Mr. CADIGAN. I won't say many, no; because most of the testimony I have given in court relates to other phases of the work. Strictly on paper, I would say not more than two or three times.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you have made more than two or three examinations of paper?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes; far more.
Mr. DULLES. Running into the hundreds and thousands?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this witness admitted as an expert witness?
Mr. DULLES. He shall be admitted as an expert on this subject.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you an object made of paper, Commission Exhibit 142, also known as Commission Exhibit 626, and ask you if you are familiar with this object?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this object, this paper bag, to determine its origin, possible origin?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that the sample that you are referring to, that you are holding in your hand?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is marked, as you said, "Paper sample from first floor Texas School Book Depository" and has certain other markings including the words "shipping department"?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DULLES. That may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be No. 677.
Mr. DULLES. 677 may be admitted.
89
Page 90
(Commission Exhibit No. 677 was marked, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find out from precisely what portion of the Texas School Book Depository Building this was obtained, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this comes from the first floor, main floor of the Texas School Book Depository, referred to as the shipping room, the whole floor.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you--who supplied you with this sample, this Exhibit 677?
Mr. CADIGAN. This exhibit was brought to the laboratory by Special Agent Drain of our Dallas office, who brought all of this evidence in for examination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether Exhibit 142 had the same origin as the paper in Exhibit 677, or might have had the same origin?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I examined the two papers---do you wish me to state my opinion?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; please.
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, initially, I was requested to compare the two papers to see if they could have originated from the same source. I first measured the paper and the tape samples. Then I looked at them visually by natural light, then incident light and transmitted light.
Mr. EISENBERG. What do you mean by transmitted light?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, light coming right on through the paper.
Mr. EISENBERG. Then----
Mr. DULLES. Natural light?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; natural light.
Mr. DULLES. As distinct from electric light?
Mr. CADIGAN. Both. In the room I am in you can go over to the window for natural light and use ceiling light for artificial light which has a little different property than the outside light.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. CADIGAN. I looked at the papers under various lighting conditions----
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me a minute, Mr. Cadigan, by "transmitted light" you mean the light transmitted when you hold the object between the light source and your own eyes?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; then I put it under the microscope, and again looked at it from the standpoint of the surface, paper structure, the color, any imperfections.
I further noted that on both of the tapes----
Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is the paper bag.
Mr. CADIGAN. On 142 and on the tape on 677 there were a series of marks right down about the center of the tape.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see those visually with the unaided eye, or only under a microscope?
Mr. CADIGAN. I can see them visually. The microscope makes it look clearer.
Mr. DULLES. What are you pointing to now?
Mr. EISENBERG. This line here.
Mr. DULLES. Where is this?
Mr. CADIGAN. These are a series of lines running right here about a half-inch high, they are very closely spaced.
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; these are perpendicular lines.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Would you like to see these, Mr. Murray?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes; thank you.
Mr. DULLES. They are quite clear, about a tenth of an inch apart or less than that.
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, actually they are 24 1/2 spaces per inch, which would be about 25 lines per inch.
Mr. MURRAY. Pockmarks?
Mr. CADIGAN. A series of little short marks right close together.
Mr. MURRAY. Oh, yes.
Mr. DULLES. And they run along about how far on this particular exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. They run the whole length of the tape.
Mr. MURRAY. A comb design.
Mr. EISENBERG. Comb in the sense that it is a series of----
90
Page 91
Mr. MURRAY. Comb or rake.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that on 677, and mark the portion "A"? Can you still make out the lines on Exhibit 640?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle a portion of the lines on 640 and mark it--- I am sorry, that is 142.
Mr. CADIGAN. I have marked it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Dulles, would you care to look at it?
Mr. DULLES. And--oh, yes--and they go over a good deal further than your circle?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. They run right across.
Mr. CADIGAN. I might explain that these are made by a wheel in the paper-tape dispenser. [Referring to an object in the room.] It is not quite this size, but it is similar to this and it has horizontal markings running all around the wheel.
As you pull the operating handle that pulls the paper tape from the roll through the machine and over the wetting brush, the wheel, in the process leaves these markings on the tape.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, Mr. Cadigan, would this be in the type of tape dispenser which is operated not merely by a handle---by a handpull--to the tape from the dispenser, but is operated--that is operated by a lever?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; a lever, a handle.
Mr. EISENBERG. And a given quantity of tape is dispensed, which you can cut off or not as you choose---if you want to, you can pull some more tape and cut it off, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this wheel, as I understand it, when you pull the lever this wheel forces the paper out?
Mr. CADIGAN. It turns, and it is really pulling the paper from the roll and pushing it out from the slot.
Mr. EISENBERG. That has a slight knurl which grasps the paper?
Mr. CADIGAN. It has a slight ridge all around it which is the cause of these marks on the paper tape.
Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.
Mr. DULLES. Is that a defect in the mark or a peculiar----
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, no; it is designed that way. Those little, you might say, in effect, teeth, go into the paper and pull it through smoothly.
Mr. EISENBERG. If I went into Woolworths and bought a roll of gummed tape, would it have those marks on it?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Because it only gets the marks when you put it in the dispensing machine that you have in commercial establishments?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be common to have this type of dispensing machine in a home, by the way?
Mr. CADIGAN. I doubt very much that you would find it in a home.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, within a commercial establishment, are there more than one type of dispensing machines?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are there types that won't produce these lines at all?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out, too, that the number of lines per inch will vary depending on the diameter of that wheel. In this particular instance I found that there were 24 1/2 spaces, which would be 25 lines per inch, on both.
Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that is 142, the bag you are handling, and 677, the sample?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the markings on the manila tape in both 142 and 677 were the same. Now, at that time I also had----
Mr. DULLES. Could we get just before you continue there, would you identify what 142 is and 677 is?
Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is an apparently homemade paper bag which was found in
91
Page 92
the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD following the assassination, and which, for the record, is a bag which may have been used to carry this rifle, 139, which was used to commit the assassination. 677 is a sample of paper and tape---and parenthetically, tape was used in the construction of 142---677 is a sample of paper and tape obtained from the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, that is, the very day of the assassination.
Mr. DULLES. Obtained by whom, by the FBI?
Mr. CADIGAN. This was obtained by the Dallas police.
Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to you by the Dallas----
Mr. CADIGAN. By the Dallas police through our Dallas office.
Mr. DULLES. It was obtained after the assassination on that date?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; the night of November 22
At the same time, on November 23, we had an agent come in from Chicago with samples of paper from Klein's, with the possibility, it was thought, that the paper sack----
Mr. DULLES. Identify Klein's just for the record.
Mr. CADIGAN. Klein's Sporting Goods Store in Chicago, from which the Italian rifle was bought.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 139?
Mr. CADIGAN. Exhibit 139. The agent brought in these paper samples from Klein's for comparison purposes, and the paper tape, this manila gummed tape, had these knurl markings measuring 30 per inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the gummed tape you obtained from Klein's?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. It was not identical with this, but merely, you might say, illustrate that the markings will differ depending on the wheel, and if your wheel has 30 lines per inch and your other sample is 24 or 25 lines per inch, you know they didn't come from the same tape dispenser.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, do these wheels differ as to their diameter across the bearing surface, the length across the rolling knurled surface?
Mr. CADIGAN. I imagine there would be a difference.
I have made no precise measurement but I imagine they vary within tolerances of a quarter- or half-inch in width.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would the length of the lines produced on 142 be the same the paper bag---the same as the length of the lines produced on 677?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. At what period in connection with the manufacture of the paper are those lines put on or----
Mr. CADIGAN. These are put on after the paper is complete.
Mr. DULLES. After paper is completely manufactured?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. DULLES. And put on by the dispensing machine?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; the individual buys gummed tape in rolls.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. CADIGAN. Three-inch rolls or inch-and-a-half rolls. He then puts it on a tape-dispensing machine.
Mr. DULLES. In his particular organization?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; or his factory or shipping department or wrapping room.
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. Once it is in that machine then that wheel will mark the tape going through the dispenser just before it wets it and you paste it down.
Mr. DULLES. Just before, generally just before it is used, then these markings are put on by the dispensing machine.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
After examining the papers, comparing them visually and under the microscope, I examined them under ultraviolet light. This is merely one additional step.
Here again I found that both of them fluoresced the same way.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain the meaning of that?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Paper, along with many substances, has the property of absorbing or reflecting ultraviolet light rays differently. You can take two
92
Page 93
samples of paper and put them under an ultraviolet light, and they may appear to be the same or they may be markedly different.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean even if they look the same under visual light?
Mr. CADIGAN. Visually they may look the same and yet under ultraviolet light there may be very dramatic differences.
Mr. EISENBERG. What causes those differences?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, the chemicals that are in the paper itself; I think probably a very common example are the markings on shirts, so-called invisible dyes which, visually, you do not see, but you put them under ultraviolet light and the chemical is such that it glows brilliantly.
So, it is basically a chemical or chemicals in there, in this case, in the paper being examined under the ultraviolet, which gives a certain visual appearance, which you can say, it is the same or it is different.
In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you just review those? That was the ultraviolet light----
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, briefly, it would be the thickness of both the paper and the tape, the color under various lighting conditions of both the paper and the tape, the width of the tape, the knurled markings on the surface of the tape, the texture of the fiber, the felting pattern. I hadn't mentioned this before, but if you hold a piece of paper up to the light, you see light and dark areas caused by the way the fibers felt right at the beginning stages of paper manufacture.
There are light and dark areas, and these are called the felting pattern. This is something that will vary depending on how the paper is made, the thickness of the paper, the way that the fibers moved on the papermaking machine, and here again I found that they were the same for both the known sample, Commission Exhibit 677, and the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they were all identical?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned before the thickness. How did you measure the thickness of the tape and paper?
Mr. CADIGAN. With a micrometer.
Mr. EISENBERG. How sensitive is it?
Mr. CADIGAN. It reads to four places.
Mr. EISENBERG. How sensitive?
Mr. CADIGAN. Four decimal places.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that one-hundredths?
Mr. CADIGAN. That would be one ten-thousandths.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they were identical in that measurement?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I measured both the paper sack, Exhibit 142, and the known I paper sample, Exhibit 677, at 0.0057 inch, that is fifty-seven ten-thousandths.
Mr. EISENBERG. Go ahead, Mr. Cadigan.
Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.
93
Page 94
Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.
Mr. EISENBERG. The same room.
Did you examine this paper to see how it compared---that is, the paper in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission Exhibit 364---to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color, felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light, and they were different under ultraviolet light.
Mr. EISENBERG So that these two papers, which were obtained within 9 or 10 days from the same source, could be distinguished by you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you brought an ultraviolet light source with you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission the difference between the three papers?
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, we have been unable to find a plug for this ultraviolet machine, so we will temporarily or perhaps permanently bypass this examination. But did you find that two of the papers look the same under the ultraviolet and a third looked different when you examined it under ultraviolet?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which two were the identical and which was the different one?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well---Commission Exhibit 142 and Commission Exhibit 677--I observed them to have the same appearance under ultraviolet light, and that appearance was different from Commission Exhibit 364.
Mr. DULLES. Can you identify these three exhibits, because otherwise I think it will be very difficult to get into the record.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; 142 being the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, 677 being the sample obtained that day from the shipping room in the Texas School Depository, and 364 being a replica made some ten days later out of paper obtained some 10 days later.
Did that complete your examination of the gross or physical characteristics, as opposed to the microscopic characteristics?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that in essence was the extent of the examination I made at that time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you go on to examine for microscopic characteristics?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I believe I mentioned that at the time I had examined these papers under the microscope.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned that at the time?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; earlier this morning.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Could you tell us what the results were of your examination under the microscope?
Mr. CADIGAN. Again, I found that the paper sack found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142, and the sample. secured 11-22, Commission Exhibit 677, had the same observable characteristics both under the microscope and all the visual tests that I could conduct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go into detail as to what you did see under the microscope?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, I think perhaps this photograph, I have an enlarged photograph, one side being the----
Mr. DULLES. Which side is that?
Mr. EISENBERG. One side marked K-2, and the other Q-10?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; K-2 corresponds to the known paper sample 677.
Mr. EISENBERG. Obtained from the TSBD?
94
Page 95
Mr. DULLES. What date?
Mr. CADIGAN. November 22.
Mr. DULLES. On the day of the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. And the Q-10 marking is the same as the paper bag found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph or was it taken under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. I had it made.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have it in evidence?
Mr. DULLES. Admitted.
Mr. CADIGAN. I would like to point out this is only one phase of the examination and this is a black-and-white photograph. In your examination under the microscope you are looking at the surface and memorizing everything about that surface your mind can retain by putting the two pieces of paper together and studying them back and forth. I don't wish to imply that that photograph represents all I can see in a microscope, because it doesn't.
Mr. EISENBERG. We understand that. May I have this, Mr. Reporter, marked as 678.
(Commission Exhibit No. 678 was marked, and received in evidence.)
Mr. DULLES. That has already been admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Now, what is the magnification in this Exhibit 678?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is about 50 times enlarged.
Mr. EISENBERG. And had you treated the paper chemically before you made this photograph?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us a little bit about that photograph and what it shows?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, actually all this shows is an enlarged area, a very small area, I might point out. It merely shows the surface structure, shows some of the fibers, and shows an imperfection. The dark line down the center of the photograph is actually a fold in both papers, merely to bring them close together so that they can be seen together.
But it gives you some idea of the surface texture, how the fibers lie in there. In this instance you have two little imperfections in these fiber bundles here, you can't see the brown-colored fibers that are actually present.
Mr. DULLES. That imperfection, however, would not be repeated, would it?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, no; it is purely accidental.
Mr. DULLES. They are accidental.
Mr. CADIGAN. They are bundles of fibers in the paper itself.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion were the two samples identical in the characteristics shown in this photomicrograph?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they have the same appearance.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also break down the papers to test them, to determine the morphology of the fiber?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Subsequently, I ran a fiber analysis of the paper, the known paper sample from the Texas School Book Depository, Commission Exhibit 677, and the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, and on the same day I had our spectrographic section run a spectrographic test on these same papers.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different---or approximately 10 days later?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.
Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know whether another roll was put in the machine between the 22d and the 1st of December?
Mr. CADIGAN. May we go off the record?
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. On the record.
Do you know whether the Dallas office of the FBI has attempted to make a determination as to whether the replica paper bag, the paper in the replica
95
Page 96
paper bag, prepared on December 1, Commission No. 364, was, or may have been, or wasn't taken from the same roll as the replica piece of paper or the sample piece of paper, Exhibit 677, which was obtained from the Depository November 22?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you tell us what you understand the results of their investigation to have been?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they were unable to determine whether the paper from the replica sack, Exhibit 364, came from the same roll or a different roll as the known sample obtained November 22, Commission Exhibit 677.
I understand that in the fall, the Depository is busy, and could very well have changed rolls, but no records are kept along that line.
Mr. DULLES. Changed rolls in that time, 10-day period?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir. Actually there were 4 working days in that period.
Mr. DULLES. Yes. But am I not correct that there probably or maybe certainly, I would like to have your view on that, was no change in the roll between the day before the assassination and the night of the assassination, that is between paper bag, Exhibit No. 142, and the specimen that was taken on the night of the day of the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. I can't tell you that, sir. I have no way of knowing, because these papers are similar in all observable physical characteristics, and they are different from a sample obtained on December l. I would suspect that this were true. But I can't----
Mr. DULLES. I realize that.
Mr. CADIGAN. I cannot make a positive statement on that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any information as to whether the paper during the period between November 22 and December 1 used in the TSBD--whether it was the same or different rolls--would have come from the same ultimate manufacturer?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is my understanding that they received a shipment of 58 rolls of paper that were shipped March 19, 1963, from the St. Regis Paper Mill in Jacksonville, Fla., and which lasted them until January of 1964. This would mean on an average, in a 9-month period, a little more than six rolls a month.
Mr. EISENBERG. The inference would therefore be that if the--although the papers in the replica bag obtained on December 1 and the paper in the sample obtained on November 22 are distinguishable by you, they came from the same manufacturer, and--is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And, therefore, that the state of your science is such that you can distinguish even rolls of paper made by the same manufacturer and assumedly made within a reasonably close time, is that correct also?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't know what period of time is involved here. But I can distinguish at least in this case between paper from the same shipment from the same mill.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed now to discuss the morphology of the fiber as you examined it under a microscope?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, I might state briefly what a fiber analysis is. We put samples of paper back into their, you might say, original state, in the form of fiber suspension.
You cook samples of paper for a couple of minutes in weak sodium hydroxide solution. Then you wash it, add water and shake it vigorously, and you get a suspension of fibers in the water. Samples of those fibers are put on glass slides and are stained by various reagents.
Then you examine them under a high-power comparison microscope or a binocular microscope under approximately 120 times magnification. In this particular case I used two different stains.
First a malachite green stain. This merely determines if there are any unbleached fibers, or if they are all bleached. I found that on both. Commission Exhibit 677, the paper sample obtained on November 22, and the paper sack, Commission Exhibit 142, that they are almost 100 percent unbleached fibers.
Then I stained other samples, with a stain known as Herzberg stain. It is
96
Page 97
an iodine-iodide stain, which will distinguish between rag fibers, chemical wood fibers, and ground wood fibers by different coloring. The chemical wood is stained blue, rag fibers are stained red, ground wood stained yellow.
I made and studied specimens or slides of fibers from Commission Exhibit 677, the known sample, and from Commission Exhibit 142, the paper sack, to see if the fiber composition is similar. What that means is, is this chemical wood, is it coniferous or deciduous, are there any rag fibers in there or are there any ground wood fibers in there, and I found here the fiber composition was similar and essentially it is a coniferous woodlike pine. There were a few stray rag fibers, which I think were probably accidental, and a few stray ground wood fragments in there.
Mr. DULLES. Let me get clearly what is similar, that is the paper bag, Exhibit----
Mr. CADIGAN. 142; the paper comprising that sack and the paper comprising the known sample obtained November 22, Exhibit 677.
Mr. DULLES. Right.
Mr. CADIGAN. The papers I also found were similar in fiber composition, therefore, in addition to the visual characteristics, microscopic and UV characteristics.
Mr. EISENBERG. "UV" being ultraviolet?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir. Then I had a spectrographic examination made of the paper from the sack, 142, and the known sample secured November 22, Commission Exhibit 677.
Spectrographic tests involve, of course, burning the substance and capturing the light on a photographic plate to determine what metallic ions are present. This was done by our spectrographic section, and again the paper of Commission Exhibit 677, the paper sample, secured November 22, was found to be similar spectrographically to the paper of the sack, Commission Exhibit 142.
Now, these were additional tests, the original examinations, under visual and ultraviolet light were made by me on November 23, 1963. Fiber analysis and the spectrographic examination were conducted on March 25, 1964.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.
Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or
97
Page 98
absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.
I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, getting back to the paper bag, 142, and the tape thereon, just for a second, and the tape found on the, obtained from the, TSBD on November 22, Exhibit 677, were the widths of the tapes the same?
Mr. CADIGAN. Similar. They were not exactly the same; no.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the width of the tape on the paper sack, Exhibit 142, I measured at 3 inches, and the width of the manila tape on Exhibit 677 obtained the night of November 22, I measured as 2.975. There is twenty-five one-thousandths of an inch difference.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that lead you to believe that they couldn't have come from the same roll?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; certainly not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Not enough of a variation to lead to that conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. How wide do these rolls come in your experience, in what widths do they come?
Mr. CADIGAN. Normally they are supplied in, I believe, 1-, 1 1/2, 2-, 2 1/2-, and 3-inch widths.
Mr. EISENBERG. So this was basically of a 3-inch width variety out of several possible alternatives?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other information you would like to give us or any other testimony you would like to give us on the subject of the origin of the paper in the 142 bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, possibly the comparisons made of paper samples from Jaggars Chiles-Stovall and from the William B. Riley Co.
Mr. EISENBERG. These are, you have mentioned two companies at which Oswald was employed at one time?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You obtained paper from these companies, did you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you matched them to see if they matched--you tested them to see if they matched the paper in the bag 142, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And your conclusion was what?
Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Anything else?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is about it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman----
98
Page 99
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Murray, do you have any questions?
Mr. MURRAY. I don't believe I have, Mr. Commissioner, but I would like to mention this off the record, if I may.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. We have now the ultraviolet machine set up. Could you just show us the difference in fluorescence?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what you have set up here, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. This is a portable ultraviolet viewer I used to examine the papers and I think probably what is most noticeable is in the manila tapes. The tape on the right is the sample secured November 22. The tape at the top is from the bag 142, and then the one in the, you might say, lower left, toward the bottom, is the tape that was secured December 1.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to positions in the bottom of the ultraviolet machine?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; relative position.
Mr. DULLES. The one at the left is the one taken from the paper sack, isn't it?
Mr. CADIGAN. Top left; yes; that would be from 142.
Mr. DULLES. 142, and the other is----
Mr. CADIGAN. The one on the right is 677.
Mr. DULLES. What am I supposed to see?
Mr. CADIGAN. A difference in the appearance, difference in color.
Mr. DULLES. What do you mean? I see the violet and I see the white.
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you look at the two tape sample----
Mr. DULLES. This tape sample on upper left hand is covered up by this one. I wonder whether you shouldn't take out the later one?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I think probably that would be better.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you show Mr. Dulles the paper bag, 142, and the sample obtained November 22?
Mr. DULLES. Yes; those are the two we are most interested in.
Mr. CADIGAN. The observation I would make there is that the color of the tape on Exhibit 142, the sack, and the color of the paper of the sack 142, under UV, is the same as the color of the tape on 677 and the color of the paper.
Mr. DULLES. I agree on that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that Mr. Dulles makes the statement as he is looking in the machine. Mr. Cadigan, why don't you compare it----
Mr. CADIGAN. By comparison----
Mr. DULLES. This is only as to color, that is all I saw. I saw some markings on it.
Mr. CADIGAN. That is right. This is only for color appearance under the ultraviolet light.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you compare the sack found at the TSBD and the replica sack obtained 10 days later?
Mr. CADIGAN. Here again all that should be observed is the color under UV of both the paper and tape of the sample and the paper and tape of Exhibit 364.
Mr. DULLES. 364 is the paper bag, isn't it?
Mr. CADIGAN. 364 is the replica sack obtained on December 1.
Mr. EISENBERG. Ten days later.
Mr. DULLES. That is on the left?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And the other is the sack?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; the other on your right is the sample of paper obtained on November 22.
Mr. DULLES. November 22, Just after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes,
Mr. DULLES. There is a clear distinction here. The sample to the right, that is, as I understand it, paper obtained on the evening of November 22, has a more, a deeper violet shade, and on the other hand, the tape is much lighter than the tape on the sample obtained 10 days later. That is to say that the sample 16 days later is darker as to the tape but lighter as to the paper. Would you like the opportunity, Mr. Murray?
Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you.
99
Page 100
Mr. EISENBERG. We are putting in the sack and 364, the 10-day later sample.
Mr. DULLES. Sack and 10-day later sample. Which is on which side?
Mr. CADIGAN. The Sack is on the left and the replica bag obtained On December 1 is on the right.
Mr. DULLES. Yes. I find there that the sample obtained 10 days later, and the sack which is on the left, that the sample obtained 10 days later shows a lighter shade of purple than the sack, and that the tape shows a darker shade of, I would call it, almost gray as against almost white for the tape which is on the sack.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Dulles.
Mr. DULLES. Have you anything that you feel you should add, anything in this general field that would help the Commission?
Mr. CADIGAN. No, sir; not as it relates to this paper and these paper bags.
Mr. EISENBERG. You will be called later for testimony on handwriting--I suppose you will be the person to testify?
Mr. CADIGAN. Whenever you want me I will be available.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the tape for microscopic--to determine the morphiology of the fibers in the paper?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG Can you tell us why?
Mr. CADIGAN. I didn't feel it was necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could do that, Mr. Cadigan, and send us a letter as to the results?
Mr. CADIGAN. Certainly.
(The letter referred to was later supplied and is set forth at the end of this testimony.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And also, did you notice how the glue had been applied to the tapes?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; you might say glue was applied all the way across the tapes.
Mr. EISENBERG. There are no discernible differences in them?
Mr. CADIGAN. The glue on the tapes would be applied with a brush at the time of manufacture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there more than one way of applying glue?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes. On some tapes, if you look at them either before or after they are used you will see a continuous line running right down the tape where they have used a wheel applicator, merely a difference in manufacturing methods.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you found a brush applicator?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will the same manufacturer use two different methods?
Mr. CADIGAN. He might or might not.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is it likely that he would use two different methods?
Mr. CADIGAN. I really couldn't say.
Mr. DULLES. Mr. Cadigan, I thank you very much for your most interesting and helpful testimony.
(Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
(Following is the text of a letter relating to the fiber composition of the gummed tapes in Exhibits 142 and 677.)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Washington, D.C., April 8, 1964.
[By Courier Service].
Hon. J. LEE RANKIN,
General Counsel, the President's Commission, 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. RANKIN: During the testimony of Special Agent James C. Cadigan on April 3, 1964, before the President's Commission, Mr. Melvin Eisenberg of your staff orally requested Special Agent Cadigan to make a fiber analysis of
100
Page 101
the gummed tape on the paper sack found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Commission Exhibit 142, and of the sample of gummed tape in Commission Exhibit 677 obtained November 22, 1963, at the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Fiber analysis of the two gummed tapes in Commission Exhibits 142 and 677 revealed that they were similar in fiber composition.
Sincerely yours,
J. EDGAR HOOVER.
CADIGAN Volume VII page 413-438
TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN
The testimony of James C. Cadigan was taken at 3:45 p.m., on April 30, 1964,
418
Page 419
at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
(The oath was administered by the reporter. )
Mr. CADIGAN. I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, the purpose for which we are here is to go into the facts of the assassination of President Kennedy, and in particular we have asked you to testify concerning analysis of questioned documents. Mr. Cadigan, could you state your full name and your position?
Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan. I am a special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you been in this field, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Twenty-three and one-half years.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your training in this field?
Mr. CADIGAN. Upon being assigned to the laboratory I was given a specialized course of training and instruction which consisted of attending various lectures and conferences on the subject, reading books, and working under the direction of experienced examiners.
Upon attaining a required degree of proficiency, I was assigned cases on my own responsibility, and since that time I have examined many thousands of cases involving handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, forgeries, erasures, alterations, mechanical devices of all types, pens, paper, and ink. I conduct research on various problems as they arise and assist in the training of our new examiners.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in Federal or other courts, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; in many Federal and State courts, and military courts-martial.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 773, and I ask you whether you have examined that item.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that consists of an application to purchase a rifle, addressed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you an item consisting of a roll of microfilm labeled D-77, and ask you whether you are familiar with that roll of microfilm?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG That micro film will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.
(The article referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, was Exhibit No. 773 developed from a negative contained in Cadigan Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; it was printed from that roll.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 780, consisting of the Marine Corps file of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 778, consisting of two letters extracted from Oswald's State Department file; Commission Exhibit No. 781, consisting of a passport application by Lee Harvey Oswald, dated June 25, 1963--at least "Passport Issued June 25, 1963"; and Cadigan Exhibit No. 2, consisting of a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to John B. Connally, then Secretary of the Navy.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 2.)
Mr. CADIGAN. This is in two parts.
Mr. EISENBERG. In two parts, and the second part consists of a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to a Brigadier General R. McC. Tompkins, dated 7 March 1962, and a group of documents, comprising photographs of the balance of Lee Harvey Oswald's State Department file, labeled Cadigan Exhibit No. 3.
(The documents referred to were marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I ask you whether you have examined these various items.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you explain the meaning of the term "standard" or "known documents" as used in the field of questioned-document examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Known standards are samples of writings of an individual which are known to be in his writing and which are available for comparison with questioned or suspect writings.
419
Page 420
Mr. EISENBERG. You have examined certain questioned writings allegedly prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald, have you, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr, CADIGAN, Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your examination, what documents did you use as known documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. Cadigan Exhibit No. 2, Commission Exhibit No. 781, Commission Exhibit No. 778, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, and Commission Exhibit No. 780.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, during the balance of the examination I will refer to these documents collectively as the known or standard writings. Mr. Cadigan, a portion of the known documents and a portion of the questioned documents are photographs rather than originals; is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you able to identify the handwriting of an individual on the basis of a photograph of that handwriting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you make an identification, such an identification, if your only questioned document was a photograph if the photograph was sufficiently clear?
Mr. CADIGAN. If the photograph is sufficiently clear, it is adequate for the handwriting comparison.
Mr. EISENBERG. Similarly with standards, if your only standard was a photograph or your only standards were photographs?
Mr. CADIGAN. If your standards were also photographs, it is possible to make the comparison and arrive at a definite opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were the photographs in this case, both the standard and the questioned documents, clear enough to form the 'basis of an opinion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out that some of the known standards are original documents and not photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I am aware of that, but I wanted to set out on the record whether the standards which are photographs are adequate----
Mr. CADIGAN. They are adequate.
Mr. EISENBERG. To serve as standards.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to Commission Exhibit No. 773, did you compare the handwriting on that exhibit with the writing in the known standards to see if they were written by the same person?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared photographs or charts which you could use to demonstrate the reason for that, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you produce them? You are handing me an enlarged photograph of Commission Exhibit No. 773, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And constitutes an accurate photograph of Exhibit No. 773?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A.)
And have you prepared photographs of the standards, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. The first photograph is an enlargement of the letter to Brigadier General R. McC. Tompkins? Is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 4.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 4.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And the second photograph is an enlargement of a letter from the State Department file, is that correct?
420
Page 421
Mr. CADIGAN. Enlargement of a letter in the State Department file.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the State Department file?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 5.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 5.)
Mr. EISENBERG. The third is an enlargement of a second letter in the State Department file, the first later having been dated "Received November 1, 1962," and this letter dated "December 7, 1962, Received December 11, 1962," is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 6.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 6.)
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Next is a letter to the State Department without an apparent date, beginning, "Dear Sirs: Please forward receipts to me for final payment of my loan" and so forth, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 7.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 7.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Next is another letter from the State Department file, reading, "Dear Sirs, please add this $10.00 to my account No. 38210" dated October 8. Is that also from the State Department file, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 8.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 8.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Next is the letter to then Secretary of the Navy John B. Connally and a page from the letter to Brigadier General R. McC. Tompkins, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 9.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 9.)
Mr. EISENBERG. That is in two parts, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; it is two pages.
Mr. EISENBERG. Next is a photograph of the passport application referred to earlier?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 10.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 10.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And, finally, a photograph of the reverse side of that?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which will also be Cadigan Exhibit No. 10.
Now, in each case, Mr. Cadigan, were these photographs prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. They were.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are they accurate photographs of the items described as being the subject of the photographs?
Mr. CADIGAN. They are.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cadigan, with reference to your enlargement, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, and your photographs of standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10, could you state some of the reasons which led you to the conclusion that Commission Exhibit No. 778, of which Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 is an enlargement, is in the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald, the author of the known documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; on Commission Exhibit----
Mr. EISENBERG. You can refer to your photographs.
Mr. CADIGAN. The enlarged photograph, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, contains both handwriting and hand printing which was compared with the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. I compared both the handwriting and the hand printing to determine whether or not the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics was present in both the questioned and the known documents. I found many characteristics, some of which I would point out.
On the order blank, in the "A. Hidell" and in the wording "Dallas Texas"
421
Page 422
which constitutes a part of the return address, the letter "A" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 is made in the same manner as the capital letter "A" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10. The letter is formed with a short straight stroke beginning about halfway up the left side. The top of it is peaked or pointed. The right side is straight, and is shorter than the initial stroke. The capital letter "D" in Dallas is characterized by a staff or downstroke slanting at about a 30° angle. The lower loop in some instances is closed. In the word "Dallas" the loop is closed, and the body of the letter ends in a rounded loop formation. The same characteristic I found in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as well as other exhibits. The word "Texas" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A is characterized with the letter "x" made in an unusual manner in that the writer, after completing the body of the letter, makes an abrupt change of motion to the following letter "a." This same characteristic I observed in the known standard on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 9, and 4.
In the address portion of the envelope, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, appears the word "Dept." I noticed here, again, the same formation of the capital "D." In addition, the entire word "Dept" appears in the known standards on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The characteristics I would point out here are in the letter "p" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, where the letter is made with a relatively long narrow staff, and the body of the letter is a rounded shape which projects above the staff. The letter "t" ends abruptly in a downstroke. In the hand-printing appearing in the exhibit marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A, the wording "Dallas, Texas" contains a number of the same characteristics as Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, where the same wording appears, and on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8. The writer uses a script-type "D," and prints the other letters in the word "Dallas." The "A " again is made in a similar way to the "A" in "A. Hidell," with a beginning of the downstroke approximately three-quarters of the way up the left side of the stroke. The letter is relatively narrow, and the right-hand side of the letter is straight. In the double "L" combinations there is a curve in the lower portion of the letter. The "S" has a flat top, slanting at approximately a 30-degree angle. In the word "Texas" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A the writer has used a small "e" following the letter "T." The same characteristics will be noted on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
Additionally, I noted that in addition to the shape of the letters themselves, the relative heights of the letters, the spacing between the letters, the slant of the letters in both the know and questioned documents are the same.
On Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, in the portion for address, appears the notation "P.O. Box 2915," and this same wording appears on Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, and on No. 7 and No. 8 except for the "P.O." portion. Here, again, I observed the same formation of the individual letters; the spacing, the style, the slant of the writings in both questioned and known were observed to be the same.
The tail of the "5" is made with a relatively long stroke and the same characteristic appears in the known standards. In the hand printed name "A. Hidell," on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, another characteristic I noted was the very small-sized "i" in the name "Hidell." The writer makes this letter very short in contrast to the other letters in the name. This same characteristic I observed on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, the passport application. With reference to the "1" dot on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 in the name "Hidell," in the return portion, the dot is relatively high and between the body of the letter and the following letter "d." In the portion of the word "Chicago"---of the name "Chicago"--in the address portion on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, the "i" dot is between the "o" and the "g" in "Chicago" and is well above the line of writing. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 4 I observed the same displacement of the "i" dot. In some instances, it is slightly to the right of the body of the letter, as in the word "citizenship" in the sixth line from the bottom, whereas in the word "direct" in the ninth line from the bottom the "i" dot is displaced one and a half letters to the right.
Based upon the combination of these individual characteristics which I have pointed out, as well as others, I reached the opinion that the handwriting and handprinting on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, the writer of the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cadigan, the photographs which comprise Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10 are actually somewhat more limited than the standards,
422
Page 423
in that they represent in some cases excerpts from the standards, is that correct? Such as excerpts from the Marine Corps file?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you refer to the standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10, do you mean by that that you based your conclusion only on the excerpts shown in Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; the exhibits, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10, were merely prepared for demonstration purposes. The original examination and comparison was made using all of the writings, the handwriting and hand-printing in the State Department file, the Marine Corps file, the passport application and the two letters, one to Governor Connally and one to Brigadier General Tompkins.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the documents which you identified very close to the beginning of the deposition, and which I referred to collectively as the standards?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain some of the points of identity which led you to the conclusion that you formed?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I think that using the wording "Dallas, Texas" appearing on Commission Exhibit No. 839 as an example of some of the handwriting characteristics present on this exhibit----
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean Cadigan Exhibit No. 11?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. In the wording "Dallas, Texas," the writing is quite characteristic. I noted, again, the overall size, spacing, slant, and relative proportions of letters on Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 were the same as on Cadigan Exhibit No. 6, and that the letter "D" was characterized on Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 with a relatively short staff, with a rather long retrace on the left side of the staff, the body of the letter ending in a large curling stroke. The small letter "a" is rather narrow and somewhat flat. There is a rather long smooth connecting stroke between the "a" and the double letter "1." The "s" is almost triangular in shape, and has no ending stroke or tail to the right.
Further, on Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, in the word "Texas" I noted again the rather unusual shape of the small letter "x," in that it appears almost as though it were a letter "u." The capital letter "T" in "Texas" has a very long curved beginning stroke and a small eyelet or loop in the lower portion of the letter.
I noted these same characteristics on Cadigan Exhibit No. 6 in the wording "Dallas, Texas," and certain of the letters on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 7, 8, and the entire word :'Texas" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 4.
I noted also, again, that the small letter "p" in the word "sporting" on Cadigan
423
Page 424
Exhibit No. 11 was made the same as the "p's" in the known standards as as on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 in the word "Dept," in that the staff is long, in form of a long closed loop, and the upper portion of the letter extends above the staff and the body of the letter is not closed to the staff.
I further noted that on Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 the wording "P.O. Box 2915" contained the same characteristics as the same wording in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, and 7. And here again, based on a combination of personal handwriting characteristics in the entire writing, I reached the opinion that Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 135, which, for the record, is an order used for the purchase of the revolver that was apparently used to murder Officer Tippit, and I ask you whether you examined that exhibit.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you taken a photograph of that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which you now have before you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have an enlarged photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that would be Cadigan Exhibit No. 12.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 12.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. It is an accurate photograph of Exhibit No. 135?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you compare Commission Exhibit No. 135 with the standard or known writings of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion as to the origin of 135?
Mr. CADIGAN. That it was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give some of the reasons that led you to form that conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; here again, it is the presence of the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics, both handwriting and handprinting.
For example, again the wording "Dallas, Texas," is handprinted on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12, and the same characteristics appear in the same wording on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 9, 7, 6, and 8. The formation of the individual letters on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12, the spacing of the letters, the proportions of the letters, were found to be the same as on the known standards.
Additionally, the capital letter "D" in the name "Drittal" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 12 has a rather unusual appearance in the upper portion of the letter in that it is very pointed and wedge-shaped, and I found this same shape present on the reverse side of the passport application on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, page 2 in the word "Dec."
Again, I noted the rather long tail or ending stroke on the number "5" in the address portion of this exhibit. Again, based on finding the same combination of individual handwriting habits in the questioned and known writings, I concluded that Commission Exhibit No. 135 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 791, which, for the record, is an application by Oswald for post office box 2915, dated October 9, 1962, and ask you whether you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 13.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 13.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it a true and accurate photograph of 791?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether Commission Exhibit No. 791 had been prepared by the author of the standards, Lee Harvey Oswald?
424
Page 425
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That Lee Harvey Oswald had prepared the hand printing, signature, and date on Commission Exhibit No. 791 This excludes the box number and the wording "Dallas, Tex.," in the lower right portion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give some of the reasons why you came to that conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the reasons are basically the same, the presence of the same combination of both handwritten and hand printed characteristics in the known and questioned exhibits. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 18 we have the hand printed wording----
Mr. EISENBERG. Cadigan Exhibit No. 18?
Mr. CADIGAN. Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, excuse me, the passport application, we have the wording "LEE OSWALD." This hand printed signature is quite distinctive in the formation of the individual letters, in the spacing of the letters, and their slant. For example, the letter "L" on both Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 and on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, there is a small hook in the upper left portion where the downstroke begins, and there is a little tent or hill at the base of the letter. The double letter "E's" also have a curve, a dent at the base of the letter, although not so pronounced. Both letters, both letter "E's," are approximately the same height as the "L."
In the last name "OSWALD" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 and on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10 the "O" has a pointed or tented appearance in the upper right portion, and the ending stroke curves down into the body of the letter. The "S" and "W" in both the questioned .and known are smaller than the following capital letter "A." This capital letter "A" in both instances is made in the same manner as previously described on other exhibits. The writer uses a lower-case or small "1," and a lower-case or small "d" for the last two letters of his name, the "d" portion or the letter "d" in both instances being made with a straight-slanted stroke, then an abrupt circular stroke to the left.
In addition on this same exhibit I noted the formation of the letter "i." The exhibit I refer to is Cadigan Exhibit No. 13--the "i" being made very small in relation to the other letters adjacent to it.
This document also bears the signature "Lee H. Oswald" which, again, is a very characteristic signature. It appears in Cadigan Exhibit No. 13, the questioned document, and Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The signature I noted was written rather rapidly. It is somewhat distorted in appearance. The initial "L" has a rather long curved beginning stroke and relatively narrow upper and lower portions of the letter. The letter "H" is made with two parallel strokes and it can be seen that there is a very little retrace from the base of the first stroke in the letter to the top of the second stroke in the letter.
The "O" combination is rather unusual in that the writer swings into the letter "s" from the top of the "0." Also, as the signature progresses to the right it increases in size, and very noticeably in the "ld" portion where the "d" stands well above the line of writing. And in this particular signature there is a long-swinging stroke from the top of the "d," having a shape similar to a "u" lying on its side. The base of the letter has a very sharp angular formation.
Again, based on a combination of the same individual handwriting and hand printing characteristics, I reached the opinion that Commission Exhibit No. 791 was prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 793, consisting of a change-of-address card relating to box 2915. Have you examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you prepared a photograph thereof?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 14.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 14.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is an accurate reproduction of Commission Exhibit No. 793?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, getting back for a moment to Cadigan Exhibit
425
Page 426
No. 13, I see that there is another picture shown on that exhibit, apart from the one as to which you testified.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. That is a Post Office Department Form 1093, application for post office box, and the post office box number is 6225, and it is signed, "Lee H. Oswald."
Mr. EISENBERG. And why is that included on the picture with Cadigan Exhibit No. 13, or rather on the picture with Commission Exhibit No. 791? Is that because they were both from----
Mr. CADIGAN. relate to box 2915.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any particular reason for printing that up with the photograph of Exhibit No. 791?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. I think it may have been part of another exhibit which has not as yet been introduced.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does your identification of Exhibit No. 791 in any way depend upon that photograph?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; not at all.
Mr. EISENBERG. So we can disregard it for our purposes?
Mr. CADIGAN. If you want to, I can take it out.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, it is in.
Mr. CADIGAN. I mean I can just cut it along here.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would rather leave it in, since it is in the record.
Mr. CADIGAN. All right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I just wanted to make sure that it didn't need to be discussed as part of the identification of Exhibit No. 791, and I take it it does not?
Mr. CADIGAN. Mr. photograph thereof, which is Cadigan Exhibit No. 14, did you attempt to determine Whether Commission Exhibit No. 793 had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph of which is Cadigan Exhibit No. 14. And what was your conclusion on that?
Mr. CADIGAN. Again, that Commission Exhibit No. 793 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald, again based upon finding the same combination of individual handwriting and hand printing characteristics in both the questioned writing and the known standards.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss some of those common characteristics?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Here, again, the entire word "Dallas" and the word "Texas" is made in a very characteristic manner which I have described before, and which appears on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 9, 6, 7, and 8.
The signature "Lee H. Oswald" was found to have the same characteristics as the known signatures, although here I noted that in the ending "d" .in "Oswald" the stroke was less cursive than the ending "d" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 13, in that the writer makes a rather narrow loop and does not cross the staff of the letter "d." I noted this characteristic, also, in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10. I would like to point out that here, again, the writer varies his individual characteristics, which is entirely normal and expected, and actually it adds weight to the characteristic to find that it does vary to some degree. All writing, particularly signatures, are never exactly duplicated and some variation is normally expected, and finding the same variations in both questioned and known signatures increases the value of it, so that, again, the presence of the same combination of handwriting and hand printing characteristics in Cadigan Exhibit No. 14 in the known exhibits enabled me to reach the opinion that Commission Exhibit No. 793 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. You used the term "cursive" in respect to this. Can you explain the meaning of that term?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the ending "d" stroke is made with a flourish or a sweeping motion on Cadigan Exhibit No. 13, and on Cadigan Exhibit No. 14 the stroke ends abruptly at the staff of the letter.
426
Page 427
Mr. EISENBERG. And why do you call one "more cursive"?
Mr. CADIGAN. Merely for description.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the meaning of the term "cursive" apart from your use in this instance?
Mr. CADIGAN. I think cursive has also been used to describe the roundness of writing as opposed to an angular shape. I think it also is sometimes used to distinguish between handwriting and hand printing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 795, consisting of an item purporting to be a Selective Service System notice of classification in the name of "Alek James Hidell"; Commission No. 801, a Selective Service System notice of classification in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 802, a registration certificate of the Selective Service System in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 803, a photographic negative; Commission Exhibit No. 804, a photograph negative; Commission Exhibit No. 805, a photograph negative; and Commission Exhibit No. 811, a photographic negative, and I ask you whether you have examined these various items?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Based on that examination, Mr. Cadigan, could you discuss your conclusions concerning Commission Exhibit No. 795?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Commission Exhibit No. 795 is a fraudulent and counterfeit reproduction made from the retouched photographic negatives in Commission Exhibits Nos. 804, 805, and 811 which in turn were made from Commission Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how were they prepared precisely, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. These are photographic reproductions. What was done was to take a genuine Selective Service System notice of classification, Commission Exhibit No. 801 in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. From this, a photographic negative was prepared. Then various portions of the information, including the name, the selective service number, the signature of the clerk of the local board were obliterated with a red opaque substance, and I noted that in the course of this the individual preparing the negative had inadvertently cut off portions of the printed letters, had thickened printed lines, and especially I noted in the signature portion had destroyed portions of the printed letters, and I compared the Commission Exhibit No. 795 with the retouched negative itself, and observed that the defects in .the Commission Exhibit No. 795 were due to the retouching of the negative. Although the negative has been blotted out, or the information has been blotted out, it is readily visible to the naked eye that on Commission Exhibit No. 803, which was also examined in connection with the examination of Commission Exhibit No. 795, the original writing, the original signature and the typed information "Lee Harvey Oswald" and selective service number is the same as it appears on Commission Exhibit No. 801. The opaquing is merely to remove this information photographically. There was an intervening step where a small negative or a reduced negative of the lower portion of the face of the card which refers to the penalty for violation concerning carrying the card itself was made. The individual responsible made a reduced photograph but, again, the same characteristics are apparent, and by comparing the print, ,the photographic print Commission Exhibit No. 795 with these negatives, it is possible to determine that the Commission Exhibit No. 795 was produced from the negatives and the negatives in turn were produced from Commission Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802.
In this connection, I would point out that the reverse side of Commission Exhibit 795 is the form used for a registration certificate, and it is not a proper face of a notice of classification. Here, again, the same procedure was followed. The original card is photographed. The unwanted information is painted out with an opaque substance, and then a photographic print is prepared. Then the individual responsible typed in the information "Alek James Hidell" with the selective service number, descriptive data on the reverse, and the number of the local board.
Further, an examination of the Commission Exhibit No. 795 shows the individual had placed the photograph in a typewriter and struck a number of keys which did not print. The indentations from the typewriter keys can be clearly
427
Page 428
seen in side lighting. Also, in the selective service number on the face of the card and the data on the back of the card, indentations of typewriter keys were noted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, returning to the negatives, I see that in Commission Exhibit No. 803, as you pointed out, the information that was originally on the card is visible.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Whereas, in Commission Exhibit No. 804 it is not visible.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the difference?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; because Commission Exhibit No. 804 is an intermediate step. Commission Exhibit No. 803 was first prepared, and a print was made from this exhibit. The photographic print would not have the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" in red on it. In the place of "Lee Harvey Oswald" it would show as a blank. Then using the print, a second negative is prepared, and further retouching is done, and also the warning notice in a reduced form is inserted into the negative, so that the data from the original notice of classification issued in the name of Oswald appears on the first negative and does not appear on the second negative, but both negatives are directly linked to original card of Oswald and to the counterfeit reproduction.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, have you prepared photographs of this card showing some of the details you have been discussing?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 15.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 15.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This Cadigan Exhibit----
Mr. CADIGAN. Actually, there are four different photographs, photographic enlargements that comprise Cadigan Exhibit No. 15, the face and reverse of the notice of classification made in normal lighting, and the face and reverse of the card made with side lighting showing the typewritten indentations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's mark those, then, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 15, 16, and 17, and 18.
(The documents referred to were marked Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Cadigan Exhibit No. 15 shows the face with lighting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Cadigan Exhibit No. 16 shows the reverse with normal lighting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Cadigan Exhibit No. 17 shows the face with side lighting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And Cadigan Exhibit No. 18 shows the reverse with side lighting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. These exhibits also contain pictures of another questioned document which we will get to shortly, and that is the certificate of service in the name of Alek James Hidell, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, starting with Cadigan Exhibit No. 15, could you discuss several of the features on which you base the conclusions you have given us earlier?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. The observation of this exhibit will show in the blocks for the selective service number fragmentary portions of the original selective service number. The lines have been thickened. In the space provided for "been classified in Class," in the middle, in approximately the middle of the space there is a heavy dotted line. By comparing this with the original card issued in the name "Oswald" is seen the lower portion of the capital letter "I."
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken a photograph of the original card?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That we will mark Cadigan Exhibit No. 19.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 19.)
428
Page 429
Mr. CADIGAN. On the right-hand side of the card the word "President, appears, and on Cadigan Exhibit No. 15 a portion of the "r" and the "e" is missing, due to the retouching. Examination of the corresponding area on Cadigan Exhibit No. 19 shows that this was due to retouching a portion of the signature of the local board. Similarly, in the wording "heavy penalty for violation" appearing below the signature, the word "violation" is considerably distorted in that portions of the various letters are missing. The negative shows this is due to retouching, and a comparison with the original card of Oswald, of which Cadigan Exhibit No. 19 is an enlargement, shows where the lower loops of the letter "f" cut into the letter, cut into the printed word "violation," which required retouching by the individual to remove it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken photographs of these negatives to illustrate these points?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is that photograph?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 20.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 20.)
Mr. CADIGAN. And by referring to the Cadigan Exhibit No. 20, which shows the retouching, examination of the area in the word "President" will show where the portion of the "r" has been cut off. It will show where the capital letter "I" appears in the space provided "been classified in Class," the "I" being' part of the classification, Roman numeral "IV-A," which appears on the original card.
Cadigan Exhibit No. 20 shows, also, the intermediate negative where the size of the warning appearing on the bottom of the card was reduced, and the additional retouching made that causes the distorted appearance of the word "violation" on the Commission Exhibit No. 795, so that it was based on my comparison side by side of the negatives; the photographic print, and the original exhibit in the wallet of Oswald, which enabled me to determine that this Commission Exhibit No. 795 was a fraudulent counterfeit made from retouched negatives which, in turn, were made from the original exhibits, Commission Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802.
Mr. EISENBERG. I think that Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 16, 17, and 18 are self-explanatory.
Mr. CADIGAN. They merely serve to illustrate the indented typewriting that appears on these exhibits.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 806, purporting to be a certificate of service that Alek James Hidell has honorably served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, and ask you whether you have examined that document?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 812, consisting of two negatives. Have you examined those negatives?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Based upon your examination, have you come to any conclusion as to the construction of Commission Exhibit No. 806?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; again, this is a fraudulent and counterfeit reproduction made from photographic negatives which, in turn, were made from the original card issued in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken a photograph of the original card?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And where does that appear? That is the photograph you are handing me now, which we will label Cadigan Exhibit No. 21?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 21.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Cadigan Exhibit. No. 21 includes the selective service registration certificate we have been discussing, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; it includes an enlargement of the original Selective Service System registration certificate issued in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is the Selective Service System certificate on which the forgery in the name of Hidell was based?
429
Page 430
Mr. CADIGAN From which the reverse side of the forged or the fraudulent and counterfeit notice of classification was prepared.
Mr. EISENBERG. Focusing our attention on the certificate of service, could you illustrate by use of this photograph and any others you have already introduced some of the points which led you to your conclusion----
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. As to Commission Exhibit No. 806?
Mr. CADIGAN. The two negatives in Commission Exhibit No. 812, which appear on Cadigan Exhibit No. 20, show the areas of retouching. Examination of the negatives themselves in Commission Exhibit No. 812 shows that the original entries on the face and reverse side can be seen. It appears in red. The face reads "Lee Harvey Oswald, 1653230." And the reverse side bears his signature.
From a study of the negatives and from the enlarged photographs, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18, I wish to point out some of the evidence that links these three items together. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 16, on the reverse side in the printed word "signature," the "u" is misshapen, due to some of the retouched substance crossing the letter, and this is exactly in the area where the upper portion of the name "Lee" appears on the original card. This is seen on Cadigan Exhibit No. 21.
Also on the line below, in which appears the printed wording "signature of certifying officer," in the letter "n" in "certifying" can be seen a long line which at first glance might appear to be a part of the signature "A. G. Ayers, Jr.," but which corresponds exactly to the ending stroke of the letter "y" in "Harvey."
Also, in the printed word "officer" on the same line can be seen the effects of the retouch in that the upper part of the first "f" has been cut off by the retouch substance. So that by a study and a comparison of the Commission Exhibit No. 806 with the negatives, with particular reference to where the retouching fluid has cut into lines or printing, and further comparing the same negative with the original card, as shown in Cadigan Exhibit No. 21, I determined and it can be seen that the Commission Exhibit No. 806 was produced from the negatives in Exhibit No. 812, which, in turn, were produced from the original card of which Cadigan Exhibit No. 21 is a photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, in either the fraudulent selective service notice of classification or certificate of service, have attempts been made to reinstate portions of printed lines which were blocked out by the opaque substance?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I didn't notice that, particularly. I noticed from a technical standpoint that the opaquing was rather crudely done, in that the opaquing of negatives is a common photographic technique, and with reasonable care you can avoid cutting into lines. I didn't particularly observe any areas where the lines had been put back in.
This does not eliminate the possibility, because it is a very simple matter of scratching through the opaque emulsion to produce such a line.
Mr. EISENBERG. Where the line is thickened, as is visible in Cadigan Exhibit No. 15, how would you account for that, Mr. Cadigan? I am looking now at Cadigan Exhibit No. 15 in the block, that portion of the rectangular block surrounding the number "224," and particularly the bottom of the block.
Mr. CADIGAN. A study and examination of Cadigan Exhibit No. 19 shows that these areas correspond to the figures "114" which appear in the second block of the Selective Service number, and which were not retouched off.
Mr. EISENBERG. So you feel that, rather than the bottom of that block being thickened in the retouching, what you have is a residue from the typed-in portion----
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which appeared on the original card?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; and this can be further seen. The right-hand side of the block for the first two letters of the selective service number shows a thickened area which corresponds to the numeral "1" on the original card of Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, returning now for a moment to Commission Exhibit No. 795, were you able to identify either of the two signatures written in ink on that card, the one being "Alek J. Hidell," and the other a signature written over the caption "Member or clerk of local board"?
430
Page 431
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I did examine the "Alek J. Hidell" signature appearing as the signature of registrant, but the known writings available of Lee Harvey Oswald were not sufficiently comparable with the signature to reach a definite opinion. I did note, however, some similarities in the letter "A" and in the last name, the letter "H" and the ending "1." But these were not of sufficient weight nor of sufficient number nor of sufficient combination to warrant a definite opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. You say you compared this item, this signature with the known standards. Did you compare the signature with questioned documents which you already identified?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I wonder whether after this deposition would you compare this signature with those questioned signatures of "Alek J. Hidell" which you have now identified?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; certainly.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 817, consisting of a portion of an application for a post office box 30061 in New Orleans, POD Form 1093, and ask you whether you have examined that item?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you attempted to determine whether that item, Commission Exhibit No. 817, was prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald, whose known writings we have introduced previously?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. On Commission Exhibit No. 817 the hand printed names, "A. J. Hidell," and "Marina Oswald," and the signature "L. H. Oswald," were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, based on a comparison with his known standards of writing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of Commission Exhibit No. 817?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And does that also include a photograph of another item, apparently another part of the application?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did your identification of the Commission Exhibit No. 817 depend in any way upon your identification of the other part of the item which is shown in your photograph?
Mr. CADIGAN. It did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. I will mark the photograph Cadigan. Exhibit No. 22. (The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 22.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is an accurate photograph?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. We haven't been going over that with all the other photographs, but is that true of all the photographs we have introduced so far?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And any other photographs you may introduce during the balance of this deposition?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, by use of that photograph and by use of the photographs of the standards, could you explain some of the points which led you to your conclusion concerning Commission Exhibit No. 817?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; here again, it is the presence of the same combination of characteristics in the hand printing and signature on Cadigan Exhibit No. 22 and on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. For example, the word "Marina" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 22 can be compared with the same word or the same name on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, the "M" being characterized by a rather long beginning stroke, the center of the letter is high, giving the letter somewhat the appearance of the numeral "3" tipped on its side. The "A" is similar to or made in the same way as previous "A's," with a pointed top, with the beginning
431
Page 432
stroke about two-thirds of the way up the staff. The "i", again, is very small in relation to the letters coming before and after it. In the "N" there is a curve at the base of the letter. It is more pronounced on Cadigan Exhibit No. 22 than in the name "Marina" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, but in the name "Lillian," on the same exhibit, the same kind of curve is observed.
In "Oswald," again in the signature "L. H. Oswald," I find the same characteristics and combinations of characteristics. In the questioned signature Cadigan Exhibit. No. 22 as in the various known signatures in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10, here I think the ending "ld," the narrow pointed loops used for the "1" and "d" are very small, and with a rather misshapen body or upper stroke.
Again, it is the presence of the same combination of handwriting and printing characteristics which led me to the opinion that this exhibit had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 813, a vaccination certificate, a purported vaccination certificate, signed by "A J Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined that item?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bears writing on the outside and the inside. Have you attempted to determine whether that writing is the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the hand printing and the Oswald signature were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, again based on the presence of the same combination of individual handwriting and hand printing characteristics.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken photographs of this exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Those will be Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 23 and 24.
(The documents referred to were marked Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 23 and 24.)
Mr. CADIGAN. I would point out that these represent only a portion of the original document, since for demonstration purposes the lower printed blank is not included in these exhibits.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the document as we see it now exhibits extremely faint writing. Can you explain the reason for that?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is due to treatment of the card for latent fingerprints by chemical process which bleaches and makes inks run.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the document treated to restore the original color after it had been treated for fingerprints?
Mr. CADIGAN No; from looking at this, it has been desilvered, but it has not been completely desilvered since parts of the stains of the chemical treatment remain.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you first saw the document and made your examination, was the document in its original condition, that is, had it been treated yet for fingerprints?
Mr. CADIGAN. I never saw the original.
Mr. EISENBERG. You never saw the original?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I had a Xerox copy of the original exhibit. I did not see this original exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. You said before you had examined this exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. To be more exact, I examined a Xerox copy of this exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know who prepared the Xerox copy?
Mr. CADIGAN. It was submitted by our Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this a copy of the front and the back?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are your photographs of the Xerox or of the original?
Mr. CADIGAN. They are made from the Xerox.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this the first time you saw the original?
Mr. CADIGAN. I believe it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Based upon your examination of the original at this point, and a comparison of the photograph of the Xerox copies, would you conclude
432
Page 433
that the Xerox copies had been made before the document had been treated for fingerprints?
Mr. CADIGAN. Very definitely.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you note a few of the points which led you to your conclusion concerning the handwriting appearing on the documents you photographed as Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 23 and 24?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the handwritten signature "Lee H. Oswald" is written in a very distinctive manner. The "L" with its rather long beginning stroke, and its narrow upper, and the lower loop, is almost in the shape of a triangle. The large loop formation at the top of the "O" leading into the letter "s" and the loop at the base of the "s" is almost a carbon copy of the same characteristic appearing on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, page 2. And again, the narrow "l" and relatively large "d" with a very pronounced ending Stroke on the "d" is typical of the manner in which this man writes his signature.
So also in the hand printing, on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, we see the "LEE" and the "OSWALD," the little hook at the start of the "L" and the reverse curves at the base of both the "L" and the following "EE's." Again, we see the use of the lowercase 'T' and the lowercase "d" in the formation of "Oswald," whereas the rest of the letters are capital letters.
Here, again, the presence of the same combination of characteristics led me to the opinion that this writing had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the signature "A. J. Hidell"?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; it does not. This signature is distorted, and the standards, the known standards of Lee Harvey Oswald I had available for comparison would not justify any opinion concerning this particular signature.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to compare it with the questioned items which you had, theretofore, identified?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; without reaching any opinion one way or the other.
Mr. EISENBERG Would you conclude that it was not written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I would not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does it bear any similarities to Oswald's handwriting at any point?
Mr. CADIGAN. I didn't observe any that I thought were sufficiently significant in characteristics to warrant pointing out. It is a question of judgment as to how you evaluate a given characteristic. I don't see, and do not see now, any characteristic worthy of mention to either say Oswald did or didn't do it.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 115, consisting of a rubber stamping kit, and ask you whether you have examined that stamping kit.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether the stamping on the document which you have photographed as Cadigan Exhibit No. 23, was produced by the rubber stamp kit, Exhibit No. 115?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you reach?
Mr. CADIGAN. I couldn't reach any conclusion because the exhibit that I had, and from which Cadigan Exhibit No. 23 was made, is a Xerox copy, and is not adequate for the rubber stamp examination of this kind.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see anything which led you to believe that the stamp impression on the document you examined could not have been made by Exhibit No. 115?
Rather than answer that question, could you undertake to perform an examination based upon the original?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. At a subsequent time?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you will supply us with the results of that by letter?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 819, consisting of a photograph of a card, "Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans Chapter,
433
Page 434
L. H. Oswald," with Oswald's signature, or a signature purporting to be Lee Oswald's, and the signature "A. J. Hidell"; and Commission Exhibit No. which appears to be similar to the photograph Exhibit No. 819, except that there is no signature apparent in the space where the signature A. J. Hidell appears Exhibit No. 819, and I ask you whether you have examined these two items.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is Exhibit No. 819 a photograph of Exhibit No. 820?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit No. 820 is seriously discolored now and does not the words "A. J. Hidell" apparent. Can you explain how that came about?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the original Commission Exhibit No. 820 had been for latent fingerprints, and this is a chemical process which has removed the ink of the signature. However, on examination under strong side lighting using low-power magnification, portions of the letters "A," "J," and "H," of signature of the chapter president can be discerned, and are in the same on the photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 819, as on the original Commission Exhibit No. 820.
Furthermore, a comparison of the writing and the rubber stamp, with reference to the position of these with respect to lines and printing and other fixed points on the card, definitely shows that Commission Exhibit No. 819 is a photograph of Exhibit No. 820, and made before it was treated for latent fingerprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, apart from this, did you take the photograph, Exhibit No. 819?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; the photograph was made in our photographic laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you did see Exhibit No. 820, before it had been discolored, did you not?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't recall at this time. It may well be that I did, but I have no independent recollection of it now.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that your testimony that Exhibit No. 819 is a photograph of Exhibit No. 820 is based upon your evaluation of the two items as they exist now rather than upon recollection of Exhibit No. 820 before it was discolored?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?
Mr. CADIGAN. No, this is a latent fingerprint matter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why the signature, "Lee Oswald" or rather "L. H. Oswald" is apparent, while the signature "A. J. Hidell" is not?
Mr. CADIGAN. Different inks.
Mr. EISENBERG. Some inks are more soluble in the solution used for fingerprint tests than others?
Mr. CADIGAN. Definitely.
Mr. EISENBERG. Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801, and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?
Mr. CADIGAN. Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in their original silvered condition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints.
Mr. CADIGAN. I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take the photographs?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
434
Page 435
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you referring to the photographs which you produced at an earlier point?
Mr. CADIGAN. The photographs that I have produced here today, the various enlargements, were made from negatives. These negatives, in turn, were made at the time the original exhibits were photographed, and this would be before latent fingerprint treatment.
Mr. EISENBERG. I asked you when I introduced those exhibits whether they had been prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. You meant, then, that they were prepared under your supervision, or did you mean that they were prepared by you in the sense that you made the enlargement from the negative?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; they were prepared under my supervision. In other words, I maintain all of the negatives in connection with the document aspects of this file in my room, under lock and key, at all times. I pull the negatives that I want enlarged, and I prepare a photograph requisition, take it down to our photographers, tell them what I want, and then later go back and pick up the enlargements, and check them to be sure they are just what I want.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the negative itself? Can you state of your own knowledge whether the negative itself is of the original?
Mr. CADIGAN. Only, insofar, that I know that on November 23, when the vast bulk of this material came in, that it was photographed. Some of these items I saw before they were photographed, and some afterward. But the exact sequence to select one item out of four or five hundred, I cannot, in all honesty, say I definitely recall seeing this before it was photographed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what the procedure is when a document came in involving the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Initially, the first big batch of evidence was brought into the laboratory on November 23 of 1963 and this consisted of many, many items.
Mr. EISENBERG. 1963?
Mr. CADIGAN. November 23, 1963. It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought in. There were several agent examiners available to evaluate this material. There were supervisory officials, there were representatives from our Internal Security Division, all of whom had an interest in this matter, and it was decided they wanted certain items treated for latent fingerprints. The basic rule is always that before an exhibit is treated for latent fingerprints it is photographed, and that is what was done in this case.
Mr. EISENBERG. What happens to the negative after it is photographed? Were they all given to you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the negatives that pertain to the document aspects I took over and maintained under my control. Negatives pertaining to firearms evidence or hairs or fibers, they were turned over to Mr. Frazier.
Mr. EISENBERG. So under the regular procedure, as soon as the document came in it would be photographed, before it was treated for latents, and the negative would be turned over to you?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. So at least if the procedure had been followed, any negative you had would be a negative of a document before it had been treated for fingerprints, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning to Commission Exhibits Non. 820 and 819, did you prepare a photograph which would show the remnants of the signature "A. J. Hidell" on the Commission Exhibit No. 820?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the preparation of such a photograph possible?
Mr. CADIGAN. I doubt it very much, because the indentations are so faint that the enlargement would serve no useful purpose. Actually, the best examination is by low-power magnification under the proper lighting.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether the signature of Lee H. Oswald on this card was written by Lee H. Oswald?
435
Page 436
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the Lee H. Oswald signature on Commission Exhibit No. 820 was written by Lee H. Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the signature "A. J. Hidell"?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was unable to reach a conclusion. First of all, at the time I compared this signature the known standards of Lee Harvey Oswald were adequate for this particular comparison.
I did, however, note that there were certain differences in this signature that indicate the possibility of someone other than Oswald having prepared it. But in my opinion, the characteristics I observed were not of sufficient weight for a positive opinion in this regard.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you note those characterstics?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I think the capital letter "A" and the capital letter "H" in "Hidell" are different from the "A's" that Oswald makes, that appear in the enlarged photographs, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10.
Mr. EISENBERG. Anything else?
Mr. CADIGAN. I think the lower case "d," especially in the rounded shape of the body of it and the relatively short height of the staff, so that the staff compared to the body is very short. The "J" is made different or in a different' manner than Oswald regularly makes or usually makes his "J's" in the standards, but again it is a question of judgment as to whether you believe a combination of characteristics is enough to either eliminate or identify. In this instance, in my opinion, these differences point to the possibility of another writer other than Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. You indicated before, also, that there was another ink used.
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct. This, of course, in and of itself, is of no sequence, since the same person can use two different pens, so the color of the ink would not be, in my mind, significant.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that signature appear to have been written naturally?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. At normal speed?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any evidence of retouching?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Generally, were the signatures and other handwritings in the questioned documents you have reviewed in this deposition today written naturally?
Mr. CADIGAN. With the exception of the "Hidell" signature on his certificate of vaccination. There is, in my opinion, distortion present there. But, by and large, in fact in almost all of the various handwritings, hand printings, and signatures, there is no evidence of disguise or distortion, in my opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. What type of evidence indicates disguise or distortion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Distortion and disguise can take many forms. It can be in the form of a change in slant, a deliberate malformation of the individual letters. It can be shown in broken or interrupted strokes. It can be shown in waves or wiggles in the line itself which should not normally be there. It may be occasioned by a person using other than normal hand, a left-handed person writing with his right hand or a right-handed person writing with his left hand. All these introduce elements of distoration or disguise. The extent of it can only be determined by comparing a given writing with known writing, and observing the characteristics present, and on that basis you can then formulate an opinion as to whether or not there is any appreciable amount of distortion or disguise.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you evaluate the possibility of another person having simulated the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald in these questioned documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't think there is any possibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. On what do you base that?
Mr. CADIGAN. I base that on 23 years experience and judgment and the examination of the documents and the various writings involved in this instance.
436
Page 437
Mr. EISENBERG. And do I understand that if that had happened, the person would have left evidence behind which you would have detected?
Mr. CADIGAN. In my opinion, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that would be in what form?
Mr. CADIGAN. It would be in, many forms. Failure to incorporate into the writings things that should be there, and including in the writings things that are not in Oswald's writing, differences in slant, spacing, proportions of letters, both to other letters and proportions of letters within themselves, the adoption of the various variations that you find in the known writings. When the amount of writing approaches the amount involved here, there is a large, a relatively large volume of questioned writings. The possibilities of successful or undetectable forgery, in my opinion, are nil.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1, which is a note in the Russian language in cyrillic print, and ask you whether you have examined that item?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Commission Exhibit Nos. 55, 56, and 66, consisting of various notes in the cyrillic language, rather in the Russian language in cyrillic print, and ask you whether you have examined those notes?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who is the purported signer of those notes, Exhibits Nos. 55, 56, and 66?
Mr. CADIGAN. From the translation that I read these are purportedly written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, these have also been identified by Marina as having been written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
And these are signed Alek in some or all cases?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they are signed A-l-e-k, Alek in all three instances.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again, for the record, this is a name which was used for Oswald during his period of staying in the Soviet Union.
Have you attempted to determine whether Commission Exhibit No. I was written by the person who wrote Commission Exhibits Nos. 55, 56, and 66?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That Commission Exhibit No. I was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared photographs of Commission Exhibits Nos. 55, 56, and 66?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; of the letters contained in those exhibits.
Mr. EISENBERG. I will mark those as Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 25, 26, 27, and 28.
(The documents referred to were marked Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 25, 26, 27, and 28.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you also taken a photograph of Commission Exhibit No 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. I will mark that as Cadigan Exhibit No. 29----
Mr. CADIGAN. Front and back.
Mr. EISENBERG. And Cadigan Exhibit No. 30, representing respectively the back and front of Commission Exhibit No. 1.
(The documents referred to were marked Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 29 and 30.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, by use of photographs Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 25 through 30, could you explain some of the reasons which led you to your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; and I would point out that in addition to the four enlargements written in Russian, I also used Cadigan Exhibits or the documents represented by Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10, the known standards of Oswald, since there are English letters interspersed with the Russian writing on Commission Exhibit No. 1. Thus, for example, in the second line in Cadigan Exhibit No. 29 appears the word "to" which is directly comparable to the
437
Page 438
same word appearing in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. This is characterized by a long sweeping upstroke, and the recurring downstroke cuts the staff about in half. And the "o" is without any tail, and it is relatively small and set fairly close into the staff. The "t" crossing is rather long and fairly high.
I noted these same characteristics in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. Further, there is the wording in English, "Red Cross" appearing about two-thirds of the way down the side of the page beginning with the numeral 6, and here, again, I noted the same characteristics in the English hand printing in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. Again, the use of the small "e" and the small "d" in conjunction with the capital 'R," and then in the word "cross" he has used the capital letters. On the face of the Commission Exhibit No. 1 appear the printed English letters "ERVAY" which are almost directly comparable with the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 10. The "E" here is characterized by the little loop at the base of the staff. The "R" has a flat closed loop on the left side of the sift. The "Y" is constructed of two strokes, almost a perfect "V" shape for the body and a tail slanting back away from it.
The letter "p" or what appears to be the letter "p," indicated by the roman numeral 2 and a red arrow, is similar to the English "p," characterized by a long narrow staff without much of a loop. The body of the letter extends above the staff and the base is open. The bottom of the letter is not closed in.
The numeral "1" on the chart Cadigan Exhibit No. 29 points to a Russian character which resembles somewhat the English letter "G," the capital letter "G." This is characterized by a rather large elongated loop along the left side of the upstroke, and the finishing stroke is short and straight.
The numeral "3" in red on Cadigan Exhibit No. 29 points to the Russian word which resembles the English word "tbi." The "t" has a very long beginning upstroke. The crossing of the "t" is high and is at the top of the letter. The "b" is formed with a straight staff on the back side, and there is a well spaced connection to the following letter which resembles the English letter "i."
I further noted that on this same side of the document shown in Cadigan Exhibit No. 29 in the second to the last line from the bottom appears the combination "exa," which is directly comparable with the "exa" in "Texas" appearing on the photograph Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 4, and 9, among others. Again this characteristic way of making the "x" is almost like a "u" or an open "o." There is a little extra stroke that breaks off of the "x" so that instead of looking like "exa" it has the appearance of "eva" with a diagonal stroke through the "v."
The number "6" in red on Cadigan Exhibit No. 29 points to the combination which looks like the English letters "Ha," where the same two letters appear on the photographs, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 25 and 26, the "H" being made in two roughly parallel straight strokes. The "a" is almost in the form of a circle, and the tail of the "a" runs out horizontally to the line of writing.
On Cadigan Exhibit No. 30, the number "8" in red with an arrow points to the combination of letters which resemble the English letters "tak," and this same combination or the same letters appear on Cadigan Exhibit No. 27. Again, the "t" has a rather long beginning stroke. The crossing is high and long, and I noted that the "k" in both instances is made in a similar manner.
The figure "9" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 30 also points to a different style of "k," or what resembles the English letter "k," in that it is composed of a straight staff and the body or the right portion of the letter is almost the shape of a "v" tilted on its side.
Because of this combination of characteristics, as well as many others, reached the opinion that Government's Exhibit No. 1 was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Commission Exhibit No. 1, that is?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, of which Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 30 and 29 are photographic enlargements.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Cadigan. Thank you very much. You have been extremely helpful.
438
CORTLAND CUNNINGHAM VOLUME II
TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM
Mr. BALL. Will you state your name for the record?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Cortlandt Cunningham.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cunningham, will you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony given before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do.
Mr. BALL. Mr. Cunningham, be seated there.
What is your business?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am a special agent of the FBI.
251
Page 252
Mr. BALL. What is your specialty with the FBI?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am assigned to the FBI laboratory in the Firearms Identification Unit.
Mr. BALL. There is a rifle here that has been identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139, it has been in your custody, hasn't it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has.
Mr. BALL. You brought it over here this morning?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. BALL. And I requested you disassemble it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. BALL. Let's take it out of the sack and put it before the Commission. Do you need any special tools to assemble this rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. I notice you have a screwdriver there. Can you assemble it without the use of a screwdriver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What can you use?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Any object that would fit the slots on the five screws that retain the stock to the action.
Mr. BALL. Could you do it with a 10-cent piece?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Will you do that--about how long will it take you?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I know I can do it, but I have never been timed as far as using a dime. I have been timed using a screwdriver, which required a little over 2 minutes.
Mr. BALL. 2 minutes with a screwdriver.
Try it with the dime and let's see how long it takes.
Okay. Start now. Six minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think I can improve on that.
Mr. BALL. And the only tool you used was a 10-cent piece?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. BALL. That is all.
Senator COOPER. Does the bolt work all right now?Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Once in a while with regard to the top portion--namely the retaining screw and the top stock--you have trouble getting them engaged on this particular model.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is the case on this weapon. On that one over there, however, it slid right on when I put it together a little while ago; it was much faster.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. This is a weapon identical to the one that has been identified as the assassination weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This is the assassination weapon.
Mr. BALL. This is the weapon found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, have you fired it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many times.
The CHAIRMAN. That has been fired many times?
Mr. BELIN. You can disassemble it in a lesser amount of time, I assume.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Definitely, it comes apart much faster. I can do it for you.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand with a screwdriver you put the rifle together in 2 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; a few seconds over 2 minutes, somewhere around 2 1/4, 2 1/2 minutes, readily.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I am sure I can assemble it faster the second time with a dime than I did the last time but I did have trouble with that one retaining screw.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything more you have on this?
Mr. BALL. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Anybody?
Well, Agent Cunningham, thank you very much, sir.
252
Page 253
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, if there are no further witnesses today, we will adjourn for the day, and we will meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock for the purpose of taking further testimony.
(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
Wednesday, April 1, 1964 VOLUME III
TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM AND JOSEPH D. NICOL
The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE. Washington. D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, members.
Also present were Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.
Cortlandt Cunningham
Page 451
TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM
The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.
Mr. Cunningham, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Joseph Nicol. We understand that you are a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Nicol is a firearms expert with the Bureau of Criminal
451
Page 452
Identification and Investigation of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Illinois.
You have both been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work.
Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please. You may proceed with the examination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, would you state your name and position?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Cortlandt Cunningham. I am a Special Agent of the FBI.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in what branch of the FBI do you work?Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am assigned to the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, here in Washington, D.C.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Northwestern University, and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Miami.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly state your qualifications in the field of fire arms identification?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Upon entering the FBI Laboratory, I underwent an extensive training course under the supervision of experienced examiners in the field of firearms identification, which consisted of making thousands of examinations and comparisons of bullets, cartridge cases, and weapons.
I have also done reading in the subject. I have done some research and conducted many experiments in the field. And, of course, I have made thousands of examinations on my own and testified numerous times in State and Federal courts.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many years have you been in the Laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Over 5 years, and I have been in the Bureau over 10 years.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
Mr. EISENBERG. To begin with, Mr. Cunningham, we had some testimony yesterday on the bullet which is thought to have been fired at General Walker.That is Commission Exhibit No. 573. Are you familiar with this bullet, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you supply the weight of that bullet, which was going to be supplied to us?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can. This bullet weighed 148.25 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that show some weight loss, if the bullet was from a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher- Carcano cartridge?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does. Those bullets weigh 161 grains, but there is a great deal of mutilation on this bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you tell us when you received this bullet in your laboratory, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. It was received from the Dallas office of the FBI on December 4, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when was it examined?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was examined that date
.Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 143, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this exhibit, which, for the record, is a revolver.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you will excuse me, I won't open the cylinder. I have checked the cylinder, and there are expended or fired cartridge cases in the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which you have placed in it for a special demonstration?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I fired it, yes, prior to my testimony here today. I have seen this weapon before.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again for the record, this is the weapon which is believed to have been used in the murder of Officer Tippit. Can you describe this weapon in terms of name, caliber and so forth?
452
Page 453
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want me to describe it as it is today?
Mr. EISENBERG. As it is today.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As it is today, it is a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, Victory Model revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. And was it always a .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. Originally this weapon was known as a .38-200 British Service revolver. In this country the weapon would be known as a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, Victory Model. However, the
British gave the designation .38-200 to it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this revolver made in the United States?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was.
Mr. EISENBERG. And has it been in England subsequent to that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how can you tell that, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, first of all, all weapons going into England have to be proofed. They are proofed at, usually, the Birmingham proofhouse.
Representative FORD. What does that mean?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are tested for whether they will withstand a certain charge. They place in the cylinders overloaded cartridges, and they are fired, in the cylinder, as this one has been. It has been proofed to 3 1/2 tons. Each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.
You can tell that, because each chamber has been stamped with the Birmingham proofmark, indicating that each chamber in the cylinder has been proofed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain to us the difference be tween a .38 S&W and a .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are completely different cartridges. One cartridge is a .38 Special, and the other cartridge is a .38 S&W, or actually written out it would be Smith and Wesson. It was developed for their weapons, and it is quite an old cartridge, and it is known--usually as appears on a box of ammunition as merely a .38 S&W. However, there are many differences in the cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you brought two--an example of each type of cartridge with you?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have. First of all, this is actually a Western .38 S&W cartridge. You will see the head stamping on the base of this cartridge signifies it to be a .38 S&W.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before you go any further--Mr. Chairman, may I have this marked as an exhibit-- this specimen?
I am holding a cartridge marked Western .38 S&W, and it is submitted as Commission Exhibit 587.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 587, and received in evidence.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you would care to see one broken down, I have one with me. That is the same cartridge where the bullet has been pulled and the powder has been dumped out.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is also a .38 S&W cartridge, but it has been disassembled into a bullet and a cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The bullet has been pulled out of the cartridge case and the powder removed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as an exhibit?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be. What is the number?
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 588.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 588.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 588, and received in evidence.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular cartridge, which is one complete cartridge, is a Remington- Peters .38 S&W. These two components actually are of the same cartridge. All I have done is pull the bullet, and it is also a Remington-Peters .38 S&W.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the same cartridge as Exhibits 588 and 587?
453
Page 454
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The only difference is that they are different brands. They were made by two different manufacturers.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show that to the Chairman for his examination?
The CHAIRMAN. These appear to be lead bullets.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The others appeared to be jacketed.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are not, sir. It is known as gilding metal. They are copper-coated lead bullets. Actually, it is an alloy--it is not pure copper. They have been flash coated, for sales appeal, more than anything else.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that coating serve to prevent distortion to any measurable extent when the bullet has penetrated a body?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it would not, to any appreciable amount. It is such a thin coat, as you can see. Later on I will show you the ones that have been fired, and also the bullets removed from Officer Tippit's body. You can see the coating comes off--it flakes off--it is very thin.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that Exhibits 587 and 588 are substantially similar to the R-P cartridge you have just been discussing?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. They are both loaded to the same specifications, even though there are two manufacturers. All commercially made ammunition in this country is loaded to a specific muzzle velocity.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this R-P cartridge which Mr. Cunningham has been discussing admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 589?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 589, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. You have been showing us a .38 S&W, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an example of a .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do. The first one is a Western .38 Special copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture, a .38 Special. The other components I have here are components of the same cartridge from which the bullet has been pulled.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have the cartridge case, bullet, and cartridge admitted into evidence as 590?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 590, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe to us briefly the difference
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want the Remington-Peters?
Mr. EISENBERG. You are holding in your hand a Remington-Peters disassembled and assembled .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you hand that to the Chief Justice? May this be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 591?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 591, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This consists of an assembled R-P .38 Special and a disassembled R-P .38 Special.
Again, I notice, Mr. Cunningham, that the R-P bullet has a lead-colored look, whereas Exhibit 590 had a copper-colored look.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The Western coating is known by the trade name "Lubaloy." It is a trade name of the Western Cartridge Co., and it is nothing more than a gilding metal--actually, it is just a flash coating on the outside of the bullet. There is some advantage, a very small advantage, as to leading. But it is mostly for sales appeal, because with Winchester bullets, some do and some don't have the coating. Most of Winchesters which is the same bullet, have not been copper coated--that they are selling today.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain the difference in terms of dimensions and contour, weight, and so forth, between the .38 Special bullets which you have just shown us and the .38 S&W bullets which you have shown to us?
454
Page 455
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The complete .38 Special cartridges, both brands, they are approximately the same they are made to specifications, and they are within--just 1/1000th difference between the two of them. They are very close. In some cases, there is a slight difference, but generally they are the same size.
The .38 Special cartridges are a little over 1 1/2 inches in length. The .38 S&W cartridges are approximately 1.2 inches in length. In other words, there is about 4/10ths of an inch difference in their length.
The bullets of the .38 Special weigh 158 grains--both brands. The bullets in the .38 S&W cartridges--there is one grain difference--Western Lubaloy bullets weigh 145 grains, and Remington's bullets weigh 146 grains, which is very close, When you figure there are 7,000 grains to the pound.
The length of the bullets themselves--the .38 Special bullets are approximately .72 plus inch. The .38 S&W bullets are approximately .6 plus inch. The lengths of the cartridge cases are also different. A .38 Special is approximately 1.15 inches for both brands. The .38 S&W cartridge cases are approximately .77 inch. And there you have approximately a quarter of an inch difference between the lengths of the cartridge cases.
The diameters of the bullets--the .38 Special bullets, at the portion of the bullet where the case is crimped into the bullet are approximately .357".
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the groove around the base of the bullet, also known as the cannelure?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is just above the two grooves, which are known as cannelures, where the bullet is crimped. It is known as the crimp ring. It is nothing more than where the case has been crimped in.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have pulled out the bullet from Exhibit 591, and there is a little groove running above the second groove from the top--from the bottom, the base, of the bullet.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would be your crimping groove. Up at approximately that area, both .38 Specials are approximately .357". However, the base of the .38 Specials, both brands, are about .350"
In other words, there is about 7/l000ths difference between the base and where they are crimped, and both brands of .38 Specials seem to run--slightly under sized at the base.
On the .38 Special the diameter of the bullets where they are crimped is .357". The .38 S&W Remington- Peters bullets run about .360", or just slightly less, which is about 3/1000ths larger. Their bases, both brands, run about .356''. In other words, they run about 6/1000ths larger at the base even though the bullets are shorter overall in the .38 S&W.
Mr. EISENBERG. To summarize that, in terms of the diameter, do I understand that the .38 Special and the .38 S&W have a similar diameter as you approached the nose of the bullet, but that the .38 has a somewhat larger diameter at the base than the .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. .38 S&W.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, why would the gun be rechambered from the original chamber, which was designed for the .38 S&W, to the chamber as it stands now, which you tell us is designed for the .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this country, the .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge at the present time. In years gone by, many, many, many weapons have been made for that particular cartridge. But they are usually the top-break, the cheaper type of weapon. The .38 Special cartridge is a better cartridge. There is a higher velocity and everything about the cartridge is better than the .38 S&W, ballistically.
The .38 Special has become popular in this country for revolvers. And the reason it was chambered, in .38 S&W originally is because in England and on the Continent it is a popular cartridge. The .38 S&W in England is the .38-200. They loaded a 200-grain bullet into the same cartridge case, and it was the standard British Army load for this particular weapon and others. Why they took that particular cartridge, I do not know.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the gun rebarreled as well as rechambered?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. The barrel of this weapon has been
455
Page 456
cut off approximately 2 3/4 inches. The original barrel was 5 inches for this model.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would the failure to rebarrel affect the accuracy of the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It should slightly, if you are firing .38 Special bullets; because they are slightly undersized in a .38 S&W barrel. On the average, .38 S&W barrels are approximately 4/1000ths larger than the normal .38 Special barrel. In this particular weapon, that holds true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would it affect accuracy at close range?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever. And there, again, the shortening of the barrel would affect the accuracy more than the use of .38 Special, due to the fact that your sight radius has been cut down.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, when you shorten the barrel, the length between the front and the back sights is shorter, therefore giving more room for error?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. In other words, the movement of the front sight will cause more of a discrepancy at the target at longer ranges, due to the shorter sight radius.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any functional reason for cutting the barrel down to its present short size?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Sales appeal, I would say, is the main reason. Also, concealment.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is a short barrel, cut-down barrel weapon like this usually purchased for legitimate purposes by other than police officers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Possibly a collector. Among target shooters, it is not a popular weapon, due to the short sight radius. Revolvers with 6-inch barrels are very accurate weapons. A target shooter Would not use a weapon of the short barrel type. Therefore, it is not a very popular weapon for sportsmen.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the cutting off of the barrel increase the possibility of concealment?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does, because it makes it handier. I carried, when I was in the field 5 years-- I carried my personally owned firearm, which had a 2-inch barrel, due to the fact that for concealment you could not see it when I wore a suit, and it was more discreet in the type of work I was doing.
The CHAIRMAN. Can both kinds of cartridges be used interchangeably in this gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this particular gun, yes sir. It makes no difference.
The CHAIRMAN. Either an S&W or S&W Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the chambers of this particular cylinder have been bored out, it appears from the very rough marks, to accommodate the for ward portion of a .38 Special cartridge. Also, when this barrel was made or the cylinder was made the chambers had a shoulder or lip that the .38 S&W cartridge case would fit up against. The bullet would go forward farther, but the cartridge case would fit up against this shoulder at the neck.
And in order to chamber a .38 Special, that forward portion had to be bored out slightly, several thousandths to accommodate the longer cartridge, which, by the way, is a very common thing on these surplus weapons. Practically all of them are being rechambered, due to the popularity of the .38 Special cartridge.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, this weapon--was this weapon sold into the United States after it had been used in England?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much sign of use does it show?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has definitely been used, there is no doubt. However, the cylinder is quite tight, and I would say that this weapon is in good operating condition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, since it was sold used, are you unable to attribute any amount of use to the last user?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right, you would not be able to tell.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain briefly the manner in which this revolver is operated, paying particular attention to extraction and loading and reloading?
456
Page 457
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. First of all, the weapon has a frame into which a barrel has been screwed and a cylinder which is hinged on a crane is also fitted into the frame. There is a cylinder release on the left-band side of this weapon which enables one to push the cylinder to the left.
The cylinder has six chambers--in other words, it is a six-shot weapon. There is an extractor rod and an extractor in the rear portion of the cylinder. When you press on the extractor rod, either loaded cartridges or fired cartridge cases may be extracted from the cylinder so that it may be reloaded again.Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, in the operation of this weapon, the cylinder takes six bullets--is that correct?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the operation of this weapon, when six bullets have been loaded into the cylinder, is any action needed for firing except six consecutive trigger pulls?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. You can fire this weapon either single or double action.Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain the meaning of that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Double action is accomplished by pulling the trigger. In other words, you just pull the trigger each time and you can fire this weapon six times before reloading. This weapon can also be cocked, which puts the sear on the step of the hammer and reduces the trigger pull, and may be fired that way. This is known as single action
.Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if a person using the gun and having it fully loaded with six bullets fired less than six bullets, can he use this ejector-extraction mechanism without losing his unfired bullets as well as the empty cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir--by merely tipping the weapon. The unfired cartridge is heavier, and will fall out of the cylinder into his hand. Then he can extract the cartridge cases and lead in more.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you demonstrate that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If I may have a cartridge, please.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any fired cartridges in the cylinder?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do. Prior to my appearance here today, this morning, I fired five cartridges in this weapon, and they are still in the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are now placing an unfired--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An unfired cartridge in the sixth chamber of the cylinder. Now, in a normal way, you would hit the cylinder release, push in your hand like this, and tip it up. The unfired cartridge will fall right out into your hand, due to the fact that the chambers of the cylinder are naturally larger than the cartridge you are loading in there for ease of putting them in. When you fire a cartridge in a revolver, the ease expands as wide as the cylinder. In other words, when the firing pin hits the primer, there is an explosion in the primer, the powder is ignited in the cartridge, and the terrific pressure will expand the cartridge case to tightly fit the chamber.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that Mr. Cunningham extracted the five expended cartridge eases merely by one push of the ejector rod.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yon won't be able to see it again, but when you eject a cartridge ease later on for the powder pattern test, I will show that you can have residues of unburned powder. That is what would happen if you ejected
457
731-219 O--64--vol.III---30
Page 458
these cartridge cases in your hand. You would pick up unburned powder, residues, and partially burned powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham had ejected five cartridge cases from the revolver into his hand, and his right hand is now filled with small black particles, whose composition I am unable to determine.
Representative FORD. That would happen any time that you did it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; every time you eject them, these particles will come out from the cylinder into your hand--unburned powder, partially burned powder, and gunpowder residues.
Representative FORD. Had you fired this morning these particular bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; at 8:15.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, these cartridge cases which you ejected were .38 Special cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were.
Mr. EISENBERG. What time did you fire those bullets, those .38 Special bullets in this revolver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately 8:15 this morning.
Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that it is now 9:45. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could this revolver be loaded on the run, or while walking?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It could.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you personally loaded a revolver like this while walking?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. And running.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does this revolver have a serial number on it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you read that number to us, please?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. V-510210.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this serial number unique to this particular type of weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Smith and Wesson does not duplicate numbers. You may have a similar number, but not with the prefix "V."
Mr. EISENBERG. So this is the only such weapon with this serial number that is in existence?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. As far as I know. I have never found one in my experience, and Smith and Wesson does not duplicate serial numbers in a particular series of weapons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Smith and Wesson claims not to duplicate?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, how fast could one get off shots from this weapon, shooting rapid fire, and without sighting?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In a combat stance, that is crouched, with a gun at belt level, and your wrist locked, you would have no trouble at all getting off five shots in from 3 to 4 seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. With what degree of accuracy at close range?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent. All FBI agents, for instance, practice at 7 yards, which is 21 feet, and we are hitting in the "kill zone" without any problem.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much training would one have to have with this weapon to get four hits in four or five shots at close range into a human body?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None whatsoever--if you can pull the trigger and point directly at a person, at 8 feet you would not likely miss--with one exception. If you did not lock your wrist, there is a possibility you could shoot too low, or you could pull to the side. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge and with--and really grabbing hold of the weapon, would have little difficulty at all at that distance.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "lock your wrist," do you mean just pointing the wrist so that it is in a straight line with your lower forearm?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. In other words, to tighten it, and not be in a relaxed position. By merely tightening the wrist, you would have no trouble at all hitting a person, approximately the same distance as Mr. Eisenberg and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose a person who had the normal small-arms training that he gets in the Marine Corps would have the ability to do what you have just spoken of?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Definitely, sir. As a matter of fact, with any training at all with a revolver, I would say that he would hit 90 percent of the time.
458
Page 459
Representative FORD. Is there a recoil action at all from this kind of weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; you get recoil. But if you have had any training with a weapon of this sort, the recoil is not even noticed. The first time you ever fired this weapon the recoil or the noise, might bother you. But if you have ever fired a handgun, you don't even think about recoil. You automatically adjust.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, you mentioned distance between you and me earlier, a few sentences ago. Could you estimate that distance?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Approximately 8 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the revolver, I propose to move on to identification of bullets and cartridge cases associated with the Tippit murder.
The CHAIRMAN. I have none.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 145 and 518, which, for the record, consist of bullets, unfired bullets which were found in the revolver and the pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald following his arrest on November 22. I ask you whether you are familiar with the bullets in these exhibits.
You are now looking at which exhibit, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 518.
I have seen them before.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe these bullets very briefly?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. They are cartridges. There are four cartridges. Two are Western .38 Special with copper-coated lead bullets loaded into these cartridges. The other two are Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with lead bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in the other exhibit?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of one Western .38 Special cartridge, which is also loaded with a copper-coated lead bullet, and the other cartridge is a Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge, which is loaded with a lead bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you another group of bullets, marked Q-82 through Q-86.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eisenberg, would you state for the record at this time what those two bullets are? They are introduced another time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; all the bullets which Mr. Cunningham examined were found either in the pocket or the pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald--or the cylinder of his revolver at the time of his arrest on November 22.
I now hand you another group of bullets marked Q-82 through Q-86, and with certain other markings on them.
Are you familiar with these bullets? And may I state for the record that the bullets I have just handed Mr. Cunningham derive from the same source.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am familiar with these bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe these briefly?
Before I do that--Mr. Chairman, may I have these bullets admitted into evidence as a group, as Exhibit 592?
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 592, and received in evidence.)
The CHAIRMAN. At this time, I shall have to leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court.
Commissioner Ford, would you preside?
And, during the morning, Commissioner Dulles will be here, I am told, and if you leave, leave him in charge, will you, please?
Representative FORD. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cunningham, thank you for your assistance. Glad to have seen you.
(At this point, Mr. Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in Exhibit 592, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; all five of them are Western .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with copper-coated lead bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that of a total of--you have examined a total of 11
459
Page 460
bullets, and three are Remington-Peter--well, at any rate, of the 11 they are divided 3 and 8 into Remington- Peter and Western .38 Special bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four cartridge cases in an envelope marked Q- 74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77. And I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
Mr. Cunningham, before going on to the cartridge cases I just handed you, could you explain when you received the bullets which are comprised in the last three exhibits, and who you received them from, and how they were presented to you?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of the two cartridges that we received--the FBI received from the U.S. Secret Service. We received them on December 3, 1963.
That is correct. They were personally delivered to the laboratory by Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI, who is a liaison agent with the Secret Service. And he delivered them. to us on December 3, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did he identify them in any way to you when he delivered them? Did he describe their origin to you?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; he did not describe them to us.
Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Could you go on to the next group of five cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. I don't know the exhibit number.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 592.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 592 was received in the FBI Laboratory from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us who you received them from?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Dallas office of the FBI. I have no first-hand knowledge. I know that they were received from the Dallas Police Department--but that was due to what I have read in an FBI investigative report. The laboratory received them from the Dallas office on November 30.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you go on to the last group of four bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 518 was also received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge the group of two and the group of four bullets, which together total six, were taken by the Dallas Police from the chamber of the revolver which is Exhibit 143, after the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. They were then split into two groups of two and four as we have them now, two bullets being given to the Secret Service and eventually, as Mr. Cunningham relates, to the FBI, and four bullets going to the Dallas office of the FBI.
The group of five bullets was taken from a pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald, following his apprehension on November 22 and was kept separated from the remaining bullets, I believe, merely because they had been taken from a different source that is, the pocket rather than the chamber of the revolver.
Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin.
First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you microscopically examine the bases of both cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to Exhibit 518, consisting of four bullets,
460
Page 461
which, as I mentioned earlier, were, like the two bullets in Exhibit 145, taken from the chamber of the revolver, did you find any nicks in any of these bullets, the bases of any of these bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just by handling, there are bound to be small microscopic scratches of one kind or other. But there was no indication that any of the primers in these four cartridges had been struck by a firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were these also examined microscopically?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, individually.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say there was no indication that they were struck by a firing pin, in your opinion, based on the construction of this weapon, if the firing pin had been drawn back to any extent and then released, would it have left a mark on one of the cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is--yes and no. It depends on how far it is drawn back. As soon as the hammer internally clears the rebound block, the hammer is then able to go forward and it probably would have fired. But up to that point, the hammer is held back from striking, it cannot--under normal conditions-- be made to fire a cartridge.
However, it has been found with this particular weapon, a drop of approximately 3 feet on the hammer would fire a cartridge in the chamber.
Representative FORD. How far back does the hammer have to be drawn in order to fire?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That can be shown very easily by holding the cylinder. By holding the cylinder, that distance can be seen, which is approximately 3/8 to 1/2 inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. The witness is demonstrating.
The hammer, as he says, is going back about 3/8 of an inch.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Once you allow the cylinder to rotate, then the rebound block is pushed out of the way, as you can see. Then you can cock the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you demonstrate for us the sound which would be heard if you held the cylinder, pulled back, and then released the trigger?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. A snapping sound can definitely be heard.
Mr. EISENBERG. There is a very audible snapping sound. Would that snap--that amount of snap- leave a mark on the base of the cartridge case against which the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Under these conditions it could not leave a mark, because the rebound block is in the way.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say rebound block, this is a block between the firing pin and the base of the cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir it is the block that is forcing the trigger to go forward after it is pulled back. You see, your trigger will snap back. It is done by a spring in the block.
Mr. EISENBERG. To put it differently, this block would prevent the firing pin from emerging from its hole?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. That is exactly it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could the firing pin emerge from its hole without having traveled a considerable distance back? That is, to say, at what point does the rebound block release the hammer?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At approximately--well, right there you can hear it. That is a good half inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you pull it back and then release that half an inch to disengage the rebound block?
(The witness did so.)
Mr. EISENBERG. If the firing pin hit the cartridge with that amount of force, do you believe the cartridge would be fired?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any possibility it would not be fired? Any substantial possibility?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It would still make a mark.
Mr. EISENBERG. It would make a mark, at any rate?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me clarify it. It still will not fire because the block will go forward.
Mr. EISENBERG. What will go forward?
461
Page 462
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the trigger has to be pulled through the whole cycle in a Smith---
Mr. EISENBERG. In order to disengage---
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Either that, or cocked before the block will be out of the way. When you pull the trigger and you don't release it or if it is in the cocked position and the trigger is pulled and not released, the hammer will stay forward. The firing pin will stay forward, so you can see it out through the breech face, as long as the trigger is pulled. Then when you release the trigger, the rebound block throws your trigger forward, so the weapon can be fired again.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are modifying what you had said previously?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you do that upon closer examination of the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; it is On the basis of trying to describe an internal part without seeing it. If you would care to, I can show you what it looks like. I have a photograph of the National Rifle Association breakdown. It would be easier to explain if I could show you what I am referring to.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you, please?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before you refer to this diagram, could I take a look at it? Congressman Ford, could I have that diagram admitted into evidence?
Representative FORD. It will be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 593.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 593, and received in evidence.)
Representative FORD. Mr. Eisenberg, do you want the whole article?
Mr. EISENBERG. I think we might as well put the whole article in, yes.
(To Mr. Cunningham.) Perhaps it would be easiest if you came around here, since the diagram is a small one.
Now, the diagram which you are referring to is on page 61, the second page of this Exhibit.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Right.
As you can see, it is a diagram with the sideplate removed. which is this portion right here. It is the right-hand side of the weapon. (Witness pointing to revolver.) We are looking down on it with the sideplate on. These four screws hold on the sideplate.
When you pull the trigger of---
Mr. EISENBERG. The sideplate is marked 20 over here?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes--No. 20 is the sideplate.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the diagram.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. 42 in the diagram is the trigger. There is a sear arrangement on the trigger, attached to the trigger. If you cock it, the sear arrangement will go up into a notch on the hammer right there, and hold it back--right in here.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is number--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You see, this is the sear.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you use numbers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. No. 39 is the sear, and the sear is attached to the trigger, which is No. 42 in the diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, we are referring to the first page of the exhibit.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. When the trigger is pulled on this particular weapon, or if the hammer is drawn back, there is a notch on the hammer which is engaged by the sear. When the hammer is back you have to pull the trigger to disengage the sear mechanism from the hammer. When you pull back and it is in the notch, that is known as single-action firing.
Also, No. 30 in the diagram is known as the rebound slide or block, and this rebound slide is positioned right behind the trigger on an internal part of the weapon. When the trigger is pulled, the recoil slide runs in a horizontal direction. As you can see by the larger drawing right here--it is a small camming action. It comes up, and is being pushed back.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the middle of the second page of the exhibit.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Now, do you see the rounded portion of the hammer right here, right in front of the notch?
462
Page 463
Mr. EISENBERG. That is No.----
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Number--on No. 42, the hammer, on the bottom, right next to the notch that the sear engages, is a rounded portion. That is--in actuality, this rebound slide acts as an internal safety, so the hammer cannot go forward unless the trigger is pulled or it is cocked, because it is in the way. It cannot go all the way forward, due to the fact that--right there you can see it very plainly in the schematic numbered drawing on page 2.
Mr. EISENBERG. The number you are pointing to is what?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is on the trigger, number--
Mr. EISENBERG. Forty-two?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Not trigger--the hammer, No. 34.
By the way, on the prior 42 I meant 34. I got the wrong number. I was referring to the right piece, but the wrong number.
But you can see this little it is like a curved portion. It prevents the hammer from going any further forward. The firing pin will not come out of the hole in the breech face.
Now, as soon as you pull the hammer back, the rebound slide, No. 30, is out of the way.
Also, when you pull the weapon through double action, that slide pushes back, and your sear doesn't even touch the groove in the hammer, but it just keeps on going right on through. In other words, you are pulling the trigger strictly against the mainspring all the way. When it is on the notch, it is being held, and the only pressure needed, is to take off the sear.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, to focus this line of questioning, Officer McDonald, who has reported that he was in a struggle with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22d, while Oswald was in possession of this revolver, has stated that--I am reading now from an affidavit, from a letter from Officer McDonald to Mr. J. E. Curry, chief of police of the Dallas Police Force, dated December 3, 1963.
He states in this letter that as he came in contact with Oswald, "I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip, I heard the snap of the hammer, and the pistol crossed over my left cheek. I marked the pistol and six rounds at central station. The primer of one round was dented on misfire at the time of the struggle with the suspect."Now, in light of your examination of this weapon, and your discussion, could you comment on this statement?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I personally have fired this weapon numerous times, as well as Special Agents Robert Frazier and Charles Killion. At no time did we ever attempt to fire this weapon that it misfired. It operated excellently and every time we have tried to fire it, it has fired.
It is very possible when he says that he reached across, and he grabbed it, that he locked the cylinder, which I think any trained police officer would do. You want to stop this cylinder from rotating. As soon as you do that, you have actually stepped the hammer falling on a live round, because if the hammer is allowed to go forward again, and it hasn't gotten into the cocked position, the rebound slide, as I was stating before, would block the firing pin from striking the primer of the cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the cylinder is so interconnected with the trigger, that the trigger cannot be pulled all the way back when the cylinder has been firmly grasped?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And, if the hammer has not been pulled all the way back, the rebound slide will not allow the firing pin to strike the cartridge?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed?Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.
463
Page 464
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if the firing pin had struck the primer, it could only have been after the trigger was pulled all the way back, under the discussion you have just given us, is that correct?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Or after cocking.
Mr. EISENBERG. Or after it had been cocked and pulled?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; if it is in the cocked position, grabbing the cylinder will do you no good; due to the fact that in the very operation of cocking this weapon, the cylinder is rotated, and it is ready to be fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in either event, the hammer would have traveled almost to the outermost extremity to which it can go. That is, the hammer would have traveled back all the way, whether it was cocked or fired in a double-action manner. If that had happened, what would the likelihood be that upon returning to the cartridge case, it would not fire the cartridge case that upon returning to the cartridge, the cartridge would not be fired?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You mean actually the hammer had gone all the way through its cycle?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I can only say that from my examination internally, as well as having fired this weapon--I found no reason why you would get a misfire with this weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if a man had put his hand between the hammer and the point at which the hammer enters, with the firing pin, into the breech face, would that stop the weapon from firing?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes and no. It is very possible that you can do it. And it hurts, by the way, because the mainspring in this one you can see the indentation in my thumb--is a very strong mainspring. It would be possible. You could put something in there.
Now, the question is when you pull that object out, would there be enough distance and enough force to set off the primer?
That is quite a moot point, because you could grab the hammer and recock it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from that question, would the man's finger or what ever object he stuck in there be firmly fixed for a second or two, between the hammer and the breech face?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It could be.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would he feel the impact?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. He would definitely feel the impact--if he had a piece of tissue of his hand in between. Now, if a piece of material, of course, went between it which I don't know how it could happen--if you were struggling over the gun, and he said he grabbed the gun--I don't know how he could have any thing except a portion of his hand, and I am sure he would feel it if the trigger was pulled.
Mr. EISENBERG. Finally, if he had just grasped the cylinder, and Oswald had pulled back on the trigger, could you demonstrate the sound which might have been heard?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes; you can- hold it, and you get a snapping sound if the gun is grabbed away forcefully, and he would be really gabbing hard. So there could have been an attempt to shoot and a snap would be heard. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. The only thing which is unlikely is that the primer would be dented on the misfire?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You would not get any denting if the cylinder was held and the gun was jerked forcibly out of Oswald's hands. You would hear the snap, but you would get no mark on the primer whatsoever.
The same thing he could hear if he jerked it out of his hands and he accidentally, somehow, hit the hammer-- you would still get a noise, a snapping sound. But the firing pin would not come in contact with the primer of the cartridge.
Representative FORD. Because of the discussion we had a few minutes ago?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. Using the diagram that was inserted as Exhibit 593.
Mr. EISENBERG. One final question. Officer McDonald says in this letter, "I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol."
464
Page 465
Now, would that grip in itself in any way interfere with the action of the pistol--the revolver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know what he means by that.
Mr. EISENBERG. If he means what he says, that is, if he got a secure grip on the butt--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If he got a secure grip on the butt, that would take him away.
Mr. EISENBERG. Take him away from what?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would take him away from the cylinder. If you are fighting over a weapon, the first thing is to get it off of you and then get hold of the cylinder. And then you can get both hands on the gun to jerk it away. That is what I would go.
As I say, it is the way we are taught. You want to get the gun off of you first, so you are not in direct line, and then go in and attempt to get it away from the person.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose the gun was pulled away from Oswald as Oswald had his grip on the trigger, so that he could not get the trigger through the complete cycle. Would there be a snapping noise made?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Definitely. If you locked the cylinder and jerked it away, you would get a snapping noise.
Mr. EISENBERG. Suppose you did not lock the cylinder, but for some reason or other the full trigger cycle was not gone through?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Then you would also get it. It would be difficult, but you could get it.
Mr. EISENBERG. How hard do you have to pull on that trigger in order to fire the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For double action--that is, without cocking, it is approximately 11 to 12 pounds, which is normal for this type of weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I handed you earlier four cartridge cases in a plastic envelope marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, also marked C47-C50. Are you familiar with these cartridge cases?Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am. I have previously looked at them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They do. Right on the side of each one, right there.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive these cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These cartridge cases were received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I would like to state that these cartridge cases were found in the immediate proximity of the site at which Officer Tippit was killed. They were found on the ground near the street where Officer Tippit was killed on November 22.
Representative FORD. These are the ones that were found in the street near the automobile?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, either in the street or in a lawn in front of a private residence, or semiapartment house.
Representative FORD. I see. In other words, they were possibly some of those that were on the lawn in the front of 400?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; again, for the record only, since this witness is unable to testify as to where they were picked up. The mechanism of this revolver is such that the shells are not ejected until the user decides to eject them--unlike a bolt-action rifle where the cartridge must be ejected where you shoot from.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these four cartridge cases introduced into evidence as 594.
Representative FORD. They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 594, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe the make of these cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two Of these cartridge cases are Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge cases. The other two cartridge cases are Western .38 Special cartridge cases.465
Page 466
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you examined earlier six bullets which I told you had been--six cartridges which I told you had been taken from the chamber of the revolver which we have been looking at.
Those cartridges were divided into three Remington-Peters and three Western, were they not?
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that--or 50-50. So that the division is the same, the division of the cartridge cases is the same, as between Remington-Peters and Western, as the division of the cartridges found--which I told you were found in the chamber?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you perform this examination, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On November 30, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how did you make the examination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I first marked these cartridge cases upon receiving them. There were four. I would like to state, first of all that Special Agents Frazier and Killion also independently examined these four cartridge cases, and made the same comparisons that I am going to state. I am telling you what I found-- although they independently arrived at the same conclusion.
The cartridge cases were first marked and examined for the presence of any individual characteristic marks on these cartridge cases whereby it would be possible to identify them as having been fired in a weapon. I then test-fired Commission Exhibit 143, using similar ammunition, and microscopically compared the four cartridge cases--one at a time that is Commission Exhibit 594--with the tests obtained from the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you here two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you describe these cartridge cases to
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. One is a Western .38 Special cartridge case. The other is a Winchester 38 Special cartridge case.
Mr. EISENBERG. And how did you get possession of these cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These were test-fired in Commission Exhibit No. 143, by myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. So these are the test cartridges you were referring--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That was a portion of them; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Commission Exhibit 595?
Representative FORD. They will be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 595, and received in evidence.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I also would like to state that we were test firing Remington-Peters, also.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many test cartridges were fired, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To begin with, three. And we have since fired the weapon many times.
Representative BOGGS. How many cartridges were fired by Oswald?
Mr. EISENBERG. We are going-to get into that. This is a difficult question which you are going to have to make a decision on. So I would rather develop that slowly.
I notice that one of the cartridge cases in Exhibit 595 is split on the side, Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
466
Page 467
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is due to the oversized chambers of this revolver. As I previously testified, the weapon was originally chambered for the .38 S&W, which is a wider cartridge than .38 Special. And when a .38 Special is fired in this particular weapon, the case form fits to the shape of each chamber. And in one of those cartridges, the metal just let go. Normally it does not; however this one particular case split slightly.
Representative FORD. Does that have any impact on the rest of the operation?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I test-fired the weapon originally, and I didn't even know it had split until I tried to eject it.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned before, by the way, that there had been no misfires with this weapon. Approximately how many times was the weapon fired altogether?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing exactly, but I imagine we are approaching close to a hundred times by now.
Mr. EISENBERG. And no misfires?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And no misfires.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, did you take photographs of the cartridge cases which you have just identified as having been fired from 143, and the cartridge eases which are Commission Exhibit No. 595?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make your identification on the basis of the photographs or on the basis of your examination under the microscope?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My conclusions were arrived at strictly on the basis of my examinations. These photographs in no way entered into the identification and are strictly for demonstrative purposes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us these photographs, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's take them one at a time, and let's introduce them as exhibits, one at a time. I have here you have given me five photographs. Did you take each of these photographs?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a matter of fact; I did. I personally took these.
Mr. EISENBERG. And these are photographs of what?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are photographs of the individual characteristic marks on the base and in the firing-pin impression on test cartridge cases obtained from Oswald's revolver. and also the marks on the base and in the firing-pin impression on the cartridge cases, Commission Exhibit No. 594.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted, if you would, as 596, 597, 598, 599, and 600.
Representative FORD. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 596 through 600, and received in evidence.)
Representative FORD. Will the witness explain to the Commission what they mean?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; he will. Did you also make a photograph of the breech face of the weapon, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did. I didn't take this photograph. I was present when it was taken. I have compared the negative with the actual breech face of Commission Exhibit 143, and I found it to be a true and accurate reproduction.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us that photograph? May I have that admitted as 601, Mr. Chairman?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 601, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us the area of the revolver which corresponds to the area shown in the photograph, Exhibit 601?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The cylinder was first removed to facilitate the photograph. That is very easily done by removing the forward sideplate screw, which is just above the trigger, which allows the crane to slide right out, and the cylinder removed.
The photograph was taken from the right side, looking in toward the firing-pin hole.
467
Page 468
Representative BOGGS. Just the way you are holding the revolver now?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; just the way I am holding it now.
Representative BOGGS. With the cylinder removed?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. With the cylinder removed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, there is a cylindrical-shaped object in the center of that picture, Mr. Cunningham. Could you describe what that is--right in the center of the picture?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is known by two different names. It is known as a hammer-nose bushing, or a recoil block. It is--Smith and Wesson presses this particular block in. It forms the hole through which the firing pin comes out of the breech face.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the firing pin strikes the center of the cartridge, or the primer, as it is called?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which causes the cartridge to fire. Now, what is the magnification of the photograph of the breech face?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of the breech face, it is approximately 17 times.
Mr. EISENBERG. There are a number of markings or lines on this breech face. Are these the microscopic characteristics which reproduce on the cartridge cases?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are the microscopic characteristics of this breech face individual to this weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is your method of determining that a given cartridge case has been fired from a given weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The breech face marks, as well as the individual imperfections in the firing pin.
Representative BOGGS. Let me ask a very elementary question, the answer to which I used to know years ago, but I have forgotten. Just exactly what does the firing pin do? What happens after that strikes?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it is easier to start with the cartridge itself. The components of a cartridge are a bullet, a cartridge case, a primer in the base of the cartridge case, and powder.
Now, the primer is made out of a very soft metal that can be dented. These primers at manufacture are filled with, basically, an explosive. For instance, Remington-Peters cartridges have PETN, which is one of Du Pont's explosives. RDX is used as one of the components of Western cartridge cases, as well as lead styphnate, lead azides, and other explosive materials.
When the firing pin strikes, there is a small explosion. Fire is given--
Representative BOGGS. How does that bring about the explosion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is sensitive to detonation by a sharp blow.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the primer is sensitive?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it is an explosive. To differentiate from the powder, which is not explosive. Powder burns.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I have taken Commission Exhibit No. 591, which consists of an unfired cartridge, and there is a round circle in the middle of the base of that cartridge. Is that the primer?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. That is actually a separate entity that has been pressed into a hole in the base of the cartridge case.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is more sensitive to shock than the powder in the cartridge case itself?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Powder is relatively insensitive. You don't set off powder by a blow.
Mr. EISENBERG. But the primer is quite sensitive?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is normally. I am talking about a normal blow. The primer is very sensitive. I just named a few of the components, but there are many other compounds in priming mixtures, which are considered secret by each company. But I know that they are explosive mixtures. And the actual striking of the firing pin--with enough force causes a small detonation to occur. The fire given off, goes through holes in the base, and into where the powder is, and starts the powder burning. It is the gases that are given off when powder
468
Page 469
burns, which actually cause the bullet to move forward--the pressure builds up behind it, and the bullet goes forward.
Representative BOGGS. That is a very good explanation. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I wonder whether you could review the pictures with us, and discuss some of the markings which you found in those pictures that led you to decide that the cartridge cases shown therein have been fired in the revolver we have been discussing.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. The first photograph is a photograph of the breech-face marks, the individual characteristic marks remaining on test cartridge cases obtained from the revolver, and on the C-50 cartridge case that was recovered from the scone. C-50 is on the left. C-15 is on the right. And the hairline, the magnified hairline down the center separates the two cartridge cases.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the invariable procedure to put the test cartridge on the right and the suspect cartridge on the left? Or at least is that your standard procedure?
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.
469
Page 470
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.
470
Page 471
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-45 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."
471
Page 472
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 cart ridge 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
472
Page 473
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
473
Page 474
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 go 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-252, 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?
474
Page 475
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
475
Page 476
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
476
Page 477
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 invest Gideon 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
477
Page 478
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 cases--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
478
Page 479
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 Form. 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 be cause 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 in vestment. 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
479
Page 480
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?
480
Page 481
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?
481
Page 482
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 branch?
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 23 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?
482
Page 483
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.
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.
483
Page 484
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
484
Page 485
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.
485
Page 486
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
486
Page 487
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. How ever, 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.
487
Page 488
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 toll 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.
488
Page 489
(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 manufacturer's 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
489
Page 490
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 Office 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?
490
Page 491
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 yon 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?
491
Page 492
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 some thing, 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
492
Page 493
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 dad, 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, be cause 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.
493
Page 494
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 fired 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?
494
Page 495
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 be 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.
495
Page 496
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.
FRAZIER FBI VOLUME III
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frazier, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Ronald Simmons.
You are, we understand, a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Simmons is a firearms expert with the Weapons System Division at Fort Meade, Md.
You are asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in this work.
Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. FRAZIER. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and position?
Mr. FRAZIER. Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
390
Page 391
Mr. EISENBERG. And your education?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have a science degree which I received from the University of Idaho.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?
Mr. FRAZIER. Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt- action type weapons.
In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machine-guns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns-- that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachine guns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.
One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.
Over the past 23 years, I have received the regular FBI firearms training, which is a monthly retraining in firearms, and a periodic, or every 4 years, de tailed retraining in the basic FBI firearms--the firearms training with the rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, revolver.
In the FBI, training includes firing both at stationary targets and moving targets with beth revolver and rifle and shotgun, and includes firing at slow-fire targets--that is aimed fire for accuracy and rapid fire to increase speed of firing.
Generally in the field of firearms identification, where I have been assigned for 23 years, I received specialized training given in the FBI Laboratory to train me for the position of firearms identification specialist. In that field, we make examinations of bullets and cartridge cases, firearms of various types, for the purpose of identifying weapons as to their caliber, what they are, their manufacturer, their physical characteristics, and determining the type of ammunition which they shoot.
We examine ammunition of various types to identify it as to its caliber, its specific designation, and the type or types of weapons in which it can be fired, and we make comparisons of bullets to determine whether or not •they were fired from a particular weapon and make comparisons of cartridge cases for the purpose of determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon, or for determining whether or not they had been loaded into or extracted from a particular weapon.
That training course lasted for approximately 1 year. However, of course, the experience in firearms is actually part of the training and continues for the entire time in which you are engaged in examining firearms.
Briefly, that is the summary of the firearms training I have had.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate the number of examinations you have made of firearms to identify the firearms?
Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands, I would say--firearms comparisons--I have made in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you written any articles on this subject?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I have predated an article for the "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" on firearms identification, which is published as a reprint and provided to any organization or person interested in the general field of firearms identification.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you read most of the literature on the subject?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. McCLOY. Is there any classical book on this subject?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are a number of fairly good texts.
The basic one, originally published in 1936, is by Maj. Julian S. Hatcher, who
391
Page 392
later, as a general, rewrote his book "Firearms Investigation, Identification, and Evidence."
There are many other books published on the subject.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I ask that this person be accepted as a qualified witness on firearms?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a rifle marked Commission Exhibit 139.
Are you familiar with this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you recognize it by serial number or by your mark?
Mr. FRAZIER. By serial number on the barrel, and by my initials which appear on various parts of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this is the rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22. Can you describe this rifle by name and caliber?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a caliber 6.5 Italian military rifle, commonly referred to in the United States as a 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. It is a bolt-action clip-fed military rifle.
Do you wish a general physical description of the, weapon at this time?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, no; not at this time.
Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you explain what the caliber is a measure--
Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber is the measure of the distance across the raised portions or the lands in the barrel. The groove diameter, or the spirals cut in the barrel to form the rifling, will be slightly larger--in this case between 7/1000ths and 8/1000ths of an inch larger than the actual bore diameter.
The caliber is normally determined by the bore diameter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you made the identification of this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. identified it pictorially by comparing it with pictures in reference books. And the actual identification was of the manufacturer's name appearing on the barrel and serial number, which indicated it was an Italian military rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you independently determine the caliber of the rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you did that?
Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber and the caliber type may be confusing here.
The caliber, being the diameter of the barrel, is determined in two ways--one, by comparing the barrel with 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, which we also chambered in the weapon and determined that it actually fit the weapon. And, secondly, we measured the width of the barrel with a micrometer. And in that connection, I would like to point out that we made a sulphur cast of the muzzle of the weapon which permitted us to use a micrometer to determine the land width and the groove width in the barrel.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have that sulphur cast?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that was made by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it was made by--
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 540.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 540, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why this Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle, because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been rebarreled with a
392
Page 393
6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger caliber.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is the 6.5 caliber weapon distinguished from the 7.35-caliber weapon by name?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is; it is by the model number. The model 91/38 designates the 6.5 mm. rifle, whereas the model 38 designates the 7.35.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken photographs of the various markings on the rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have those with you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Actually, I think we forwarded those photographs to the Commission.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these the photographs that you took, or had taken?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the Federal Bureau of Investigation been supplied with information concerning the meanings and significances of these various markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the source of that information?
Mr. FRAZIER. This information came to us by mail as a result of an inquiry of the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service, abbreviated SIFAR, by letter dated March 26, 1964, through the FBI representative in Rome, Italy.
This information is classified as secret by the Italian Government, who have advised that the material may be released to the Commission. However, they desire the retention of the information in a secret category.
The CHAIRMAN. Is this essential to the proof?
If it is not, I think we would rather not have it, because the fewer things We have to keep in secret, the better the situation is for us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.
Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRONG ! SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly?
The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. All. right.
Now, without reference to any classified information, could you briefly describe the markings shown on these photographs?
Mr. FRAZIER. The first photograph is an overall photograph of the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me.
These photographs--when you say "first photograph"--these photographs are marked No. 1, No. 2, et cetera, on the back.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are.
Photograph No. 1 is an overall photograph of the rifle.
Photograph No. 2 is made of the top of the barrel, showing the serial number C2766.
Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940, which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a portion of the word "Terni."
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the significance of "Terni?"
393
731-219 O--64--vol.III---26
Page 394
Mr. FRAZIER. Terni is the location for an Italian ordnance plant in Italy where rifles are made, and it is apparent that this weapon was made in Terni, because it is stamped with that name.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the significance of that crown?
Mr. FRAZIER. I think that would be just an Italian identification mark or proof mark.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are the words "Made Italy" likely to have been put on the weapon at the time of manufacture or subsequently?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the words "Made Italy" would be stamped on the weapon by a purchaser or an individual desiring to send the weapon to another country, to establish actually its origin
Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made, and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight.
Photograph No. 5 shows a small circle which appears on the forward end of the receiver, or that portion into which the barrel is screwed, with the words "TNI" in the circle, and over these letters is again a small crown. This could be a proof mark or an inspector's stamp.
Photograph No. 6 is of an inscription on the side of the rear sight which has the appearance of the letter "l," or the letter "1," followed by a capital letter "A," and the capital letter "G," with the numbers "47," and "2," stamped raider-neath them. I do not know what the significance of that is. It could be, again, an inspector's stamp or a proof mark of some type.
Photograph No. 7 is made of the cocking piece on the end of the bolt, which gives the word "Rocca." This apparently would be the name of the manufacturer of that part of the rifle.
Photograph No. 8 is an inscription "PC" on the top of the bolt of the weapon. This inscription--I do not know of my own knowledge what that is-but it. could be the mark of a manufacturer or a proof mark or an inspector's mark made at the time the-handle was made to be welded to the bolt.
Photograph No. 9 was taken of the bottom of the receiver of the weapon, with the stock removed. It shows the Number "40," which could refer again to the year of manufacture, 1940, on the receiver, and at the rear of the photograph a small lettered inscription referring again to an inspector stamp, a proof stamp, of some nature. The identity of this, I do not know.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these photographs be admitted as a group under the number 541.
The CHAIRMAN. You are going to put all of them in under one number?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. They have the subnumbers on the back, which will differentiate them.
The CHAIRMAN. They will be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 541, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a Mauser for that reason.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon--
The CHAIRMAN. I didn't get that last.
Mr. FRAZIER. It showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon used when it is sold into the United States?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a surplus type of weapon.
394
Page 395
Mr. EISENBERG. So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the last user?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is impossible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER. The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.
Mr. McCLOY. With the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, with the scope.
The CHAIRMAN. And the sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is with the sling, yes, sir. The sling weighs 4 3/4 ounces. The stock length is 34.8 inches, which is the wooden portion from end to end with the butt plate attached. The barrel and action from the muzzle to the rear of the tang, which is this portion at the rearmost portion of the metal, is 28.9 inches. The barrel only is 21.18 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "this portion," Mr. Frazier, I don't think that is coming down clear in the record. I wonder whether you could rephrase that so as to describe the part of the barrel or part of the stock to which you are pointing when you say "tang."
Mr. FRAZIER. The tang is the rear of the receiver of the weapon into which the rear mounting screw is screwed to hold the rearmost part of the metal action of the weapon. into the wooden stock. From the end of that portion to the muzzle of the weapon is 28.9 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the length of the longest component when the rifle is dissembled, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. 34.8 inches, which is the length of the stock, the wooden portion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us the telescopic sight on the rifle in terms of--
Mr. McCLOY. Before you get to the sight, can I ask a question?
Mr. EISENBERG. Surely.
Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?
Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.
It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.
Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel. XXXXXXX
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the rifle? Magnification, country of origin?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood California," and
395
Page 396
under that is the inscription "Made in Japan." It is a very inexpensive Japanese telescopic sight.
The mount attached to it was also made in Japan.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you removed the mount?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many holes did you find drilled into the receiver?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are two holes in the receiver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you form an opinion as to whether these were original holes or whether new holes--new and larger holes had been formed over the original holes?
Mr. FRAZIER. Normally, the receiver would have no holes at all, and would have to be drilled and tapped for the screws. In the sight itself there normally are three holes, two of which have been enlarged to accommodate the two mounting screws presently holding the mount to the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think, based on your experience with types of screws used in mounts, that these were the original screws and the original holes for the screws?
Mr. FRAZIER. I could not say--I could not answer that specifically. However, they appear to be the same type of screw as is present on the rest of the mount--although they are somewhat larger in size than the remaining hole which is present in the lower portion of the mount.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I now hand you a rifle which is marked C-250. Are you familiar with this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe it briefly?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is an identical rifle physically to the rifle Commission's Exhibit 139, in that it is the same caliber, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian Military rifle Model 91/38.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine by use of this rifle whether the scope was mounted on Exhibit 139 by the firm which is thought to have sold Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Would you repeat that, please?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how you made that attempt?
Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the----
Mr. FRAZIER. On the C-250 rifle.
When we received the rifle C-250, we examined the mount and found that two of the holes had been enlarged, and that screws had been placed through them and threaded into the receiver of the C-250 rifle.
The third hole in the mount had not been used.
We also found that an identical scope to the one on the Commission's rifle 139 was present on the C-250 rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the screws used in mounting the C-250 rifle in mounting the scope on the C-250 rifle type of screws as those used in mounting the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the holes were the same dimensions?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are. And the threads in the holes are the same.
396
Page 397
Mr EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like C-250 admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 542.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 542, and received in evidence.)
The CHAIRMAN. At this time I will interrupt to say I must now leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court, and I will return at the conclusion of the session.
In the meantime, Mr. McCloy will preside at the Commission hearing, and in the event he should be required to leave, Mr. McCloy, whatever Commissioner is here will conduct the examination in his absence.
(At this point, Chairman Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you examined the sling on Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel that this is--that this sling was originally manufactured as a rifle sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it is not in any way similar to a normal sling for a rifle. It appears to be a sling from some carrying case, camera bag, musical instrument strap, or something of that nature.
We have made attempts to identify it, with no success.
Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from the addition of this sling and mounting of the telescopic sight, have any modifications been made in the C-139 rifle--- in the Commission Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. You would suggest, I gather, Mr. Frazier, that this is a home made sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it appears to have been cut to length by inserting this strap, or this sling, on the rifle, and then trimming off the excess ends of the two straps to fit.
Mr. McCLOY. How would that broad patch on the sling--how would that be used, in your judgment, in firing the rifle? Would it be wrapped around the base of your---
Mr. FRAZIER. I find it very difficult to use the rifle with a sling at all. The sling is too short, actually, to do more than put your arm through it.
Mr. McCLOY. You get quite a leverage with that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir, you do, in one direction. But it is rather awkward to wrap the forward hand into the sling in the normal fashion.
Mr. McCLOY. This gives a pretty tight----
Mr. FRAZIER. It can be used. But I don't feel that actually the position of this broad piece is of too much significance as far as use of the sling goes.
Mr. McCLOY. But certainly the sling would tend to steady the aim, even in this crude form?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. McCLOY. It would make more easy an offhand shot than if you didn't have a sling? It would make it more accurate?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would assist more in offhand than any other type of shooting, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the scope for a moment, on the basis of the experiment, so to speak, which you had Klein's conduct, would you form an opinion as to whether the telescopic sight was mounted on Exhibit 139--was likely to have been mounted--by Klein's, or likely to have been mounted subsequently?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I could not deduce from that--from the way the scope is mounted--who mounted it. I can only say that the two are mounted in identical fashion. And it is possible that the same person or persons mounted the two scopes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly explain the operation of this rifle, the bolt action and the clip-feed mechanism?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon is loaded by turning up the bolt handle, drawing the bolt to the rear, and inserting the clip from the top of the weapon, after the clip has been loaded with the number of rounds you desire to load.
397
Page 398
The maximum number of rounds the clip holds is six. However, the weapon can be loaded with a clip holding 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 round.
This is done by inserting the clip in the rear portion of the ejection port, and pushing it downwards until it clean the bottom of the bolt. The weapon then is loaded by moving the belt forward. It picks up one cartridge out of the clip, carries it into the chamber of the weapon, and the bolt is then locked by turning down.
To fire the weapon, it is merely necessary to pull the trigger, since the closing of the bolt has cocked the cocking piece on the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you proceed to show the extraction and ejection mechanism?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The extraction is merely by raising the bolt and drawing it to the rear. When the cartridge is first loaded, the rim on the base of the cartridge is caught under the extractor in the face of the bolt, so that drawing the belt to the rear draws the fired cartridge or a loaded cartridge if it has not been fired, out of the chamber to the rear, where the opposite side of the cartridge strikes a projection in the ejection port called the ejector. The ejector strikes on the opposite side of the case from the extractor, causing the shell to be thrown out of the weapon on the right-hand side.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, to fire the next shot, is any further action necessary, apart from closing the bolt and pulling the trigger, if remaining cartridges are in the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you pull out the clip and explain any markings you find on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. The only markings are the manufacturer's markings, "SMI," on the base of the clip, and a number, 952 The significance of that number I am not aware of. It could be a part number or a manufacturer's cede number.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why someone might call that a five-shot clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir, unless they were unfamiliar with it. There is an area of confusion in that a different type of rifle shooting larger ammunition, such as a .30-06 or a German Mauser rifle, uses five-shot clips, and the five-shot clip is the common style or size of clip, whereas this one actually holds six.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to purchase ammunition for this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the ammunition come in the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. Normally it does not. The ammunition that we have purchased for this rifle comes in 20-shot boxes. It is possible and I say this as a result of reading advertisements--to buy ammunition for this rifle, and to receive a clip or clips at the same time, but not necessarily part of the same shipment.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you receive a clip with that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip--that someone wishing to shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the clip later?
Mr. FRAZIER. They would have to acquire it from some source, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it commonly available?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you can.
Mr. McCLOY. What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY. The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY. When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired with the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. The same as the .30-06?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.
398
Page 399
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a cartridge in an envelope, marked Commission Exhibit 141. Are you familiar with this cartridge?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received this cartridge for examination in the FBI laboratory, submitted to me as a cartridge removed from the rifle at the time it was recovered.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that cartridge in terms of name, manufacturer, and country of origin?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co, at East Alto, Ill.
It is loaded with a full metal-jacketed bullet of the military type. Cartridges of this type which I have examined, having this type of bullet, have bullets weighing 160 to 161 grains.
Mr. McCLOY. When you mentioned that cartridge as being a Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that be fired, for example, in a Mannlicher 6.5 Schoenauer?
Mr. FRAZIER. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. McCLOY. That is the normal sporting rifle that Mannlicher Schoenauer is the normal 6.5 Austrian sporting rifle that you buy. I just wondered if it was the same cartridge.
Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry. I don't know whether there is a distinction between these two or not.
Mr. McCLOY. I happen to have one of those. And I was just wondering if it is the same cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a series of three cartridge cases. I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received these cartridge cases on two different occasions for examination in the laboratory, and comparison with the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do these cases have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they do. Each is marked with my initials and the inscription for identification purposes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce these cartridge cases into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 543, 544, and 545 and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Will you introduce evidence to show where they came from?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, sir, the record will show at the conclusion of the hearings where they came from. This witness is able to identify them only as to his examination.
Mr. McCLOY. I understand that. I understand that witness cannot identify them. But I simply asked for the record whether you have evidence to show where they did come from.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record, these cartridges were found on the sixth. floor of the School Book Depository Building. They were found near the south east corner window--that is, the easternmost window on the southern face of the sixth floor of that building.
Mr. Frazier, are these cartridge cases which have just been admitted into evidence the same type of cartridge-- from the same type of cartridge as you just examined, Commission Exhibit No. 141?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You gave the weight of the bullet which is found in this type of cartridge. Could you give us a description of the contour of the bullet, and its length?
Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches.
Mr. McCLOY. You say that the diameter is 6.65. Did you mean 6.65 or 6.5 millimeters?
399
Page 400
Mr. FRAZIER. I was looking for that figure on that. It is about 6.6--6.65 millimeters.
The bullet, of course, will be a larger diameter than the bore of the weapon to accommodate the depths of the grooves in the barrel.
On the base of the bullet is a crimp ring, or a cannelure, which is located two-tenths of an inch from the base up the bullet and which is 6/100ths of an inch in width--that is, it is a band around the bullet 6/l00ths of an inch wide.
I believe that is a description of the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003.
I might point out that there were four lots of ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., only two of which are available.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give the results?
Mr. FRAZIER. Possibly I can give the results shot by shot, so the record will show each one, and then give an average for them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Fine.
Mr. FRAZIER. The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet per second.
Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second.
The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second.
The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was 2,184.8 feet per second.
The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second.
Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second.
The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second.
An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the differences between the muzzle velocities of the various rounds in terms of whether that difference was a large or small difference?
Mr. FRAZIER. This is a difference well within the manufacturer's accepted standards of velocity variations. They permit in their standard ammunition manual, which is a guide to the entire industry in the United States, a 40-foot-per-second, plus or minus, variation shot to shot in the same ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you calculated the muzzle energy of this 6.5 millimeter ammunition in this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was furnished by letter to the Commission. Yes, sir--the muzzle energy was calculated on the basis of the average velocity of 2,165 feet per second as 1,676 foot-pounds.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is a calculation rather than a measurement?
Mr. FRAZIER. Necessarily a calculation, because it is merely a term used to compare one bullet against another rather than for any practical purposes because--because of the bullet's extremely light weight. The bullet's velocity and weight, and gravity enter into the determination of its energy in foot-pounds.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military ammunition?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may not give accurate results. But the cartridge inherently is an accurate cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. I this type of cartridge readily available for purchase?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. Information we have indicates that 2 million rounds of this ammunition was reimported into this country and placed on sale.
Mr. EISENBERG. Commission Exhibit No. 141, the cartridge found in the chamber--I should say, was found in the chamber. Do you draw any inference
400
Page 401
from the fact that the cartridge was found in the chamber? In your experience, does one automatically reload whether or not one intends to fire, or is there a special significance in the fact that the cartridge had been chambered?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, there would be no inference which I could, draw based on human behavior as to why someone would or would not reload a cartridge. Normally, if you were in my experience shooting at some object, and it was no longer necessary to shoot, you would not reload.
You may or may not reload. It would be a normal thing to automatically reload. But not necessarily in every instance.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you have any information of your own knowledge as to whether this cartridge was in the chamber or not at the time the rifle was found?
Mr. FRAZIER. Only as furnished to me it was submitted as having been removed from the rifle by the Dallas Police Department.
Mr. McCLOY. As having been removed from the chamber?
Mr. FRAZIER. From the chamber of the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. But you did not remove it yourself?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test to determine the pattern of the cartridge-case ejection of Commission Exhibit 139
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I made two studies in connection with the ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you summarize your examination by diagrams?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those diagrams?
Mr. FRAZIER. In this diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me just a second, Mr. Frazier. Were these diagrams prepared by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were not the actual physical diagrams, but the figures on the diagrams were furnished by me to the draftsman.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547, and were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of your tests by using these diagrams, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
In this test, Commission Exhibit 546, the diagram illustrates the positions on the floor at which cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139. In the top portion of Exhibit 546, the barrel was held depressed at a 45-degree angle, and in the lower half of the exhibit it shows the pattern with the barrel held in a horizontal position. Each spot marked with a figure on the diagram shows where one cartridge case landed in both instances, and each one is marked with the distance and the angle to which the cartridge case was ejected.
With the barrel held in the depressed condition, all of the cartridge cases landed within an 85-inch circle located 80 degrees to the right front of the rifle. That may be confusing. It was 80 degrees to the right from the line of sight of the rifle and at a distance of 86 inches from the ejection port.
Now, this circle will not necessarily encompass all cartridge cases ejected from the rifle, since the ejection is determined, not only by the angle of the weapon, but more by the force with which the bolt is operated. A very light force on the bolt can cause the cartridge case to tip gently out and fall at your feet. However, under normal conditions of reloading in a fairly rapid manner, we found the cartridge cases to land in this circle.
The same situation is true of the test made with the muzzle in the horizontal condition.
All of the cartridge cases landed within a 47-inch circle, which was located at right angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and at a distance 80 inches from the ejection port.
401
Page 402
In both of these tests, the ejection port of the weapon was held 32 inches above the floor.
In the second test performed, Commission Exhibit 547, the test was made to ascertain how high above the ejection port a cartridge case would fly as it was being ejected.
After ejecting numerous cartridge cases from the weapon with the barrel held in a depressed condition, it was found that the cartridge cases did not exceed two inches above the level of the ejection port. And with the muzzle held horizontally, it did not exceed 12 inches above the level of the ejection port.
Mr. EISENBERG. In making these tests, was the bolt pulled with a normal degree of rifle pull?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was pulled with various pulls, to determine what the effect would be with different speeds of the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you select the distance above the floor at which the rifle was fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. We selected a distance which we thought might be typical of a condition which would give an overall picture of the ejection pattern, and not from any basis of previous information as to possibly how the weapon had been fired previously. Thirty-two inches happened to be approximately table height, so that we could control the height of the weapon readily.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you three Commission Exhibits, 510, 511, and 512, which are photographs which have been identified as giving the location of the cartridges--cartridge cases--Nos. 543, 544, and 545, on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. I ask you to examine these pictures, and to determine whether if the rifle had been fired from the window shown in these pictures, the location of the cartridge cases is consistent with the results of the tests you ran to determine the ejection patterns.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say yes; it is consistent--although the cartridge cases are two of them-- against the wail. There is a stack of boxes fairly near the wall, and the position of the cartridge cases could very well have been affected by the boxer That is, they could strike the box and bounce for several feet, and they could have bounced back and forth in this small area here and come to rest in the areas shown in the photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. In making your tests, did you notice much ricochet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; considerable. Each time a cartridge case hit the floor, it would bounce anywhere from 8 inches to 10 to 15 feet.
Mr. McCLOY. Make a lot of noise?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; a clatter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 to determine its accuracy under rapid- fire conditions?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe these tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.
The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.
Mr. EISENBERG. A silhouette of a man?
Mr. FRAZIER. A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.
Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.
Mr. EISENBERG. These targets were made by you or in your presence?
Mr. FRAZIER. These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.
Mr. McCLOY. You have made these copies, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I had them made. They are actual xerox copies of the original targets, which are black, and do not show the markings placed around the holes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
402
Page 403
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
Mr. Frazier, you have the original targets that were used in this experiment.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Were you one of the three that fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Can you identify your target as distinguished from the other--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you have the target that you fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired--yes, I do. However, another examiner also fired at this same target.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you made a copy of that--or did you cause a copy of that target to be made?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you have that with you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I do.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you marked it yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. No. That would be 548.
Mr. McCLOY. Suppose you identify that copy.
Mr. EISENBERG. This copy that you are presenting to us has initials at the bottom "CC-R-CK"?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the numbers and letters D-2 on the right-hand margin?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that has been copied under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. That can be admitted as Commission Exhibit 548.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 548, and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Now, is Commission Exhibit 548 an accurate copy of the target which you have-that you fired, and which you presented?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you also have a copy here which has the name on it Killion, and similar initials, letters, and numbers to the other target. Is this an accurate copy which you had prepared?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. That was the target fired by Charles Killion in my presence.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 549?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 549, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER. November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER. Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
403
Page 404
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER.- The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the second series of tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
This is the actual target which I fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that target has all six holes in it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
Mr. McCLOY. That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the date?
Mr. FRAZIER. That also was on the 27th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Same date as the first tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you performed one more test, I believe?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets we fired here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551 through 554, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
404
Page 405
On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.
The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.
Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.
Mr. McCLOY. The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the telescopic sight?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the point you are making.
Let me mark that.
This diagram was prepared by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. And illustrates
Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a textbook, showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring is mounted in a telescope.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of the specific scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit 139 and found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and received in evidence.)
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of the manner in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139, showing on the right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing indicating the outer part of the tube, with an inner circle with a crossed line in it representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up, being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a windage screw on the right-hand side
405
Page 406
of the scope tube circle which adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube 80 that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.
And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the crosshair, you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and decided rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would use these targets which we had fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that they stayed, remained stabilized?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they did.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. FRAZIER. They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER. When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?
Mr. FRAZIER. As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.
406
Page 407
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could you have compensated for this defect?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have--- an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right corner.
Mr. EISENBERG. If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you have taken, to improve your score?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of four targets were shot by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; very definitely.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest was utilized?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed-or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.
Mr. EISENBERG. How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving target?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give an amount?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at right angles.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with the weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building,
407
Page 408
which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired.
Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet.
And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds.
Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say he would have to lead approximately 2 feet under both such situations. The lead would, of course, be dependent upon the direction in which the object was moving primarily. If it is moving away from you, then, of course, the actual lead of, say, 2 feet which he would have to lead would be interpreted as a considerably less lead in elevation above the target, because the target will move the 2 feet in a direction away from the shooter, and the apparent lead then would be cut to one foot or 12 inches or 8 inches or something of that nature, due to the movement of the individual.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made calculations to achieve the figures you gave?
Mr. FRAZIER. I made the calculations, but I don't have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply these to us, either in further testimony or by letter, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have one object here, a diagram which will illustrate that lead, if you would like to use that. This is drawn to scale from these figures which you quoted as building height, and distances of 175 feet and 265 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these figures are approximations of the figures believed to be involved in the assassination. Will you supply the data at a later date?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I can furnish that.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 556?
Mr. McCLOY. That will he admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 556, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the lead in that diagram, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 556, it shows a triangular diagram with the vertical line on the left-hand side illustrating the height of the building. The figures of a 60-foot building height plus--
Mr. EISENBERG. That is height of the muzzle above the ground?
Mr. FRAZIER. No--window sill--60-foot window sill height above the ground, with an assumed 2- foot height in addition to accommodate the height of the rifle above the possible. the possible height of the rifle above the window sill.
The horizontal line extends outward from the building to a small rectangular block, and then a sloping line illustrates a 5-foot slope from the 175-foot point to the 265-foot point.
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRAZIER. The time of flight of the bullet of approximately 8/100ths of a second and, again, it was necessary to assume the time of flight of the bullet from the window to this first location of 175 feet is approximately 8/100ths of a second, which means a 2-foot lead on the target. That is, the target would move 2 feet in that interval of time, thereby necessitating shooting slightly ahead of the target to hit your aiming point. That has been diagrammatically illustrated by a 2-foot distance laid off on this rectangular block here, and two lines. very fine lines, drawn back towards the window area.
The right-hand side of Commission's 556 shows the same rectangular block, again with two lines drawn to it, one illustrating the point of aim and the other the amount of lead which would be necessary to strike an object aimed at which was moving, according to the time of flight of the projectile.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you calculated the speed of the car by translating the figures on total time elapsed between first and third shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The time the speed of the moving object was calculated on the basis of an assumed 5.5-second interval for a distance of 90 feet, which figures out mathematically to be 11.3 miles per hour.
408
Page 409
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said before that in order to give this 2-foot lead, you would have to aim 2 inches--for a target going away from you, you would have to aim 2 inches above the target, or in front of the target.
Mr. FRAZIER. 2 feet in front of the target, which would interpolate into a much lower actual elevation change.
Mr. EISENBERG. The elevation change would be 2 inches, is that it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, no. It would be on the order of 6 to 8 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. 6 to 8 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes
.Mr. EISENBERG. What was your 2-inch figure?
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't recall.
Mr. EISENBERG. But it is 6 to 8 inches in elevation?
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
Using that telescopic lens, how would you aim that rifle to achieve that distinction?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well it would be necessary to hold the crosshairs an estimated distance off the target, of say, 6 inches over the intended, target, so what when the shot was fired the crosshairs should be located about 6 inches over your target, and in the length of time that the bullet was in the air and the length of time the object was moving, the object would move into actually, the path of the bullet in approximately 1/10th to 13/100ths of a second.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the target of the assassin was the center of the President's head, and he wanted to give a correct lead, where would he have aimed, if we eliminate the possibility of errors introduced by other factors?
Mr. FRAZIER. He would aim from 4 to 6 inches--approximately 2 inches, I would say, above the President's head, which would be actually 6 inches above his aiming point at the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. How difficult is it to give this--a lead of this size to this type of target?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not be difficult at all with a telescopic sight, because your target is enlarged four times, and you can estimate very quickly in a telescopic sight, inches or feet or lead of any desired amount.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be substantially easier than it would be with an open or peep sight?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It would be much more difficult to do with the open iron sights, the notched rear sight and the blade front sight, which is on Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have been able to calculate the precise amount of lead which should be given, because you have been given figures. If you had been in the assassin's position, and were attempting to give a correct lead, what lead do you think you would have estimated as being the necessary lead?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would have been a very small amount, in the neighborhood of a 3-inch lead.
Mr. EISENBERG. As opposed to the 6 or 8 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. As opposed to about 6 inches, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What would the consequence of the mistake in assumption as to lead be that is, if you gave a 3-inch lead rather than the correct lead?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be a difference of a 3-inch variation in the point of impact on the target.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you had aimed at the center of the President's head, and given a 3-inch lead, again eliminating other errors, where would you have hit, if you hit accurately?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 3 inches below the center of his head--from the top--it would be not the actual Center from the back, but the center would be located high. The bullet would strike at possibly the base of the skull.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose you had given no lead at all and aimed at that target and aimed accurately. Where would the bullet have hit?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would hit the base of the neck--approximately 6 inches below the center of the heart.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all, if you had been in that position?
Mr. FRAZIER. At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with this rifle
409
Page 410
and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size.
Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question?
In your experimentation, in your firing of those shots that you have testified to a little while back, when you fired the first shot, was the shot in the chamber, or did you have to push it into the chamber by use of the bolt?
Mr. FRAZIER. This was fired with a loaded chamber, and timed from the time of this first shot until the last shot.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you shoot offhand or did you shoot with a rest?
Mr. FRAZIER. We shot with a rest, both the other individuals and myself, on each occasion, with one arm resting on a bench or a table.
Mr. McCLOY. Were you prone, or were you standing up?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, we were sitting, actually, sitting or kneeling, in order to bring the arm down to the rest we were using.
Mr. McCLOY. One other question.
You keep referring to, and the questions kept referring to, "lead." By "lead," in this instance, you would mean height above the aiming point rather--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. To the right, let's say, of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Because it was a going away shot?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. That is all.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
Where did you conduct these tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. The targets were fired-both on the indoor range in the FBI range here in Washington and the 10-yard tests were fired at the Quantico, Va., FBI ranges.
Representative BOGGS. Have any tests--have there been any simulated tests in the building in Texas?
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know, sir.
Representative BOGGS. But the FBI has not conducted any?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not to my knowledge. There may have been measurements and things of that nature taken, but I don't know.
Representative BOGGS. Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle three times within the space or period of time that has been given to the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, let me say this, I fired the rifle three times, in accordance with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8 seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.Representative BOGGS. You were firing at a simulated target?
Mr. FRAZIER. These targets previously introduced, or copies of the targets, are those which we actually fired.
Representative BOGGS. My questions are really a followup of the Chairman's question.
These practices--were you just practicing for time, or were you practicing under conditions similar to those existing in Dallas at the time of the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER. The tests we ran were for the purposes of determining whether we could fire this gun accurately in a limited amount of time, and specifically to determine whether it could be fired accurately in 6 seconds.
Now, we assumed the 6 seconds empirically--that is, we had not been furnished with any particular time interval. Later we were furnished with a time interval of 5.5 seconds. However, I have no independent knowledge--had no independent knowledge of the time interval or the accuracy. But we merely fired it to demonstrate the results from rapidly firing the weapon, reloading the gun and so on, in a limited time.
410
Page 411
Representative BOGGS. Were there other tests conducted to determine the accuracy of the weapon and so on?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by the FBI.
Representative BOGGS. There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.
Representative BOGGS. That was the point I was trying to establish.
Mr. FRAZIER. This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the weapon will, even under rapid- fire conditions, group closely--that is, one shot with the next.
Representative BOGGS. How many shots in the weapon? Five?
Mr. McCLOY. The clip takes six itself. You can put a seventh in the chamber. It could hold seven, in other words. But the clip is only a six-shot clip.
Representative BOGGS. Was the weapon fully loaded at the time of the assassination?
Mr. McCLOY. I don't know how many shells three shells were picked up.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance.
The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.
I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center the windage crosshair to sight-in the windage crosshair?
Mr. FRAZIER. We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair could not be centered in, sighted-in?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. That's true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to--
Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion
411
Page 412
that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
Representative BOGGS. One other question, then. "
It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
Representative BOGGS. So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. FRAZIER. If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
Representative BOGGS. But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier, if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted- in with the use of a target at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes, will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is further or closer away than the sighting-in target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it will, because the bullet in leaving the muzzle follows a curved path rather than a straight path, and in order to hit a specific target at a specific range, it is necessary for the bullet to travel up and drop down to the target, rather than have the bore pointed right at the target at the time of discharge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you calculate the amount of error which would be introduced by a specific projectile?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made such calculations?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have taken calculations for similar weight and velocity bullets from ballistics tables, which bullets approximate the velocity of the 6.5 mm. bullet and the weight of that bullet as fired from 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these results affected by the rifle which is employed, or do they depend upon the missile?
Mr. FRAZIER. They depend upon the weight and shape of the missile and the velocity, but not upon the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of these calculations?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.
If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.
It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high.
412
Page 413
Representative BOGGS. Is this a stationary target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, this is shooting from a rest at a stationary target.
Representative BOGGS. This is just a normal--
Mr. FRAZIER. This is just the trajectory of the bullet.
Representative BOGGS. I understand.
Mr. FRAZIER. As calculated
Mr. McCLOY. Putting it another way, what would be the drop of the bullet at a hundred yards if you aim point-blank straight at that target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Assuming no sighting or anything, the bullet would drop about 1.2 inches from the line of the bore at 100 yards.
Representative BOGGS. 1.2 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. But now the telescopic sight at a hundred yards would correct that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Actually, you would sight so that the muzzle is tipped up slightly with reference to the sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. The error would be introduced if you shot at a target which is closer or further away than the sighting-in target; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, that's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you characterize these errors as material?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not--unless you began shooting at distances well beyond your sighting-in point--then the amount of variation increases very rapidly.
Mr. EISENBERG. What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175 feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the trajectory characteristics, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you find this shot accurately?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to Governor Connally?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.
Representative BOGGS. You are not answering that as an expert.
Mr. FRAZIER. From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with, a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
Representative BOGGS. Putting my question another way, you would not have to be an expert marksman to accomplish this objective?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, you certainly would not.
Representative BOGGS. And a. man is a relatively large target, is he not?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly, and do this--hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.
413
Page 414
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?
Mr. FRAZIER. Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that make it a better choice than a more powerfully recoiling weapon for the type of crime which was committed?
Mr. FRAZIER. For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better choice, be cause the recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off the target, it does not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-powered rifle, such as a or a .270 Winchester, or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for instance, or one of the other military-type weapons available.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military--it is an established military weapon.
Representative BOGGS. This is a military weapon, is it not?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. That is designed to kill a human being.
Representative BOGGS. Exactly.
Mr. EISENBERG. Unless there are further questions on the weapon, I am going to move into the area of the identification of the cartridge cases and the bullets.
Mr. McCLOY. I may say I have to leave at twelve o'clock for a twelve-fifteen appointment. I will be back this afternoon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.
And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.
Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving these cartridge cases, did you clean them up or in any way prepare them for examination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The bases were cleaned of a paint which was placed on them by the manufacturer. In spots this red lacquer on the base of the case was overlapping the head of the case where some of the microscopic marks were located, and some of that color was taken off.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that lacquer put on the cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. It seals the primer area against moisture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other changes made in the preparation of the cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You have examined the cartridge cases previously. Are they in the same condition now that they were when you received them in the laboratory except for the cleaning of the lacquer?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you make the examinations?
Mr. FRAZIER. On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963, and November 27, 1963.
414
Page 415
Mr. EISENBERG. And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER. The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those, test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the belt face and the firing pin of the rifle.
(At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?
Representative BOGGS. They may be admitted.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139--as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type-operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be, reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the comers, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.
The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged in this photo graph to show the types of marks I was referring to.
Mr. EISENBERG. You took this photograph yourself, and it is a photograph of the belt face of the 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced as 558?
Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 558, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this belt-face photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 11 diameters,
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you slip out the bolt of the rifle so we could see how it compares, and show us the part of the bolt which is photographed?
Mr. FRAZIER. Orienting the photograph with the writing at the bottom, orients the bolt also, as it comes out of the rifle with the slot shown as a groove on the
415
Page 416
bottom of the bolt. Then the extractor on the bolt, is the area shown at the left side of the photograph, as you view it--the actual bolt face itself is inset into the bolt below the surface of the extractor, and a supporting shoulder around it, and in the center, of course, is the firing-pin hole and the firing pin.
The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in these marks during the life of the weapon are very important in identification, because many of the machining marks can be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of marks which are peculiar to it.
The same is true of extractors and ejectors. They are in turn machined and will have a pattern of marks or scratches on their surfaces which will mark cartridge cases in the same manner each time.
The comparison we made was of the marks appearing in this photograph, 558, in fairly close proximity to the firing pinhole, since that is the area that the primer in the head of the cartridge case comes in contact with.
The primer in a cartridge case normally takes marks more readily than the surrounding brass portion of the cartridge case, which is a considerably harder metal and is not impressed with these marks as readily.
The three cartridge cases, 553, 554, and 555, were compared--
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that 543, 544, and 545?
Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
Representative BOGGS. Who manufactured these cartridges?
Mr. FRAZIER. Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill.
Representative BOGGS. They manufacture cartridges and bullets for all manner of rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
Representative BOGGS. This is not--this rifle is not common in the United States, is it?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is fairly common now, but at the time it was manufactured or used primarily it was not. It was imported into this country as surplus military equipment, and has been advertised quite widely.
Representative BOGGS. These three cartridges--these three shells that you had were the same as the live ones that were found there, were they not?
Mr. FRAZIER. There was one live cartridge found. They are identical.
Representative BOGGS. And the live one was manufactured also by----
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp "WCC" and "6.5 mm. "
Representative BOGGS. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy them anywhere?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily, or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the United States in one lot, one shipment--and they have been transmitted over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun shops--used guns--mail-order houses and places of that nature and gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.
Representative BOGGS. Go ahead.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?
416
Page 417
Mr. FRAZIER. Because the marks which are placed on any bolt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling ma chine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched-- until you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future accidental markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles. But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough even though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor variations in the cutting operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled surfaces?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; many times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go into detail on that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks or milling marks and so on, it is some times possible to identify a particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this, where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from any other bolt face. It is a matter actually--when you get down to the basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is because the original markings will not be exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of the original ones?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as I under stand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface, such as this.
Mr. FRAZIER. I have worked with beth. In other words, in comparing tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in working with these tools, as I understand your testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.
Mr. FRAZIER. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it occasionally can be identified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have made?
Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands of them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given tool--that you have examined--change over the course of the use of the tool?
417
Page 418
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a hard object.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example, one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing, or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it may gradually change over a period of time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a soft metal?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was hard metal----
Mr. EISENBERG. Well---
Mr. FRAZIER. With reference to copper or other softer metals---it is a steel. I could not say how hard it actually is.
Mr. EISENBERG. What will the effect of the metal used in the bolt face be upon the tool which is used to finish it off, cut it and finish it off?
Mr. FRAZIER. The tool will gradually wear out.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, will the tool leave different marks on the end of the bolt face from one bolt to the very next bolt face?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; that very often happens. The tool is worn out or the small cuttings get underneath the edge, between the tool, and nick the edge of the tool, so that the tool will gradually change over a period of time. The cutting edge the amount of change depends upon the amount of wear, the heat involved, and the hardness of the metal--the relative hardness of the metal.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will that particular change be noticed invariably in two consecutive bolt faces?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. So what is the genesis of the difference in the two consecutive bolt faces as they come from the manufacturer?
Mr. FRAZIER. The change, as I said, depends on the bolt you are using. It does not always take place, because some bolts are made of a very soft metal, and they will not necessarily change a machining tool to that extent.
Mr. EISENBERG. But the markings, you said, would be different on two consecutive bolt faces?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And if the tool is not changed, what is the origin of the difference between the markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are other accidental markings placed there during the machining operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that?
Mr. FRAZIER. For instance, as the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a duster a very fine powder or chip-that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks-that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt-unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.
Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these very
418
Page 419
fine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find on that examination?
Mr. FRAZIER. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.
Mr. EISENBERG. There actually was none?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was none.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the bolt face with which we are dealing, Exhibit 139, can you say from inspection whether the markings on that bolt face are predominantly the accidental markings introduced subsequent to manufacture, or the markings of the manufacture?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that these were filing marks for the most part which were made during manufacture, some of which have been obliterated and changed through use possibly corrosion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, taking Exhibit 543, did you prepare a photograph of this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Compared with the test cartridge case?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is the photograph, showing the test cartridge case from Exhibit 557 on the right and the cartridge case 543 on the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 559 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, that is marked on the left C-14, and on the right, C-6.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the left-hand photograph is a photograph of what?
Mr. FRAZIER. Of the cartridge case 543.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the actual fired case?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it shows just a portion of the primer, and a very small portion of the firing- pin impression.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the right-hand side of that photograph, marked C-6?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a test cartridge case, fired in the rifle Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 100 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is that magnification equal on both sides of the picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make your identification of Exhibit 543, that is the identification of that exhibit as having been fired in the rifle 139, on the basis of your examination under the microscope, or on the basis of the photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Under the microscope. The photograph has no relationship whatsoever to the examination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
Mr. FRAZIER. The examination is made microscopically through the use of your eyes, and your eyes will record depths and shapes to a much greater extent than can be shown in a photograph. So that the examination and comparison is made of these irregular surfaces mentally, rather than mechanically by any means. The photograph is taken primarily to illustrate the types of marks found and their location, relatively, on the specimen.
Representative BOGGS. We will have to adjourn and come back at 2.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
419
Page 420
Afternoon Session
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED
The President's Commission reconvened at 2:10 p.m.
Mr. McCLOY. You are still under oath, you know.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to begin by clearing up a few items which have been covered or left open during the morning session.
First, you were going to supply us with certain figures concerning the times which were taken by two of the Agents to fire three shots in the first series of tests which were made for determining the accuracy of the firing under rapid-fire conditions.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that was at two targets. The first one I gave Killion fired in 9 seconds. The other was a target marked Cunningham and Frazier. Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target, assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those calculations now?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may or may not be exactly accurate.
But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the intended spot on the target At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or 6.1 inches.
I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop in the amount of lead.
And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you convert those lead distances into the amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head, above the point of the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that table also shows leads at other car speeds?
Mr. FRAZIER. This table I could calculate them--it only shows miles per hour translated into feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. I mean, does it show various miles per hour?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it shows miles per hour in feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. Without going into detail at this time, may I have permission to introduce this table into evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. This will be Commission Exhibit 560.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 560 was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Frazier, in the construction of this table and also in your last tests for rapid fire for this rifle, you used a five-and-a-half second figure as a factor in your calculations, and in your attempt at rapid fire accuracy placements. Can you give us the source of that figure?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. You were the source of it, based on examination, as I understood it, of a movie taken at the scene, and measurements taken at the scene. However, I have no knowledge of the actual time.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I just wanted to establish that this is a
420
Page 421
source that was supplied by the Commission and which is tentative, and it is not to imply any final conclusion on the part of the FBI; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. I hope it is taken that way, because we don't know what the time actually was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Another point then, which should have been covered this morning, Mr. Frazier, in your qualifications: have you testified before in court?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of times?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 400 times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Finally, we had discussed briefly your examination of consecutively manufactured bolt faces to see whether any two such consecutively manufactured bolt faces were identical in their microscopic characteristics. How many such examinations have you performed.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say about four examinations of pairs of bolt faces which have been consecutively manufactured.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in each case the result was what?
Mr. FRAZIER. The marks on one bolt face in no way resembled the marks on the other bolt face.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a microscope, and that is also known as C-6 and C-14, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the markings
which you have seen under the microscope and on the basis of which you made your identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the 139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission Exhibit 543 on the right side.
The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature, that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on the two specimens themselves.
Mr. EISENBERG. Referring for a second to this mental, visual, comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms training-firearms-identification training--be able to look under a microscope and make a determination for himself concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a given weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. In that connection that person could look through the micro scope. He may or may not see these individual characteristics which are present, because he does not know what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your mind going back and forth between one area and the other until you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.
If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a layman could make?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say so; yes. I don't think a layman would recognize some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown in the photographs as actually being significant or not significant, because there will be things
421
Page 422
present which have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case in the gun.
There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and there are no marks registered at that point as a result of the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the absence of similar marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you, which is 559--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?
Mr. FRAZIER. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not identical to explain why you would get such a result?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle 4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the photograph.
On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which runs through there, having an entirely different appearance from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other cartridge case.
In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the marks that are present.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.
Mr. Frazier, could you discuss or characterize those points which you have circled on Commission Exhibit 559, starting from the top?
Mr. FRAZIER. Number 1 circle is drawn around a depression in the metal of irregular shape. I might say that number 1 shows on the right side of the photograph, and only half of it shows on the left side because of the relative position of the two cartridge cases in the photograph.
Number 2 is a circle drawn around a long line which extends obliquely across each cartridge case from the upper left to the lower right. The long line itself is a means of orienting the cartridge eases one with the other, but the circle is drawn around a break in that line in the form of a very small hump or an absence of metal which shows up as an actual break in the long line.
Number 3 again is a depression between two grooves, which is rather similar in shape. I cannot tell you how deep it is because the photograph only shows two dimensions. But on the cartridge cases it has a very characteristic depth to it, which is readily apparent.
It is formed by two parallel lines extending from the upper left to the lower, towards the lower right, with the depression in between, and again one side of the depression is formed by a small raised area in the primer metal which is seen in each photograph as a conical, almost a conical-shaped bump or raised area.
Number 4 is another raised portion on the photograph. In connection with 4, I would like to point out that a portion of this bump has been erased from the test cartridge case on the left-hand side of the photograph, the erasure caused by the turning of the bolt of the weapon while being pressed against the primer, which has smoothed off some of the protruding rough areas on the primer.
Number 5 is a horizontal ridge which has two depressions, one on the top and one on the bottom, shown on both sides of the photograph, and number 6 is a wishbone type of ridge, a wide ridge which divides into two smaller ridges on the left-hand edge, and in the middle of the dividing lines, the forked lines, is a small dent or raised portion. Those six which I have marked are only portions of those shown in the photograph, and of course the photograph does not show the entire surface of the primer.
422
Page 423
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to find identifying marks on the brass as well as the primer on this cartridge case?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I did not notice any marks on the brass portions outside of the primer.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that typical of cartridge-case identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Generally that is true, unless there is a great pressure, unless the brass of the cartridge case is soft, or unless the marks are very sharp on the breech face; then they will be impressed into the brass.
Mr. EISENBERG. This picture represents only a portion of the primer. You examined the entire primer to make your identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And found?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not have been necessary to examine the entire primer necessarily, but of course we do examine the entire primer, pick out all of the marks on the left and the right, and rotate the cartridge cases and look at them from various angles, before arriving at a conclusion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you amplify the meaning of the statement that it would not be necessary to examine the entire primer?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are sufficient marks shown in this photograph upon which to base an identification. In other words, it would not be necessary to have the rest of the primer if it had been mutilated or destroyed or some thing of that nature.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine the firing-pin impression in the cartridge?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a picture of that examination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Here is the photograph of the firing-pin impression, again on the left the rifle, and on the right the cartridge case, Commission's 543.
Mr. EISENBERG. That bears the number C-14 and C-6, corresponding to the numbers on Commission Exhibit 559?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph or have it taken under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it equal on both sides?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 561.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 561 was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed with the discussion of the circled marks on this photograph, number 561?
Mr. FRAZIER. In the case of firing-pin impressions which are shown on Exhibit 561, the marks result from two related sources; excuse me, not sources, but from two related causes, one being the force given to the firing pin driving it into the primer to set off the cartridge, and the second being the force of the powder charge inside the cartridge being driven back--driving the primer back against the firing pin at the same time, so that the metal of the primer is-caused to flow or be stamped by the firing pin and pressed against by the gases, so that any irregularities in the firing pin will be impressed into the primer of the cartridge case.
Number 1 consists of a double horizontal line, one a fairly wide coarse line at the top. Immediately under that approximately one-eighth of an inch is a fairly fine horizontal line.
Circled and marked number 2 is a very coarse, wide ridge, very short in length, approximately one-half an inch, and an eighth to a quarter of an inch
423
Page 424
in height. This ridge is formed by two grooves, a straight groove across the top, and a curved or crescent-shaped groove across the bottom.
Number 3 is a circle drawn around two small raised areas in the primer metal separated by a depression.
Number 4 is a section from a large ridge across the metal of the primer, which has a break in its surface in the lower portion of the circle, and immediately above the break is a groove, and immediately above that again is another ridge which is at a little steeper angle upwards to the left.
Number 5 is a depression, is a portion of a depression appearing at the bottom of the circle with a very short ridge running horizontally across the circle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of dissimilarities?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces.
Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear, whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures are the same or not.
So I don't think we can say that it is an absence of dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this cartridge case?
Mr. McCLOY. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you have testified also that you identified the cartridge case which is Exhibit 544 as having been fired from this rifle, in this rifle, to the exclusion of all others. Did you take a photograph of the comparison that you made under the microscope of number 544?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I again took two photographs, one of the breech-face or bolt-face marks, and one of the firing-pin marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. This exhibit which I am holding is a picture of the breech-face marks?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And was that taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification here is what?
Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be number 562, Mr. Reporter.
(The item described as Commission Exhibit No. 562 was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the markings on this picture, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Commission Exhibit 562, there is again the vertical dividing line which is the top of the prism in the microscope which divides your view. On the left hand side is a portion of the primer and a portion of the head of the test cartridge case from Exhibit 139. On the right side of the photograph is a portion of the surface of the primer and a portion of the firing-pin impression of the cartridge case, Commission Exhibit 544.
To assist in pointing out on the photograph some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are present, I have had circles drawn, circling at the top, number 1, an oval-shaped depression in the metal, having an irregularly shaped or wavy ridge across the bottom of the circle. Immediately below that is another ridge which has a flat top, and is more or less of a diamond shape.
Number 3 circle is over a very coarse, wide ridge separated by two fairly deep grooves on each side.
Number 4 circle is over a conical-shaped raised portion on the primer which
424
Page 425
represents a dent in the metal of the bolt face, and number 5 again is a raised area on the primer which is a portion of a ridge. In this instance this is more or less of a compound ridge which runs horizontally with a small break in it pointing down toward the lower left.
Mr. McCLOY. Is that same break apparent in the left hand photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is. Looking very closely and right at the hairline, you can see the break in the ridge where it forms more or less of a Y. The actual connecting point is not present, but you can see the portion of the ridge as it heads towards the horizontal ridge. The hairline has separated that portion of it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you call these marks strongly characteristic marks, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; very characteristic. They are primarily characteristic because of their irregular shape. If they had been regular in shape, it wouldn't have meant nearly as much as it does to have the irregular rough surfaces and contours of the marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. I think you have identified the next picture I am holding as having been taken by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was. That is a 70-diameter magnification photograph of Exhibit 544 on the right, and the test from the rifle on the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this bears the numbers C-14 and C-7, and is a firing-pin photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this firing-pin mark photograph be admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is 563.
(The item was numbered 563, and was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you review that photograph, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Exhibit 563 the test cartridge case representing the rifle is on the left side of the photograph, and shows most of the firing-pin impression in that cartridge case. Five circles have been drawn over towards the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression, and five similarly located circles have been drawn over the area at the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression of Exhibit 544.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is actually the left-hand side of the right-hand part of the picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be that is right; at the dividing line, the circles on 544 are drawn close to the dividing line, which shows only a very small portion of the firing pin of that cartridge case.
Beginning with number 1, it has a gently sloping ridge running from upper left toward lower right in each instance, with a break in the ridge contour at the middle in the form of an extension upwards toward the top of the photograph.
In number 2 there is a circle drawn around the end of a very long line in the left-hand side of the photograph. The circle is drawn to show a Y-shaped break in this line located on both cartridge cases.
Number 3 is a photograph of an irregular-shaped raised portion on the firing-pin impression, which is very difficult to describe in words.
Number 4 is a groove extending from upper right to lower left which has a break in its lower side to allow a horizontal groove to come in towards the main groove. The lower portion of that groove coming in from the lower side is in the form of a crescent-shaped ridge, which starts horizontally from the left and then falls off towards the lower right-hand side of the photograph.
The circle, number 5, is again a Y-shaped or wishbone-shaped ridge, with a horizontal bar on the right, and then extending ridges upward toward the left and downward to the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again, are these firing-pin marks what you would call strongly characteristic?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say so.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the firing pin give any evidence of having been altered subsequent to the original manufacture?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; only in an accidental sort of way, that is, very fine
425
731-219 O--64--vol.III---28
Page 426
scratches which may have been caused by firing or dirt on a cartridge or something which may have scratched the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are firing-pin marks usually as characteristic of a given cartridge case as the primer marks?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say they are as characteristic. However, they may not always be as evident, they may not be seen as readily. However, they are just as characteristic.
Mr. McCLOY. Just to repeat again, what is this side of this picture? What does this represent?
Mr. FRAZIER. That represents the rifle cartridge.
Mr. McCLOY. The rifle cartridge itself?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And this on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. This is one of the three cartridge cases recovered from the building, Exhibit 544.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you fired two test cartridges in the rifle, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. We fired several test cartridge cases. These two are the ones that were used in the comparisons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you fire several for possible comparison purposes, or only two for possible comparison purposes?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those we fired were in the time-fire test and we retained some of those for possible use in comparing, but it was not necessary to use them, actually.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you use both of these test cartridge cases in the photo graphs, or only one of them?
Mr. FRAZIER. I could not tell by these photographs. We did not make any distinction when we were comparing tests with the evidence as to which test cartridge case we were using.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you made your selection among cartridge cases to select the items which would be used as test cases for comparison purposes, were the items you rejected much different from those you selected?
Mr. FRAZIER. No. The marks were generally the same on all of them. Those we used in this comparison were two tests which we fired on November 23d and used them in our tests-made our examination, our identification.
Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of the other tests that were made.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you just as easily have used other of the items from your original November twenty---
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Getting to the last cartridge case, Exhibit 545, did you take a photograph of the exhibit together with the test case under the microscope after making your identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. This photograph shows that cartridge case 545 on the right, and the test cartridge case from the rifle, 139, on the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is marked on the right C-38 and on the left C-14?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again this is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is of the primer?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have a second photograph here also, marked C-14 and C-38, also taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this is of the markings of the firing pin?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the magnification first of the primer-markings photograph?
426
Page 427
Mr. FRAZIER. That is 100 diameters enlargement on the primer, and on the firing-pin it is 80 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now in all the cases of the photographs you have given us, the magnifications are equal on both sides, are they?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted into evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. They will be 564 and 565.
(The items, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 564 and 565, were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the photograph, Exhibit 564 please, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 564 is again, a portion of the primer of the cartridge case fired by me in the rifle number 139 appearing on the left side of the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, and on the right side a portion of the surface of the cartridge case, Exhibit 545, showing its primer and the marks on it.
In the photograph four circles, or portions of circles, have been drawn, circling some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are found which permitted identifying the two cartridge cases as having been fired in the same weapon.
In the upper circle are again two ridges separated by a groove, the lower right-hand end of which is blocked by a raised portion in the metal of the primer.
Circle number 2 is again a depression bounded on the top by a long sloping groove, sloping from the upper left subsequently to the lower right.
In circle number 3 there is a series of ridges running horizontally across the photograph. The lowest of these three ridges is a rather wide round-topped ridge.
Circle number 4 shows the left-hand side of a figure which you could roughly call a Z in the primer, which consists of a horizontal or nearly horizontal line running from left to right which meets a second line running from right down to the left, which again meets a third line which runs from the left to the right. This is shown in both photographs as the three lines which form the shape of a Z on the primer.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, on this photograph there is shown a mark at approximately 3 o'clock on the left-hand side of the picture, and 9 o'clock on the right-hand side, and the marks seem to be different in the two pictures, being broader on the left-hand, C-14, than on the right, C-38. Could you explain the genesis of the difference? It seems to extend further down.
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately in the center of the photograph where the two images meet, there is a scraped area which is the result of the surface of the metal of the bolt scraping the surface of the primer as the bolt was turned in opening the bolt to extract the cartridge.
On the test cartridge case, this area is much broader and coarser because the bolt was pressing more tightly against the primer when it was turned. On the evidence cartridge case, the marks are relatively fine, separated, and even show portions of the surface of the primer in between the circular marks left by the rotating bolt. The reason is that this primer was not being pressed as tightly against the bolt at the time it was turned.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that be due to differences in the construction of the cartridge the two cartridges?
Mr. FRAZIER. It could be differences in the cartridge, but primarily it would be a difference in the amount of setback of the cartridge against the bolt at the time it was fired.
If a cartridge is slightly away from the bolt when it is fired, the primer is blown back out of the cartridge. As the pressure builds up, the cartridge then moves back and reseats the primer in the primer pocket. The manner in which that movement of the primer out and back in is accomplished determines how tightly the primer will bear against the face of the breach after the cartridge has been fired.
427
Page 428
It could be that, and it could be just a slight difference in the hardness of the metal of the primer which caused this one to flow back more and be marked more.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss Exhibit No. 565?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; in Commission Exhibit No. 565 is shown the firing-pin impressions of the test cartridge case from the 139 rifle on the left and the cartridge case, 545, on the right, with a dividing line through the middle separating the primer of one cartridge case from the primer of the other.
No circles have been drawn around this photograph because the marks shown are marks of an abraded area on the firing pin, and are more or less parallel and formed parallel patterns, so that the eye can follow from one line across to the opposite side of the photograph.
In this area shown of the firing pin of the weapon, there was a small scraped area which left these microscopic ridges and grooves shown on the left photo graph, and also reproduced in the 545 primer or firing-pin impression on the right side of the photograph.
Mr. McCLOY. State for me again what is on the left side? What is this C-14?
Mr. FRAZIER. This is the rifle cartridge case, the test cartridge ease.
Mr. McCLOY. The test rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; the cartridge ease which I fired in 139.
Mr. McCLOY. In 139. And the one on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545.
Mr. McCLOY. Which was found in the building?
Mr. FRAZIER. Found in the building.
Mr. McCLOY. On all of these on the left is it always the same----
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; on all of the photographs we have discussed so far.
Mr. McCLOY. I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, it appears to the eye that only a portion of this is in focus. Is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Only a portion of the entire photograph is in focus, yes, and that is the area where these individual marks appear, occur.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the reason being the outer area, the area up to the edge of the firing-pin impression is considerably higher, and the microscope does not have the depth of focus to focus on a very deep groove or depression such as the firing pin at the bottom of it and still maintain the top in focus.
The firing pin is circular, I should say, hemispherical in shape, so that it leaves a cup-shaped impression of it- only one portion of it can be in focus at the same time; the other part being either higher or lower will be out of focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
428
Page 429
Mr. EISENBERG. There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the types of markings which are generated onto a bullet, as opposed to those which are generated onto a cartridge case?
Mr. FRAZIER. A bullet when it is fired picks up the marks of the barrel of the weapon. These marks consist of rifling marks of the lands and the grooves, the spiral grooves in the barrel, and, in addition, the abrasion marks or rubbing marks which the bullet picks up due to the friction between the barrel and the surface of the copper jacket on the bullet, or if it is a lead bullet, with the lead.
Mr. McCLOY. You said the marks of the groove. You mean the marks of the groove or the marks of the lands?
Mr. FRAZIER. Both, sir; both are present. In this barrel there are four lands and four grooves. Each of the raised portions in the barrel will be impressed into the surface of the bullet causing four--we call them land impressions--on the bullet, and, in between, four groove impressions.
Mr. EISENBERG. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel from which the bullets are fired.
The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or faulty cleaning.
They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they result from wear, that is an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges, bullets through it.
In this particular barrel the manufacturer's marks are caused by the drill which drills out the barrel, leaving certain marks from the drilling tool. Then portions of these marks are erased by a rifling tool which cuts the four spiral grooves in the barrel and, in turn, leaves marks themselves, and in connection with those marks of course, the drilling marks, being circular in shape, there is a tearing away of the surface of the metal, so that a microscopically rough surface is left.
Then removing part of those marks with a separate tool causes that barrel to assume an individual characteristic, a character all of its own.
In other words, at that time you could identify a bullet fired from that barrel as having been fired from the barrel to the exclusion of all other barrels, because there is no system whatever to the drilling of the barrel. The only system is in the rifling or in the cutting of the grooves, and in this case of rifle barrels, even the cutters wear down as the barrels are made, eventually of course having to be discarded or re-sharpened.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to determine whether their microscopic characteristics are identical?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say, paired barrels,. which have- been manufactured on the same machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as individual microscopic
429
Page 430
characteristics are concerned. Their rifling impressions of course would be identical, but the individual marks there would be entirely different.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. How •much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of your comparison of Exhibit 399 with a test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us the magnification?
Mr. FRAZIER. 70 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this reads C-14 on the left and C-1 on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. The one on the right is the cartridge that you just--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. 399, yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. And the one on the left is the test bullet.
Mr. McCLOY. The test. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 566, Mr. Reporter.
(The item so described was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 566 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss photograph 566?
Mr. FRAZIER. This exhibit shows on the left side of a dividing vertical line representing the top of the prism in the microscope which was used for the comparison, a portion of the surface from the test bullet from the rifle, 139, and on the right side of the photograph a portion of the surface of the bullet, 399.
The marks shown in the photograph are on an area representing approximately one-half of one groove impression in the barrel of the weapon, which extends from approximately 2 inches up from the bottom of the photograph, being the edge of one land impression, and the beginning of a groove impression up to the top of the photograph, that area being approximately one-half or possibly two-thirds of a groove impression.
430
Page 431
The microscopic marks which were used in the identification, after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification; were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photo graph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and in between size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon.
There will be some marks which will not show up on one bullet which show up on the other bullet, and. similarly some marks on the other bullet, in this case Exhibit 399, will not be present on the test bullet, that situation being due to a number of causes.
One, the bullets could have originally been slightly different in diameter, the larger bullet, of course, picking up more marks during its passage through the barrel.
Secondly, the two bullets may not have expanded exactly the same, due to the pressure of the powder behind them as they passed through the barrel.
Third, with each bullet fired through the barrel, there are certain changes that occur due to the wearing away of the surface of the metal of the barrel, so that after a series of shots through a particular barrel, it would be expected that the pattern of microscopic marks produced by it would change.
The identification is based on areas such as this on the bullet and the comparison of the microscopic marks around the entire surface of the bullet which bears individual characteristics.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, running through the middle of the exhibit there seem to be finer lines on the right- hand side than on the left. Could you explain that, the reason why the lines come out with more detail or that there are more lines on the right side than on the left?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those marks could be the result of the bullet striking some object after it was fired, or they could be the result of changes having taken place in the barrel.
For instance, even a piece of coarse cloth, leather or some other object could have polished the surface of the metal slightly and left infinitesimal scratches which, when enlarged sufficiently, actually look like marks on the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. In making your examination of the bullet, what was the relative attention you gave to the broader lines we see in this picture and the finer lines such as those we have just been referring to?
Mr. FRAZIER. The broader lines would be more characteristic or they are looked for most, because they change less rapidly than the fine lines. For instance, firing two or three bullets through a barrel could completely erase microscopic marks which would appear as fine lines in a certain area, whereas the coarser lines and grooves on the bullet would be maintained over a series of fired bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. In evaluating these lines, do you examine the lines individually, or are you interested in their relationship with one another in addition?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a combination. You actually examine each mark and each line individually, but it is a mental process rather than a matter of adding one line to another. It is a process of looking at a series of lines and you actually notice that they are composed of round-topped ridges, V-topped ridges, flat-topped ridges, and it is a mental process of looking at the whole pattern rather than the individual marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. All these lines that we are looking at lie within a groove, within one groove, did you say?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; except for the lower portion of the photograph, there is a portion of a land impression showing one rather deep groove running across the bottom of the picture, and a series of grooves shown next to the edge of the land impression.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you identify the circular-looking mark on the right-hand side of the picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. That could be either a flaw in the bullet, the metal itself, before it was fired, or could be the result of the bullet having struck some object after
431
Page 432
it was fired and before it stopped, or as it stopped, or could be the result having been dropped or roughly handled.
This particular mark there would be invisible practically speaking to the naked eye when looking at the bullet.
Mr. McCLOY. The mark to which you refer is the one on the right-hand side of the exhibit toward the top, about an inch and a half from the center line?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that about 11 o'clock?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have another photograph, Mr. Frazier, of this?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you
whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG. How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you weigh this fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. It weighs 44.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the fragment as compared with a test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is labeled C-14 on the left and C--2 on the right, and it is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. The test bullet from 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 70 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may that be admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. C-2 is the actual fragment?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The items described, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 567 and 568, were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss this photograph with us?
Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 568 is again the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, with the test bullet from the rifle 139
432
Page 433
on the left, and the bullet, Exhibit 567, on the right. Am I right in that the bullet jacket fragment is 567?
Mr. EISENBERG. I think I put it down here. That is right, 567.
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately two-thirds of a groove impression from each of the two bullets is shown, with a very small portion at the bottom of the photograph of a land impression. The individual microscopic characteristics which were used in the comparison, and on which the identification was made, were photographed and are as shown in this photograph. However, this photograph did not enter into the actual conclusion reached. The microscopic characteristics appear as parallel horizontal lines extending from the test bullet on the left to the bullet Exhibit 567 on the right.
The marks used in the identification are grooves, paired lines, a series of ridges up and down the hairline on one bullet, and they also appear on the opposite side of the photograph.
In one particular instance it will be seen that at the edge of the land impression at the lower left portion of the photograph is a very definite paired ridge which appears on the right side of the photograph but in a slightly different area.
The reason for the difference in the location of this paired line on the exhibit, Exhibit 567, can be explained by the fact that this is a jacket fragment, that it was torn from the rest of the bullet, and is greatly mutilated, distorted, and bears only a very few areas suitable for identification purposes because of that fact.
The distortion has foreshortened the area of the jacket fragment, 567, to the extent that over this approximately one-tenth-of-an-inch surface represented in this photograph, these lines do not coincide exactly on the lower part of the photograph when they are lined up on the upper part of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say they don't correspond exactly, do you mean at all, or do you mean they aren't--
Mr. FRAZIER. I mean that the marks are present, but they do not line up at the hairline.
Mr. EISENBERG. But in your opinion the marks on the left are the same as the marks on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
Mr. McCLOY. They are not lined up in the microscope because there is mutilation on the fragment?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And there is no mutilation on the test cartridge?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, in the lower portion of each side of that photograph, which I take it is the groove of the bullet, or the land impression of the rifle is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. The land on the rifle leaves this groove on the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; the right-hand side seems to be slightly striated while the left-hand side does not seem to be striated. Can you explain that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, the striae in this side are not apparent in this photograph. I don't know whether they actually exist on the bullet or not. You can't tell from the photograph, because they are so fine as to possibly not show at all.
A close examination right at the hairline shows a whole series of very fine scratches which do not appear further away from the hairline, and that could be very easily due to differences in the metal, as the bullet passed down the barrel, being pressed less forcibly against the barrel, or could also be due to the fact that at the edges of the lands it is very often evident that hot gases from the burning powder had passed the bullet through these cracks and actually will melt or erode away the surface of the bullet.
433
Page 434
As to why they may or may not be present is difficult to say from an examination of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. What portion of the bullet fragment provided enough markings for purposes of identification, approximately?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that one-fourth, in this instance, one-fourth of 567's surface was available. One-fifth to one-sixth would have been sufficient for identification, based on the character of the marks present.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now this portion of the fragment was an even smaller portion of the bullet, the entire bullet, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. So when you say one-fifth and one-sixth, are you referring now to the proportion of marks on the fragment, as opposed to the proportion of marks you would want from an entire bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I am referring to the proportion of marks on the fragment which were used in the examination as compared to the total bullet circumference which would have existed on an unmutilated bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, do you feel that the amount of markings here were sufficient to make positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made identifications in the past with as few or less markings as are present on this bullet fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; and on less, much less of an area. The character of the marks is more important than the number of the marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, here you were of course unable to see all of the lines which were present on the bullet before mutilation. Have you ever had an occasion where you examined a bullet and saw one portion of it which was an apparent match and then found out that the balance of the bullet was not an apparent match?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; and if I understand your words "apparent match," there is no such thing as an apparent match. It either is an identification or it isn't, and until you have made up your mind, you don't have an apparent match. We don't actually use that term in the FBI. Unless you have sufficient marks for an identification, you cannot say one way or the other as to whether or not two bullets were fired from a particular barrel.
In other words, you cannot nonidentify on the absence of similarities any more than you can identify when you have no similarities present.
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any possible chance of error creeping in.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; we never use it, never.
Mr. EISENBERG. And why is that?
Mr. FRAZIER. There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is or isn't as far as we are concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in this case it--
Mr. FRAZIER. It is, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this bullet fragment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. Do we have any proof in the-record thus far as to where the fragment referred to a moment ago came from?
Mr. EISENBERG. Honestly, I am not sure. I know it will be in the record eventually, but I have not taken that up as part of this testimony.
Mr. McCLOY. That will be subject to further proof.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. If it is not in the record. As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?
434
Page 435
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER. 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY. Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER. None whatsoever.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr. EISENBERG. Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It consists of the base or most rearward portion of the jacket of a metal-jacketed bullet, from which the lead core is missing.
Mr. EISENBERG. How can you tell that it is the most rearward portion?
Mr. FRAZIER. It has the shape which bases of bullets have. It has the cannelure which is located at the rear, on the portion of bullets of this type.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER. There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now 569 is without the core; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how much weight you would add if you had the core?
435
Page 436
Mr. FRAZIER. No, I cannot.
Mr. EISENBERG. Not at all?
Mr. FRAZIER. No. I do not have the figure on the core weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, is it possible that if you did make such an estimate, the weight, the projected weight of 569 plus the actual weight of 567 would exceed the bullet weight of the 6.5 mm. bullet
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh. no; it would not.
Mr. EISENBERG. It would not?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not come even close to it, because the amount of core is only--one-quarter inch of the bullet is all that remains at the base, and that much core would not weigh more than 40 grains at the most.
Mr. EISENBERG. No cannelure shows on 567, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you make a comparison photograph of 569 with a test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is marked C-14 on the left and C--3 on the right; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, from the rifle 139, and C-3 is Exhibit 569.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification on this photograph is what, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. 70 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. 570.
(The item was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 570 and was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss this picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 570 shows a portion of the test bullet from Exhibit 139 on the left side of the photograph, and a portion of the bullet 569 on the right side, divided by a hairline.
The photograph was taken of the microscopic marks, examined through the comparison microscope, consisting of very fine and very coarse grooves, or scratches, or ridges, on the surface of each of the bullets as compared with those on the other bullet.
The photograph did not, of course, enter into the conclusion reached in the examination, but was merely taken to demonstrate, to illustrate the types of marks present insofar as a photograph can show them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what portion of the Exhibit 569 was unmutilated enough to allow you to make a comparison of its markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately one-third. Actually, the entire base section of the bullet was present, but approximately one-half of that base was mutilated. On the mutilated area, either marks were destroyed completely by striking some object, or being compressed or stretched, or they were thrown out of relationship with each other by stretching or compressing to the extent that they were of no value.
So I would estimate approximately one-third of the area was present.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say one-third, is this total area or circumference?
Mr. FRAZIER. Circumference, one-third of the circumference.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any further pictures of any of the bullets, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, I do not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I hand you two bullets and ask whether you are familiar with them.
436
Page 437
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am. These are the two test bullets which I fired from this rifle, Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Exhibit 572?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 572, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials.
Mr. EISENBERG. As you examined the bullet and the two bullet fragments, are they in the same condition now as they were when they entered your hands?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. One other question on the cartridge cases.
Did you examine the cartridge cases for chambering marks, extraction marks, or ejection marks?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did, but I did not make any comparisons of either extractor or ejector marks or chambering marks, since the purpose of my examination was primarily to determine whether they were fired in this rifle, and such marks would not have assisted in that determination. They were not necessary because they would have indicated only that it may have been loaded into and extracted from the weapon, whereas the marks which I found served to identify it as having been fired in the weapon, actually.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, unless you have further questions on the cartridge cases or bullets, I would like to move on to another subject.
Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
Mr. FRAZIER. Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.
Mr. McCLOY. And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at the minimum?
Mr. FRAZIER. I meant at least two bullets.
Mr. McCLOY. There were at least two different bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER. At least two, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 60 rounds.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find the ammunition dependable?
Mr. FRAZIER. Very dependable.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition?
437
Page 438
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you elaborate as to what that other ammunition consists of?
Mr. FRAZIER. Certain companies have imported into the United States cartridges of foreign manufacture. Those I have seen for this rifle were of Italian manufacture. They have pulled the military bullets from those cartridges and reloading hunting type or soft-point bullets into the cartridges. In doing that, they did not, apparently, take any great pains in loading them. Occasionally, the mouth of the case would be bent over and the bullet driven in right on top of the bent case.
I have seen split cartridge cases, even before they were fired, badly corroded cartridge cases. All in all, the ammunition is of generally poor overall appearance, and it has been reported to me that it was of poor firing quality.
I have not fired any of it, personally.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you heard anything about the dependability of the Italian-made ammunition, unreloaded?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not as such.
However, I have experienced the examination of Italian ammunition of various years of manufacture and, of course, various makes. And I think it is rather poor quality in this particular caliber, primarily due to the very short seating depth to which bullets of this type are seated in the cartridge, which causes the bullets to loosen very readily in the cartridge case even before they are loaded into a clip or fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice, Mr. Frazier, in your examination of targets and so forth, whether there was any marked degree of yaw or tumbling by the bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER. No evidence at all of tumbling or yaw.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the firing of 60 shots materially affect the microscopic characteristics of Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would change them, if not completely, practically completely.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, some witnesses to the assassination have stated that they heard more than three shots. Can you think of any reason why they might have come to that conclusion--in terms of acoustical properties of high-velocity bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER. They could very readily have heard other sounds which could be confused with shots. It is apparent--it is obvious with any weapon in which the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, which is 1,127, approximately, feet per second, the bullet itself will cause a shock wave or a sound wave, and a person standing in front of that weapon will hear the report of the bullet passing and then subsequently the sound will reach them of the cartridge explosion, which could very easily be confused with two shots. There will be the crack of the bullet going by, overhead or in the vicinity, and then the sound of the shot.
So that you would hear for three shots actually six reports, which could have caused some confusion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a bullet in a pill box which is marked Q-188. I ask you whether you are familiar with this bullet.
I would like to state for the record that this bullet was found in the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.
Mr. McCLOY. As far as you know, we have no proof of that yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am familiar with it. I have made an examination of that bullet.
With reference to this bullet, I could furnish everything except the weight of it.
438
Page 439
Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Just taking one thing at a time. You are familiar with it with it. Does it have your marking on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 573?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admired.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 573, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this bullet, do you recall, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would need to refer to my notes for that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply that for us at a subsequent time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the weight.
Is this bullet in the same condition as it was when you received it in the laboratory, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean it up or in any way alter it when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a jacketed bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.
The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.
The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the direction of the twist?
Mr. FRAZIER. To the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how many types of rifle would produce, on
439
Page 440
a 6.5 mm. bullet, four lands and four grooves, right twist, with the width of lands and grooves which you established as being those on this bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Only from experience, I could. say that it would be relatively few which would agree with all of those characteristics. I have, of come, not seen or measured all of the foreign rifles, and therefore I could not estimate the number that there might be.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any microscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine the depth of the grooves of the bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet, 573, had what appeared to be normal-depth grooves. However, this bullet is completely flattened due to hitting a plaster or cement or other hard material on one side, and the opposite side, as a result of the flattening--has assumed a concave appearance, which has stretched the surface in various places and changes its overall appearance that is the basis for actually having to state that there were not enough unmutilated marks for identification purposes on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you do conclude that this was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel characteristics?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, do you have any further questions on this?
Mr. McCLOY. When you say you were able to determine it was fired from this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with which I am not familiar in the foreign field.
Mr. McCLOY. But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a 6.5 mm. bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And the bullet, such as we find it, has now characteristics similar to the type of bullet which was our Exhibit No. 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does. Placing them side by side, the cannelure, which is really the only physical characteristic apparent, comes to exactly the same place on both 399 and 573, indicating that this bullet was loaded to exactly the same depth in the cartridge--the two bullets, both 399 and 573.
Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not with reference to this material, no.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you thinking of--
Mr. FRAZIER. I am thinking of other examinations which I made, but which probably will come up at another time.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to examinations such as the clothing, holes in the clothing, and the fracture in the automobile windshield?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
440
Page 441
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. There will be testimony elicited at another time on those examinations, Mr. Frazier.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier will be a witness in those, too?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter will probably elicit that testimony.
Mr. Chairman, or gentlemen, are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.
Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. I have one photograph here that might be useful in this regard, and that is of a clip showing the six cartridges loaded into it.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that might be a good idea. You might identify that, to show what we mean by clips.
Mr. EISENBERG. You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. One photograph loaded, and one unloaded?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take those photographs?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier, you testified that if you didn't use the clip you would only be able to shoot one shell at a time, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this weapon does not have the box magazine commonly found in most military weapons which holds the cartridges and can be re-loaded one at a time, but they must remain in the clip, or they will malfunction. The follower in the weapon will throw the cartridges right back out of the gun.
Mr. McCLOY. That explains it to my mind, because I know I have fired rifles with clips and fired them without clips. But they were much more convenient in loading.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this one is designed--
Mr. McCLOY. For example, the Springfield you could load with clip or load without a clip.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. But this one has to have a clip in order not to malfunction?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Those will be 574 and 575.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 574 and 575, and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. You have been very helpful.
FRAZIER, ROBERTY VOLUME III
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frazier, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Ronald Simmons.
You are, we understand, a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Simmons is a firearms expert with the Weapons System Division at Fort Meade, Md.
You are asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in this work.
Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. FRAZIER. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and position?
Mr. FRAZIER. Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
390
Page 391
Mr. EISENBERG. And your education?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have a science degree which I received from the University of Idaho.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?
Mr. FRAZIER. Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt- action type weapons.
In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machine-guns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns-- that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachine guns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.
One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.
Over the past 23 years, I have received the regular FBI firearms training, which is a monthly retraining in firearms, and a periodic, or every 4 years, de tailed retraining in the basic FBI firearms--the firearms training with the rifle, submachine gun, shotgun, revolver.
In the FBI, training includes firing both at stationary targets and moving targets with beth revolver and rifle and shotgun, and includes firing at slow-fire targets--that is aimed fire for accuracy and rapid fire to increase speed of firing.
Generally in the field of firearms identification, where I have been assigned for 23 years, I received specialized training given in the FBI Laboratory to train me for the position of firearms identification specialist. In that field, we make examinations of bullets and cartridge cases, firearms of various types, for the purpose of identifying weapons as to their caliber, what they are, their manufacturer, their physical characteristics, and determining the type of ammunition which they shoot.
We examine ammunition of various types to identify it as to its caliber, its specific designation, and the type or types of weapons in which it can be fired, and we make comparisons of bullets to determine whether or not •they were fired from a particular weapon and make comparisons of cartridge cases for the purpose of determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon, or for determining whether or not they had been loaded into or extracted from a particular weapon.
That training course lasted for approximately 1 year. However, of course, the experience in firearms is actually part of the training and continues for the entire time in which you are engaged in examining firearms.
Briefly, that is the summary of the firearms training I have had.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate the number of examinations you have made of firearms to identify the firearms?
Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands, I would say--firearms comparisons--I have made in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you written any articles on this subject?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I have predated an article for the "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" on firearms identification, which is published as a reprint and provided to any organization or person interested in the general field of firearms identification.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you read most of the literature on the subject?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. McCLOY. Is there any classical book on this subject?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are a number of fairly good texts.
The basic one, originally published in 1936, is by Maj. Julian S. Hatcher, who
391
Page 392
later, as a general, rewrote his book "Firearms Investigation, Identification, and Evidence."
There are many other books published on the subject.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I ask that this person be accepted as a qualified witness on firearms?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a rifle marked Commission Exhibit 139.
Are you familiar with this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you recognize it by serial number or by your mark?
Mr. FRAZIER. By serial number on the barrel, and by my initials which appear on various parts of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this is the rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22. Can you describe this rifle by name and caliber?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a caliber 6.5 Italian military rifle, commonly referred to in the United States as a 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. It is a bolt-action clip-fed military rifle.
Do you wish a general physical description of the, weapon at this time?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, no; not at this time.
Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you explain what the caliber is a measure--
Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber is the measure of the distance across the raised portions or the lands in the barrel. The groove diameter, or the spirals cut in the barrel to form the rifling, will be slightly larger--in this case between 7/1000ths and 8/1000ths of an inch larger than the actual bore diameter.
The caliber is normally determined by the bore diameter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you made the identification of this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. identified it pictorially by comparing it with pictures in reference books. And the actual identification was of the manufacturer's name appearing on the barrel and serial number, which indicated it was an Italian military rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you independently determine the caliber of the rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you did that?
Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber and the caliber type may be confusing here.
The caliber, being the diameter of the barrel, is determined in two ways--one, by comparing the barrel with 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, which we also chambered in the weapon and determined that it actually fit the weapon. And, secondly, we measured the width of the barrel with a micrometer. And in that connection, I would like to point out that we made a sulphur cast of the muzzle of the weapon which permitted us to use a micrometer to determine the land width and the groove width in the barrel.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have that sulphur cast?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that was made by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it was made by--
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 540.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 540, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why this Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle, because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been rebarreled with a
392
Page 393
6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian Government barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since they had a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would be the most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger caliber.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is the 6.5 caliber weapon distinguished from the 7.35-caliber weapon by name?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is; it is by the model number. The model 91/38 designates the 6.5 mm. rifle, whereas the model 38 designates the 7.35.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken photographs of the various markings on the rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have those with you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Actually, I think we forwarded those photographs to the Commission.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these the photographs that you took, or had taken?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the Federal Bureau of Investigation been supplied with information concerning the meanings and significances of these various markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the source of that information?
Mr. FRAZIER. This information came to us by mail as a result of an inquiry of the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service, abbreviated SIFAR, by letter dated March 26, 1964, through the FBI representative in Rome, Italy.
This information is classified as secret by the Italian Government, who have advised that the material may be released to the Commission. However, they desire the retention of the information in a secret category.
The CHAIRMAN. Is this essential to the proof?
If it is not, I think we would rather not have it, because the fewer things We have to keep in secret, the better the situation is for us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.
Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly?
The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. All. right.
Now, without reference to any classified information, could you briefly describe the markings shown on these photographs?
Mr. FRAZIER. The first photograph is an overall photograph of the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me.
These photographs--when you say "first photograph"--these photographs are marked No. 1, No. 2, et cetera, on the back.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are.
Photograph No. 1 is an overall photograph of the rifle.
Photograph No. 2 is made of the top of the barrel, showing the serial number C2766.
Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940, which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a portion of the word "Terni."
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the significance of "Terni?"
393
731-219 O--64--vol.III---26
Page 394
Mr. FRAZIER. Terni is the location for an Italian ordnance plant in Italy where
rifles are made, and it is apparent that this weapon was made in Terni, because it is stamped with that name.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the significance of that crown?
Mr. FRAZIER. I think that would be just an Italian identification mark or proof mark.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are the words "Made Italy" likely to have been put on the weapon at the time of manufacture or subsequently?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the words "Made Italy" would be stamped on the weapon by a purchaser or an individual desiring to send the weapon to another country, to establish actually its origin
Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same information--1940, "Made Italy,'' the crown, the place it was made, and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight.
Photograph No. 5 shows a small circle which appears on the forward end of the receiver, or that portion into which the barrel is screwed, with the words "TNI" in the circle, and over these letters is again a small crown. This could be a proof mark or an inspector's stamp.
Photograph No. 6 is of an inscription on the side of the rear sight which has the appearance of the letter "l," or the letter "1," followed by a capital letter "A," and the capital letter "G," with the numbers "47," and "2," stamped raider-neath them. I do not know what the significance of that is. It could be, again, an inspector's stamp or a proof mark of some type.
Photograph No. 7 is made of the cocking piece on the end of the bolt, which gives the word "Rocca." This apparently would be the name of the manufacturer of that part of the rifle.
Photograph No. 8 is an inscription "PC" on the top of the bolt of the weapon. This inscription--I do not know of my own knowledge what that is-but it. could be the mark of a manufacturer or a proof mark or an inspector's mark made at the time the-handle was made to be welded to the bolt.
Photograph No. 9 was taken of the bottom of the receiver of the weapon, with the stock removed. It shows the Number "40," which could refer again to the year of manufacture, 1940, on the receiver, and at the rear of the photograph a small lettered inscription referring again to an inspector stamp, a proof stamp, of some nature. The identity of this, I do not know.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these photographs be admitted as a group under the number 541.
The CHAIRMAN. You are going to put all of them in under one number?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. They have the subnumbers on the back, which will differentiate them.
The CHAIRMAN. They will be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 541, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a Mauser for that reason.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon--
The CHAIRMAN. I didn't get that last.
Mr. FRAZIER. It showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon used when it is sold into the United States?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a surplus type of weapon.
394
Page 395
Mr. EISENBERG. So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the last user?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is impossible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER. The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.
Mr. McCLOY. With the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, with the scope.
The CHAIRMAN. And the sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is with the sling, yes, sir. The sling weighs 4 3/4 ounces. The stock length is 34.8 inches, which is the wooden portion from end to end with the butt plate attached. The barrel and action from the muzzle to the rear of the tang, which is this portion at the rearmost portion of the metal, is 28.9 inches. The barrel only is 21.18 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "this portion," Mr. Frazier, I don't think that is coming down clear in the record. I wonder whether you could rephrase that so as to describe the part of the barrel or part of the stock to which you are pointing when you say "tang."
Mr. FRAZIER. The tang is the rear of the receiver of the weapon into which the rear mounting screw is screwed to hold the rearmost part of the metal action of the weapon. into the wooden stock. From the end of that portion to the muzzle of the weapon is 28.9 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the length of the longest component when the rifle is dissembled, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. 34.8 inches, which is the length of the stock, the wooden portion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us the telescopic sight on the rifle in terms of--
Mr. McCLOY. Before you get to the sight, can I ask a question?
Mr. EISENBERG. Surely.
Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?
Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.
It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.
Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the rifle? Magnification, country of origin?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood California," and
395
Page 396
under that is the inscription "Made in Japan." It is a very inexpensive Japanese telescopic sight.
The mount attached to it was also made in Japan.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you removed the mount?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many holes did you find drilled into the receiver?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are two holes in the receiver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you form an opinion as to whether these were original holes or whether new holes--new and larger holes had been formed over the original holes?
Mr. FRAZIER. Normally, the receiver would have no holes at all, and would have to be drilled and tapped for the screws. In the sight itself there normally are three holes, two of which have been enlarged to accommodate the two mounting screws presently holding the mount to the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think, based on your experience with types of screws used in mounts, that these were the original screws and the original holes for the screws?
Mr. FRAZIER. I could not say--I could not answer that specifically. However, they appear to be the same type of screw as is present on the rest of the mount--although they are somewhat larger in size than the remaining hole which is present in the lower portion of the mount.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I now hand you a rifle which is marked C-250. Are you familiar with this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe it briefly?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is an identical rifle physically to the rifle Commission's Exhibit 139, in that it is the same caliber, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian Military rifle Model 91/38.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine by use of this rifle whether the scope was mounted on Exhibit 139 by the firm which is thought to have sold Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Would you repeat that, please?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how you made that attempt?
Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the----
Mr. FRAZIER. On the C-250 rifle.
When we received the rifle C-250, we examined the mount and found that two of the holes had been enlarged, and that screws had been placed through them and threaded into the receiver of the C-250 rifle.
The third hole in the mount had not been used.
We also found that an identical scope to the one on the Commission's rifle 139 was present on the C-250 rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the screws used in mounting the C-250 rifle in mounting the scope on the C-250 rifle type of screws as those used in mounting the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the holes were the same dimensions?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are. And the threads in the holes are the same.
396
Page 397
Mr EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like C-250 admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 542.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 542, and received in evidence.)
The CHAIRMAN. At this time I will interrupt to say I must now leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court, and I will return at the conclusion of the session.
In the meantime, Mr. McCloy will preside at the Commission hearing, and in the event he should be required to leave, Mr. McCloy, whatever Commissioner is here will conduct the examination in his absence.
(At this point, Chairman Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you examined the sling on Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel that this is--that this sling was originally manufactured as a rifle sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it is not in any way similar to a normal sling for a rifle. It appears to be a sling from some carrying case, camera bag, musical instrument strap, or something of that nature.
We have made attempts to identify it, with no success.
Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from the addition of this sling and mounting of the telescopic sight, have any modifications been made in the C-139 rifle--- in the Commission Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. You would suggest, I gather, Mr. Frazier, that this is a home made sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it appears to have been cut to length by inserting this strap, or this sling, on the rifle, and then trimming off the excess ends of the two straps to fit.
Mr. McCLOY. How would that broad patch on the sling--how would that be used, in your judgment, in firing the rifle? Would it be wrapped around the base of your---Mr. FRAZIER. I find it very difficult to use the rifle with a sling at all. The sling is too short, actually, to do more than put your arm through it.
Mr. McCLOY. You get quite a leverage with that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir, you do, in one direction. But it is rather awkward to wrap the forward hand into the sling in the normal fashion.
Mr. McCLOY. This gives a pretty tight----
Mr. FRAZIER. It can be used. But I don't feel that actually the position of this broad piece is of too much significance as far as use of the sling goes.
Mr. McCLOY. But certainly the sling would tend to steady the aim, even in this crude form?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. McCLOY. It would make more easy an offhand shot than if you didn't have a sling? It would make it more accurate?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would assist more in offhand than any other type of shooting, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the scope for a moment, on the basis of the experiment, so to speak, which you had Klein's conduct, would you form an opinion as to whether the telescopic sight was mounted on Exhibit 139--was likely to have been mounted--by Klein's, or likely to have been mounted subsequently?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I could not deduce from that--from the way the scope is mounted--who mounted it. I can only say that the two are mounted in identical fashion. And it is possible that the same person or persons mounted the two scopes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly explain the operation of this rifle, the bolt action and the clip-feed mechanism?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon is loaded by turning up the bolt handle, drawing the bolt to the rear, and inserting the clip from the top of the weapon, after the clip has been loaded with the number of rounds you desire to load.
397
Page 398
The maximum number of rounds the clip holds is six. However, the weapon can be loaded with a clip holding 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 round.
This is done by inserting the clip in the rear portion of the ejection port, and pushing it downwards until it clean the bottom of the bolt. The weapon then is loaded by moving the belt forward. It picks up one cartridge out of the clip, carries it into the chamber of the weapon, and the bolt is then locked by turning down.
To fire the weapon, it is merely necessary to pull the trigger, since the closing of the bolt has cocked the cocking piece on the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you proceed to show the extraction and ejection mechanism?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The extraction is merely by raising the belt and drawing it to the rear. When the cartridge is first loaded, the rim on the base of the cartridge is caught under the extractor in the face of the bolt, so that drawing the belt to the rear draws the fired cartridge or a loaded cartridge if it has not been fired, out of the chamber to the rear, where the opposite side of the cartridge strikes a projection in the ejection port called the ejector. The ejector strikes on the opposite side of the case from the extractor, causing the shell to be thrown out of the weapon on the right-hand side.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, to fire the next shot, is any further action necessary, apart from closing the bolt and pulling the trigger, if remaining cartridges are in the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you pull out the clip and explain any markings you find on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. The only markings are the manufacturer's markings, "SMI," on the base of the clip, and a number, 952 The significance of that number I am not aware of. It could be a part number or a manufacturer's cede number.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why someone might call that a five-shot clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir, unless they were unfamiliar with it. There is an area of confusion in that a different type of rifle shooting larger ammunition, such as a .30-06 or a German Mauser rifle, uses five-shot clips, and the five-shot clip is the common style or size of clip, whereas this one actually holds six.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to purchase ammunition for this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the ammunition come in the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. Normally it does not. The ammunition that we have purchased for this rifle comes in 20-shot boxes. It is possible and I say this as a result of reading advertisements--to buy ammunition for this rifle, and to receive a clip or clips at the same time, but not necessarily part of the same shipment.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you receive a clip with that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip--that someone wishing to shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the clip later?
Mr. FRAZIER. They would have to acquire it from some source, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it commonly available?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you can.
Mr. McCLOY. What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER. It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY. The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY. When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired with the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. The same as the .30-06?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.
398
Page 399
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a cartridge in an envelope, marked Commission Exhibit 141. Are you familiar with this cartridge?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received this cartridge for examination in the FBI laboratory, submitted to me as a cartridge removed from the rifle at the time it was recovered.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that cartridge in terms of name, manufacturer, and country of origin?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co, at East Alto, Ill.
It is loaded with a full metal-jacketed bullet of the military type. Cartridges of this type which I have examined, having this type of bullet, have bullets weighing 160 to 161 grains.
Mr. McCLOY. When you mentioned that cartridge as being a Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that be fired, for example, in a Mannlicher 6.5 Schoenauer? QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQMr. FRAZIER. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. McCLOY. That is the normal sporting rifle that Mannlicher Schoenauer is the normal 6.5 Austrian sporting rifle that you buy. I just wondered if it was the same cartridge.
Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry. I don't know whether there is a distinction between these two or not.
Mr. McCLOY. I happen to have one of those. And I was just wondering if it is the same cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a series of three cartridge cases. I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received these cartridge cases on two different occasions for examination in the laboratory, and comparison with the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do these cases have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they do. Each is marked with my initials and the inscription for identification purposes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce these cartridge cases into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 543, 544, and 545 and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Will you introduce evidence to show where they came from?
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, sir, the record will show at the conclusion of the hearings where they came from. This witness is able to identify them only as to his examination.
Mr. McCLOY. I understand that. I understand that witness cannot identify them. But I simply asked for the record whether you have evidence to show where they did come from.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record, these cartridges were found on the sixth. floor of the School Book Depository Building. They were found near the south east corner window--that is, the easternmost window on the southern face of the sixth floor of that building.
Mr. Frazier, are these cartridge cases which have just been admitted into evidence the same type of cartridge-- from the same type of cartridge as you just examined, Commission Exhibit No. 141?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You gave the weight of the bullet which is found in this type of cartridge. Could you give us a description of the contour of the bullet, and its length?
Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches.
Mr. McCLOY. You say that the diameter is 6.65. Did you mean 6.65 or 6.5 millimeters?
399
Page 400
Mr. FRAZIER. I was looking for that figure on that. It is about 6.6--6.65 millimeters.
The bullet, of course, will be a larger diameter than the bore of the weapon to accommodate the depths of the grooves in the barrel.
On the base of the bullet is a crimp ring, or a cannelure, which is located two-tenths of an inch from the base up the bullet and which is 6/100ths of an inch in width--that is, it is a band around the bullet 6/l00ths of an inch wide.
I believe that is a description of the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003.
I might point out that there were four lots of ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., only two of which are available.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give the results?
Mr. FRAZIER. Possibly I can give the results shot by shot, so the record will show each one, and then give an average for them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Fine.
Mr. FRAZIER. The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet per second.
Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second.
The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second.
The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was 2,184.8 feet per second.
The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second.
Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second.
The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second.
An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the differences between the muzzle velocities of the various rounds in terms of whether that difference was a large or small difference?
Mr. FRAZIER. This is a difference well within the manufacturer's accepted standards of velocity variations. They permit in their standard ammunition manual, which is a guide to the entire industry in the United States, a 40-foot-per-second, plus or minus, variation shot to shot in the same ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you calculated the muzzle energy of this 6.5 millimeter ammunition in this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was furnished by letter to the Commission. Yes, sir--the muzzle energy was calculated on the basis of the average velocity of 2,165 feet per second as 1,676 foot-pounds.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is a calculation rather than a measurement?
Mr. FRAZIER. Necessarily a calculation, because it is merely a term used to compare one bullet against another rather than for any practical purposes because--because of the bullet's extremely light weight. The bullet's velocity and weight, and gravity enter into the determination of its energy in foot-pounds.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military ammunition?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5 millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may not give accurate results. But the cartridge inherently is an accurate cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. I this type of cartridge readily available for purchase?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. Information we have indicates that 2 million rounds of this ammunition was reimported into this country and placed on sale.
Mr. EISENBERG. Commission Exhibit No. 141, the cartridge found in the chamber--I should say, was found in the chamber. Do you draw any inference
400
Page 401
from the fact that the cartridge was found in the chamber? In your experience, does one automatically reload whether or not one intends to fire, or is there a special significance in the fact that the cartridge had been chambered?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, there would be no inference which I could, draw based on human behavior as to why someone would or would not reload a cartridge. Normally, if you were in my experience shooting at some object, and it was no longer necessary to shoot, you would not reload.
You may or may not reload. It would be a normal thing to automatically reload. But not necessarily in every instance.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you have any information of your own knowledge as to whether this cartridge was in the chamber or not at the time the rifle was found?
Mr. FRAZIER. Only as furnished to me it was submitted as having been removed from the rifle by the Dallas Police Department.
Mr. McCLOY. As having been removed from the chamber?
Mr. FRAZIER. From the chamber of the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. But you did not remove it yourself?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test to determine the pattern of the cartridge-case ejection of Commission Exhibit 139
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I made two studies in connection with the ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you summarize your examination by diagrams?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those diagrams?
Mr. FRAZIER. In this diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me just a second, Mr. Frazier. Were these diagrams prepared by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were not the actual physical diagrams, but the figures on the diagrams were furnished by me to the draftsman.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547, and were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of your tests by using these diagrams, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
In this test, Commission Exhibit 546, the diagram illustrates the positions on the floor at which cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139. In the top portion of Exhibit 546, the barrel was held depressed at a 45-degree angle, and in the lower half of the exhibit it shows the pattern with the barrel held in a horizontal position. Each spot marked with a figure on the diagram shows where one cartridge case landed in both instances, and each one is marked with the distance and the angle to which the cartridge case was ejected.
With the barrel held in the depressed condition, all of the cartridge cases landed within an 85-inch circle located 80 degrees to the right front of the rifle. That may be confusing. It was 80 degrees to the right from the line of sight of the rifle and at a distance of 86 inches from the ejection port.
Now, this circle will not necessarily encompass all cartridge cases ejected from the rifle, since the ejection is determined, not only by the angle of the weapon, but more by the force with which the bolt is operated. A very light force on the bolt can cause the cartridge case to tip gently out and fall at your feet. However, under normal conditions of reloading in a fairly rapid manner, we found the cartridge cases to land in this circle.
The same situation is true of the test made with the muzzle in the horizontal condition.
All of the cartridge cases landed within a 47-inch circle, which was located at right angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and at a distance 80 inches from the ejection port.
401
Page 402
In both of these tests, the ejection port of the weapon was held 32 inches above the floor.
In the second test performed, Commission Exhibit 547, the test was made to ascertain how high above the ejection port a cartridge case would fly as it was being ejected.
After ejecting numerous cartridge cases from the weapon with the barrel held in a depressed condition, it was found that the cartridge cases did not exceed two inches above the level of the ejection port. And with the muzzle held horizontally, it did not exceed 12 inches above the level of the ejection port.
Mr. EISENBERG. In making these tests, was the bolt pulled with a normal degree of rifle pull?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was pulled with various pulls, to determine what the effect would be with different speeds of the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did you select the distance above the floor at which the rifle was fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. We selected a distance which we thought might be typical of a condition which would give an overall picture of the ejection pattern, and not from any basis of previous information as to possibly how the weapon had been fired previously. Thirty-two inches happened to be approximately table height, so that we could control the height of the weapon readily.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you three Commission Exhibits, 510, 511, and 512, which are photographs which have been identified as giving the location of the cartridges--cartridge cases--Nos. 543, 544, and 545, on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. I ask you to examine these pictures, and to determine whether if the rifle had been fired from the window shown in these pictures, the location of the cartridge cases is consistent with the results of the tests you ran to determine the ejection patterns.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say yes; it is consistent--although the cartridge cases are two of them-- against the wail. There is a stack of boxes fairly near the wall, and the position of the cartridge cases could very well have been affected by the boxer That is, they could strike the box and bounce for several feet, and they could have bounced back and forth in this small area here and come to rest in the areas shown in the photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. In making your tests, did you notice much ricochet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; considerable. Each time a cartridge case hit the floor, it would bounce anywhere from 8 inches to 10 to 15 feet.
Mr. McCLOY. Make a lot of noise?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; a clatter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 to determine its accuracy under rapid- fire conditions?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe these tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.
The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.
Mr. EISENBERG. A silhouette of a man?
Mr. FRAZIER. A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.
Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.
Mr. EISENBERG. These targets were made by you or in your presence?
Mr. FRAZIER. These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.
Mr. McCLOY. You have made these copies, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I had them made. They are actual xerox copies of the original targets, which are black, and do not show the markings placed around the holes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
402
Page 403
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
Mr. Frazier, you have the original targets that were used in this experiment.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Were you one of the three that fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Can you identify your target as distinguished from the other--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you have the target that you fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired--yes, I do. However, another examiner also fired at this same target.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you made a copy of that--or did you cause a copy of that target to be made?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you have that with you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I do.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you marked it yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. No. That would be 548.
Mr. McCLOY. Suppose you identify that copy.
Mr. EISENBERG. This copy that you are presenting to us has initials at the bottom "CC-R-CK"?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the numbers and letters D-2 on the right-hand margin?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that has been copied under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. That can be admitted as Commission Exhibit 548.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 548, and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Now, is Commission Exhibit 548 an accurate copy of the target which you have-that you fired, and which you presented?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you also have a copy here which has the name on it Killion, and similar initials, letters, and numbers to the other target. Is this an accurate copy which you had prepared?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. That was the target fired by Charles Killion in my presence.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 549?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 549, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER. November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER. Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
403
Page 404
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER.- The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the second series of tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
This is the actual target which I fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that target has all six holes in it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
Mr. McCLOY. That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have the date?
Mr. FRAZIER. That also was on the 27th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Same date as the first tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you performed one more test, I believe?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets we fired here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551 through 554, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
404
Page 405
On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.
The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.
Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.
Mr. McCLOY. The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the telescopic sight?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the point you are making.
Let me mark that.
This diagram was prepared by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. And illustrates
Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a textbook, showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring is mounted in a telescope.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of the specific scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit 139 and found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and received in evidence.)
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of the manner in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139, showing on the right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing indicating the outer part of the tube, with an inner circle with a crossed line in it representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up, being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a windage screw on the right-hand side
405
Page 406
of the scope tube circle which adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube 80 that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.
And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the crosshair, you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and decided rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would use these targets which we had fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that they stayed, remained stabilized?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they did.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. FRAZIER. They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER. When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?
Mr. FRAZIER. As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.
406
Page 407
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could you have compensated for this defect?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have--- an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right corner.
Mr. EISENBERG. If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you have taken, to improve your score?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of four targets were shot by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately fired?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; very definitely.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest was utilized?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed-or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.
Mr. EISENBERG. How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving target?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give an amount?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at right angles.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with the weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building,
407
Page 408
which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired.
Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet.
And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds.
Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say he would have to lead approximately 2 feet under both such situations. The lead would, of course, be dependent upon the direction in which the object was moving primarily. If it is moving away from you, then, of course, the actual lead of, say, 2 feet which he would have to lead would be interpreted as a considerably less lead in elevation above the target, because the target will move the 2 feet in a direction away from the shooter, and the apparent lead then would be cut to one foot or 12 inches or 8 inches or something of that nature, due to the movement of the individual.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made calculations to achieve the figures you gave?
Mr. FRAZIER. I made the calculations, but I don't have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply these to us, either in further testimony or by letter, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have one object here, a diagram which will illustrate that lead, if you would like to use that. This is drawn to scale from these figures which you quoted as building height, and distances of 175 feet and 265 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these figures are approximations of the figures believed to be involved in the assassination. Will you supply the data at a later date?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I can furnish that.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 556?
Mr. McCLOY. That will he admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 556, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the lead in that diagram, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 556, it shows a triangular diagram with the vertical line on the left-hand side illustrating the height of the building. The figures of a 60-foot building height plus--
Mr. EISENBERG. That is height of the muzzle above the ground?
Mr. FRAZIER. No--window sill--60-foot window sill height above the ground, with an assumed 2- foot height in addition to accommodate the height of the rifle above the possible. the possible height of the rifle above the window sill.
The horizontal line extends outward from the building to a small rectangular block, and then a sloping line illustrates a 5-foot slope from the 175-foot point to the 265-foot point.
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRAZIER. The time of flight of the bullet of approximately 8/100ths of a second and, again, it was necessary to assume the time of flight of the bullet from the window to this first location of 175 feet is approximately 8/100ths of a second, which means a 2-foot lead on the target. That is, the target would move 2 feet in that interval of time, thereby necessitating shooting slightly ahead of the target to hit your aiming point. That has been diagrammatically illustrated by a 2-foot distance laid off on this rectangular block here, and two lines. very fine lines, drawn back towards the window area.
The right-hand side of Commission's 556 shows the same rectangular block, again with two lines drawn to it, one illustrating the point of aim and the other the amount of lead which would be necessary to strike an object aimed at which was moving, according to the time of flight of the projectile.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you calculated the speed of the car by translating the figures on total time elapsed between first and third shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The time the speed of the moving object was calculated on the basis of an assumed 5.5-second interval for a distance of 90 feet, which figures out mathematically to be 11.3 miles per hour.
408
Page 409
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said before that in order to give this 2-foot lead, you would have to aim 2 inches--for a target going away from you, you would have to aim 2 inches above the target, or in front of the target.
Mr. FRAZIER. 2 feet in front of the target, which would interpolate into a much lower actual elevation change.
Mr. EISENBERG. The elevation change would be 2 inches, is that it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, no. It would be on the order of 6 to 8 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. 6 to 8 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your 2-inch figure?
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't recall.
Mr. EISENBERG. But it is 6 to 8 inches in elevation?
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
Using that telescopic lens, how would you aim that rifle to achieve that distinction?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well it would be necessary to hold the crosshairs an estimated distance off the target, of say, 6 inches over the intended, target, so what when the shot was fired the crosshairs should be located about 6 inches over your target, and in the length of time that the bullet was in the air and the length of time the object was moving, the object would move into actually, the path of the bullet in approximately 1/10th to 13/100ths of a second.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the target of the assassin was the center of the President's head, and he wanted to give a correct lead, where would he have aimed, if we eliminate the possibility of errors introduced by other factors?
Mr. FRAZIER. He would aim from 4 to 6 inches--approximately 2 inches, I would say, above the President's head, which would be actually 6 inches above his aiming point at the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. How difficult is it to give this--a lead of this size to this type of target?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not be difficult at all with a telescopic sight, because your target is enlarged four times, and you can estimate very quickly in a telescopic sight, inches or feet or lead of any desired amount.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be substantially easier than it would be with an open or peep sight?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It would be much more difficult to do with the open iron sights, the notched rear sight and the blade front sight, which is on Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have been able to calculate the precise amount of lead which should be given, because you have been given figures. If you had been in the assassin's position, and were attempting to give a correct lead, what lead do you think you would have estimated as being the necessary lead?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would have been a very small amount, in the neighborhood of a 3-inch lead.
Mr. EISENBERG. As opposed to the 6 or 8 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. As opposed to about 6 inches, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What would the consequence of the mistake in assumption as to lead be that is, if you gave a 3-inch lead rather than the correct lead?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be a difference of a 3-inch variation in the point of impact on the target.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you had aimed at the center of the President's head, and given a 3-inch lead, again eliminating other errors, where would you have hit, if you hit accurately?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 3 inches below the center of his head--from the top--it would be not the actual Center from the back, but the center would be located high. The bullet would strike at possibly the base of the skull.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose you had given no lead at all and aimed at that target and aimed accurately. Where would the bullet have hit?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would hit the base of the neck--approximately 6 inches below the center of the heart.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all, if you had been in that position?
Mr. FRAZIER. At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with this rifle
409
Page 410
and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size.
Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question?
In your experimentation, in your firing of those shots that you have testified to a little while back, when you fired the first shot, was the shot in the chamber, or did you have to push it into the chamber by use of the bolt?
Mr. FRAZIER. This was fired with a loaded chamber, and timed from the time of this first shot until the last shot.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you shoot offhand or did you shoot with a rest?
Mr. FRAZIER. We shot with a rest, both the other individuals and myself, on each occasion, with one arm resting on a bench or a table.
Mr. McCLOY. Were you prone, or were you standing up?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, we were sitting, actually, sitting or kneeling, in order to bring the arm down to the rest we were using.
Mr. McCLOY. One other question.
You keep referring to, and the questions kept referring to, "lead." By "lead," in this instance, you would mean height above the aiming point rather--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. To the right, let's say, of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Because it was a going away shot?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. That is all.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
Where did you conduct these tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. The targets were fired-both on the indoor range in the FBI range here in Washington and the 10-yard tests were fired at the Quantico, Va., FBI ranges.
Representative BOGGS. Have any tests--have there been any simulated tests in the building in Texas?
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know, sir.
Representative BOGGS. But the FBI has not conducted any?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not to my knowledge. There may have been measurements and things of that nature taken, but I don't know.
Representative BOGGS. Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle three times within the space or period of time that has been given to the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, let me say this, I fired the rifle three times, in accordance with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8 seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.
Representative BOGGS. You were firing at a simulated target?
Mr. FRAZIER. These targets previously introduced, or copies of the targets, are those which we actually fired.
Representative BOGGS. My questions are really a followup of the Chairman's question.
These practices--were you just practicing for time, or were you practicing under conditions similar to those existing in Dallas at the time of the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER. The tests we ran were for the purposes of determining whether we could fire this gun accurately in a limited amount of time, and specifically to determine whether it could be fired accurately in 6 seconds.
Now, we assumed the 6 seconds empirically--that is, we had not been furnished with any particular time interval. Later we were furnished with a time interval of 5.5 seconds. However, I have no independent knowledge--had no independent knowledge of the time interval or the accuracy. But we merely fired it to demonstrate the results from rapidly firing the weapon, reloading the gun and so on, in a limited time.
410
Page 411
Representative BOGGS. Were there other tests conducted to determine the accuracy of the weapon and so on?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by the FBI.
Representative BOGGS. There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.
Representative BOGGS. That was the point I was trying to establish.
Mr. FRAZIER. This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the weapon will, even under rapid- fire conditions, group closely--that is, one shot with the next.
Representative BOGGS. How many shots in the weapon? Five?
Mr. McCLOY. The clip takes six itself. You can put a seventh in the chamber. It could hold seven, in other words. But the clip is only a six-shot clip.
Representative BOGGS. Was the weapon fully loaded at the time of the assassination?
Mr. McCLOY. I don't know how many shells three shells were picked up.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance.
The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.
I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center the windage crosshair to sight-in the windage crosshair?
Mr. FRAZIER. We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair could not be centered in, sighted-in?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. That's true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to--
Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion
411
Page 412
that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
Representative BOGGS. One other question, then. "
It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
Representative BOGGS. So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. FRAZIER. If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
Representative BOGGS. But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier, if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted- in with the use of a target at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes, will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is further or closer away than the sighting-in target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it will, because the bullet in leaving the muzzle follows a curved path rather than a straight path, and in order to hit a specific target at a specific range, it is necessary for the bullet to travel up and drop down to the target, rather than have the bore pointed right at the target at the time of discharge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you calculate the amount of error which would be introduced by a specific projectile?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made such calculations?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have taken calculations for similar weight and velocity bullets from ballistics tables, which bullets approximate the velocity of the 6.5 mm. bullet and the weight of that bullet as fired from 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are these results affected by the rifle which is employed, or do they depend upon the missile?
Mr. FRAZIER. They depend upon the weight and shape of the missile and the velocity, but not upon the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us the results of these calculations?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.
If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.
It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high.
412
Page 413
Representative BOGGS. Is this a stationary target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, this is shooting from a rest at a stationary target.
Representative BOGGS. This is just a normal--
Mr. FRAZIER. This is just the trajectory of the bullet.
Representative BOGGS. I understand.
Mr. FRAZIER. As calculated
Mr. McCLOY. Putting it another way, what would be the drop of the bullet at a hundred yards if you aim point-blank straight at that target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Assuming no sighting or anything, the bullet would drop about 1.2 inches from the line of the bore at 100 yards.
Representative BOGGS. 1.2 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. But now the telescopic sight at a hundred yards would correct that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Actually, you would sight so that the muzzle is tipped up slightly with reference to the sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. The error would be introduced if you shot at a target which is closer or further away than the sighting-in target; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, that's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you characterize these errors as material?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not--unless you began shooting at distances well beyond your sighting-in point--then the amount of variation increases very rapidly.
Mr. EISENBERG. What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175 feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the trajectory characteristics, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you find this shot accurately?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to Governor Connally?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.
Representative BOGGS. You are not answering that as an expert.Mr. FRAZIER. From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with, a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
Representative BOGGS. Putting my question another way, you would not have to be an expert marksman to accomplish this objective?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say no, you certainly would not.
Representative BOGGS. And a. man is a relatively large target, is he not?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly, and do this--hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.
413
Page 414
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?
Mr. FRAZIER. Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that make it a better choice than a more powerfully recoiling weapon for the type of crime which was committed?
Mr. FRAZIER. For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better choice, be cause the recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off the target, it does not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-powered rifle, such as a or a .270 Winchester, or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for instance, or one of the other military-type weapons available.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military--it is an established military weapon.
Representative BOGGS. This is a military weapon, is it not?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. That is designed to kill a human being.
Representative BOGGS. Exactly.
Mr. EISENBERG. Unless there are further questions on the weapon, I am going to move into the area of the identification of the cartridge cases and the bullets.
Mr. McCLOY. I may say I have to leave at twelve o'clock for a twelve-fifteen appointment. I will be back this afternoon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.And the other one I received on November 27(, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.
Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving these cartridge cases, did you clean them up or in any way prepare them for examination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. The bases were cleaned of a paint which was placed on them by the manufacturer. In spots this red lacquer on the base of the case was overlapping the head of the case where some of the microscopic marks were located, and some of that color was taken off.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that lacquer put on the cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. It seals the primer area against moisture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other changes made in the preparation of the cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You have examined the cartridge cases previously. Are they in the same condition now that they were when you received them in the laboratory except for the cleaning of the lacquer?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you make the examinations?
Mr. FRAZIER. On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963, and November 27, 1963.
414
Page 415
Mr. EISENBERG. And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER. The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those, test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the belt face and the firing pin of the rifle.
(At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?
Representative BOGGS. They may be admitted.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139--as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type-operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be, reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the comers, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.
The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged in this photo graph to show the types of marks I was referring to.
Mr. EISENBERG. You took this photograph yourself, and it is a photograph of the belt face of the 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this introduced as 558?
Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 558, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this belt-face photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 11 diameters,
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you slip out the bolt of the rifle so we could see how it compares, and show us the part of the bolt which is photographed?
Mr. FRAZIER. Orienting the photograph with the writing at the bottom, orients the belt also, as it comes out of the rifle with the slot shown as a groove on the
415
Page 416
bottom of the bolt. Then the extractor on the bolt, is the area shown at the left side of the photograph, as you view it--the actual bolt face itself is inset into the bolt below the surface of the extractor, and a supporting shoulder around it, and in the center, of course, is the firing-pin hole and the firing pin.
The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in these marks during the life of the weapon are very important in identification, because many of the machining marks can be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of marks which are peculiar to it.
The same is true of extractors and ejectors. They are in turn machined and will have a pattern of marks or scratches on their surfaces which will mark cartridge cases in the same manner each time.
The comparison we made was of the marks appearing in this photograph, 558, in fairly close proximity to the firing pinhole, since that is the area that the primer in the head of the cartridge case comes in contact with.
The primer in a cartridge case normally takes marks more readily than the surrounding brass portion of the cartridge case, which is a considerably harder metal and is not impressed with these marks as readily.
The three cartridge cases, 553, 554, and 555, were compared--
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that 543, 544, and 545?
Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
Representative BOGGS. Who manufactured these cartridges?
Mr. FRAZIER. Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill.
Representative BOGGS. They manufacture cartridges and bullets for all manner of rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
Representative BOGGS. This is not--this rifle is not common in the United States, is it?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is fairly common now, but at the time it was manufactured or used primarily it was not. It was imported into this country as surplus military equipment, and has been advertised quite widely.
Representative BOGGS. These three cartridges--these three shells that you had were the same as the live ones that were found there, were they not?
Mr. FRAZIER. There was one live cartridge found. They are identical.
Representative BOGGS. And the live one was manufactured also by----
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp "WCC" and "6.5 mm. "
Representative BOGGS. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy them anywhere?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily, or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the United States in one lot, one shipment--and they have been transmitted over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun shops--used guns--mail-order houses and places of that nature and gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.
Representative BOGGS. Go ahead.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?
416
Page 417
Mr. FRAZIER. Because the marks which are placed on any belt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling ma chine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched-- until you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future accidental markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles. But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough even though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor variations in the cutting operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled surfaces?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; many times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you go into detail on that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks or milling marks and so on, it is some times possible to identify a particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this, where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from any other bolt face. It is a matter actually--when you get down to the basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is because the original markings will not be exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of the original ones?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as I under stand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface, such as this.
Mr. FRAZIER. I have worked with beth. In other words, in comparing tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in working with these tools, as I understand your testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.
Mr. FRAZIER. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it occasionally can be identified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have made?
Mr. FRAZIER. Thousands of them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given tool--that you have examined--change over the course of the use of the tool?
417
Page 418
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a hard object.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example, one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing, or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it may gradually change over a period of time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a soft metal?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was hard metal----
Mr. EISENBERG. Well---
Mr. FRAZIER. With reference to copper or other softer metals---it is a steel. I could not say how hard it actually is.
Mr. EISENBERG. What will the effect of the metal used in the bolt face be upon the tool which is used to finish it off, cut it and finish it off?
Mr. FRAZIER. The tool will gradually wear out.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, will the tool leave different marks on the end of the bolt face from one bolt to the very next bolt face?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; that very often happens. The tool is worn out or the small cuttings get underneath the edge, between the tool, and nick the edge of the tool, so that the tool will gradually change over a period of time. The cutting edge the amount of change depends upon the amount of wear, the heat involved, and the hardness of the metal--the relative hardness of the metal.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will that particular change be noticed invariably in two consecutive bolt faces?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. So what is the genesis of the difference in the two consecutive bolt faces as they come from the manufacturer?
Mr. FRAZIER. The change, as I said, depends on the bolt you are using. It does not always take place, because some bolts are made of a very soft metal, and they will not necessarily change a machining tool to that extent.
Mr. EISENBERG. But the markings, you said, would be different on two consecutive bolt faces?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And if the tool is not changed, what is the origin of the difference between the markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are other accidental markings placed there during the machining operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that?
Mr. FRAZIER. For instance, as the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a duster a very fine powder or chip-that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks-that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt-unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.
Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these very
418
Page 419
fine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find on that examination?
Mr. FRAZIER. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.
Mr. EISENBERG. There actually was none?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was none.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the bolt face with which we are dealing, Exhibit 139, can you say from inspection whether the markings on that bolt face are predominantly the accidental markings introduced subsequent to manufacture, or the markings of the manufacture?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that these were filing marks for the most part which were made during manufacture, some of which have been obliterated and changed through use possibly corrosion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, taking Exhibit 543, did you prepare a photograph of this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Compared with the test cartridge case?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is the photograph, showing the test cartridge case from Exhibit 557 on the right and the cartridge case 543 on the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman?
Representative BOGGS. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 559 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, that is marked on the left C-14, and on the right, C-6.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the left-hand photograph is a photograph of what?
Mr. FRAZIER. Of the cartridge case 543.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the actual fired case?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it shows just a portion of the primer, and a very small portion of the firing- pin impression.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the right-hand side of that photograph, marked C-6?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a test cartridge case, fired in the rifle Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 100 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is that magnification equal on both sides of the picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make your identification of Exhibit 543, that is the identification of that exhibit as having been fired in the rifle 139, on the basis of your examination under the microscope, or on the basis of the photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Under the microscope. The photograph has no relationship whatsoever to the examination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain that?
Mr. FRAZIER. The examination is made microscopically through the use of your eyes, and your eyes will record depths and shapes to a much greater extent than can be shown in a photograph. So that the examination and comparison is made of these irregular surfaces mentally, rather than mechanically by any means. The photograph is taken primarily to illustrate the types of marks found and their location, relatively, on the specimen.
Representative BOGGS. We will have to adjourn and come back at 2.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
419
Page 420
Afternoon Session
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED
The President's Commission reconvened at 2:10 p.m.
Mr. McCLOY. You are still under oath, you know.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to begin by clearing up a few items which have been covered or left open during the morning session.
First, you were going to supply us with certain figures concerning the times which were taken by two of the Agents to fire three shots in the first series of tests which were made for determining the accuracy of the firing under rapid-fire conditions.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that was at two targets. The first one I gave Killion fired in 9 seconds. The other was a target marked Cunningham and Frazier. Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target, assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those calculations now?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may or may not be exactly accurate.
But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the intended spot on the target At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or 6.1 inches.
I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop in the amount of lead.
And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you convert those lead distances into the amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head, above the point of the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that table also shows leads at other car speeds?
Mr. FRAZIER. This table I could calculate them--it only shows miles per hour translated into feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. I mean, does it show various miles per hour?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it shows miles per hour in feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. Without going into detail at this time, may I have permission to introduce this table into evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. This will be Commission Exhibit 560.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 560 was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Frazier, in the construction of this table and also in your last tests for rapid fire for this rifle, you used a five-and-a-half second figure as a factor in your calculations, and in your attempt at rapid fire accuracy placements. Can you give us the source of that figure?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. You were the source of it, based on examination, as I understood it, of a movie taken at the scene, and measurements taken at the scene. However, I have no knowledge of the actual time.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I just wanted to establish that this is a
420
Page 421
source that was supplied by the Commission and which is tentative, and it is not to imply any final conclusion on the part of the FBI; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. I hope it is taken that way, because we don't know what the time actually was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Another point then, which should have been covered this morning, Mr. Frazier, in your qualifications: have you testified before in court?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of times?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 400 times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Finally, we had discussed briefly your examination of consecutively manufactured bolt faces to see whether any two such consecutively manufactured bolt faces were identical in their microscopic characteristics. How many such examinations have you performed.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say about four examinations of pairs of bolt faces which have been consecutively manufactured.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in each case the result was what?
Mr. FRAZIER. The marks on one bolt face in no way resembled the marks on the other bolt face.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a microscope, and that is also known as C-6 and C-14, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the markings
which you have seen under the microscope and on the basis of which you made your identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the 139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission Exhibit 543 on the right side.
The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature, that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on the two specimens themselves.
Mr. EISENBERG. Referring for a second to this mental, visual, comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms training-firearms-identification training--be able to look under a microscope and make a determination for himself concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a given weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. In that connection that person could look through the micro scope. He may or may not see these individual characteristics which are present, because he does not know what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your mind going back and forth between one area and the other until you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.
If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a layman could make?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say so; yes. I don't think a layman would recognize some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown in the photographs as actually being significant or not significant, because there will be things
421
Page 422
present which have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case in the gun.
There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and there are no marks registered at that point as a result of the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the absence of similar marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you, which is 559--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?
Mr. FRAZIER. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not identical to explain why you would get such a result?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle 4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the photograph.
On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which runs through there, having an entirely different appearance from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other cartridge case.
In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the marks that are present.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.
Mr. Frazier, could you discuss or characterize those points which you have circled on Commission Exhibit 559, starting from the top?
Mr. FRAZIER. Number 1 circle is drawn around a depression in the metal of irregular shape. I might say that number 1 shows on the right side of the photograph, and only half of it shows on the left side because of the relative position of the two cartridge cases in the photograph.
Number 2 is a circle drawn around a long line which extends obliquely across each cartridge case from the upper left to the lower right. The long line itself is a means of orienting the cartridge eases one with the other, but the circle is drawn around a break in that line in the form of a very small hump or an absence of metal which shows up as an actual break in the long line.
Number 3 again is a depression between two grooves, which is rather similar in shape. I cannot tell you how deep it is because the photograph only shows two dimensions. But on the cartridge cases it has a very characteristic depth to it, which is readily apparent.
It is formed by two parallel lines extending from the upper left to the lower, towards the lower right, with the depression in between, and again one side of the depression is formed by a small raised area in the primer metal which is seen in each photograph as a conical, almost a conical-shaped bump or raised area.
Number 4 is another raised portion on the photograph. In connection with 4, I would like to point out that a portion of this bump has been erased from the test cartridge case on the left-hand side of the photograph, the erasure caused by the turning of the bolt of the weapon while being pressed against the primer, which has smoothed off some of the protruding rough areas on the primer.
Number 5 is a horizontal ridge which has two depressions, one on the top and one on the bottom, shown on both sides of the photograph, and number 6 is a wishbone type of ridge, a wide ridge which divides into two smaller ridges on the left-hand edge, and in the middle of the dividing lines, the forked lines, is a small dent or raised portion. Those six which I have marked are only portions of those shown in the photograph, and of course the photograph does not show the entire surface of the primer.
422
Page 423
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to find identifying marks on the brass as well as the primer on this cartridge case?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I did not notice any marks on the brass portions outside of the primer.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that typical of cartridge-case identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Generally that is true, unless there is a great pressure, unless the brass of the cartridge case is soft, or unless the marks are very sharp on the breech face; then they will be impressed into the brass.
Mr. EISENBERG. This picture represents only a portion of the primer. You examined the entire primer to make your identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And found?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not have been necessary to examine the entire primer necessarily, but of course we do examine the entire primer, pick out all of the marks on the left and the right, and rotate the cartridge cases and look at them from various angles, before arriving at a conclusion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you amplify the meaning of the statement that it would not be necessary to examine the entire primer?
Mr. FRAZIER. There are sufficient marks shown in this photograph upon which to base an identification. In other words, it would not be necessary to have the rest of the primer if it had been mutilated or destroyed or some thing of that nature.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine the firing-pin impression in the cartridge?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a picture of that examination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Here is the photograph of the firing-pin impression, again on the left the rifle, and on the right the cartridge case, Commission's 543.
Mr. EISENBERG. That bears the number C-14 and C-6, corresponding to the numbers on Commission Exhibit 559?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph or have it taken under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it equal on both sides?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 561.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 561 was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed with the discussion of the circled marks on this photograph, number 561?
Mr. FRAZIER. In the case of firing-pin impressions which are shown on Exhibit 561, the marks result from two related sources; excuse me, not sources, but from two related causes, one being the force given to the firing pin driving it into the primer to set off the cartridge, and the second being the force of the powder charge inside the cartridge being driven back--driving the primer back against the firing pin at the same time, so that the metal of the primer is-caused to flow or be stamped by the firing pin and pressed against by the gases, so that any irregularities in the firing pin will be impressed into the primer of the cartridge case.
Number 1 consists of a double horizontal line, one a fairly wide coarse line at the top. Immediately under that approximately one-eighth of an inch is a fairly fine horizontal line.
Circled and marked number 2 is a very coarse, wide ridge, very short in length, approximately one-half an inch, and an eighth to a quarter of an inch
423
Page 424
in height. This ridge is formed by two grooves, a straight groove across the top, and a curved or crescent-shaped groove across the bottom.
Number 3 is a circle drawn around two small raised areas in the primer metal separated by a depression.
Number 4 is a section from a large ridge across the metal of the primer, which has a break in its surface in the lower portion of the circle, and immediately above the break is a groove, and immediately above that again is another ridge which is at a little steeper angle upwards to the left.
Number 5 is a depression, is a portion of a depression appearing at the bottom of the circle with a very short ridge running horizontally across the circle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of dissimilarities?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces.
Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear, whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures are the same or not.
So I don't think we can say that it is an absence of dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this cartridge case?
Mr. McCLOY. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you have testified also that you identified the cartridge case which is Exhibit 544 as having been fired from this rifle, in this rifle, to the exclusion of all others. Did you take a photograph of the comparison that you made under the microscope of number 544?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I again took two photographs, one of the breech-face or bolt-face marks, and one of the firing-pin marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. This exhibit which I am holding is a picture of the breech-face marks?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And was that taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification here is what?
Mr. FRAZIER. 90 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be number 562, Mr. Reporter.
(The item described as Commission Exhibit No. 562 was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the markings on this picture, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Commission Exhibit 562, there is again the vertical dividing line which is the top of the prism in the microscope which divides your view. On the left hand side is a portion of the primer and a portion of the head of the test cartridge case from Exhibit 139. On the right side of the photograph is a portion of the surface of the primer and a portion of the firing-pin impression of the cartridge case, Commission Exhibit 544.
To assist in pointing out on the photograph some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are present, I have had circles drawn, circling at the top, number 1, an oval-shaped depression in the metal, having an irregularly shaped or wavy ridge across the bottom of the circle. Immediately below that is another ridge which has a flat top, and is more or less of a diamond shape.
Number 3 circle is over a very coarse, wide ridge separated by two fairly deep grooves on each side.
Number 4 circle is over a conical-shaped raised portion on the primer which
424
Page 425
represents a dent in the metal of the bolt face, and number 5 again is a raised area on the primer which is a portion of a ridge. In this instance this is more or less of a compound ridge which runs horizontally with a small break in it pointing down toward the lower left.
Mr. McCLOY. Is that same break apparent in the left hand photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is. Looking very closely and right at the hairline, you can see the break in the ridge where it forms more or less of a Y. The actual connecting point is not present, but you can see the portion of the ridge as it heads towards the horizontal ridge. The hairline has separated that portion of it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you call these marks strongly characteristic marks, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; very characteristic. They are primarily characteristic because of their irregular shape. If they had been regular in shape, it wouldn't have meant nearly as much as it does to have the irregular rough surfaces and contours of the marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. I think you have identified the next picture I am holding as having been taken by you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was. That is a 70-diameter magnification photograph of Exhibit 544 on the right, and the test from the rifle on the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this bears the numbers C-14 and C-7, and is a firing-pin photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this firing-pin mark photograph be admitted, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is 563.
(The item was numbered 563, and was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you review that photograph, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. In Exhibit 563 the test cartridge case representing the rifle is on the left side of the photograph, and shows most of the firing-pin impression in that cartridge case. Five circles have been drawn over towards the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression, and five similarly located circles have been drawn over the area at the right-hand edge of the firing-pin impression of Exhibit 544.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is actually the left-hand side of the right-hand part of the picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be that is right; at the dividing line, the circles on 544 are drawn close to the dividing line, which shows only a very small portion of the firing pin of that cartridge case.
Beginning with number 1, it has a gently sloping ridge running from upper left toward lower right in each instance, with a break in the ridge contour at the middle in the form of an extension upwards toward the top of the photograph.
In number 2 there is a circle drawn around the end of a very long line in the left-hand side of the photograph. The circle is drawn to show a Y-shaped break in this line located on both cartridge cases.
Number 3 is a photograph of an irregular-shaped raised portion on the firing-pin impression, which is very difficult to describe in words.
Number 4 is a groove extending from upper right to lower left which has a break in its lower side to allow a horizontal groove to come in towards the main groove. The lower portion of that groove coming in from the lower side is in the form of a crescent-shaped ridge, which starts horizontally from the left and then falls off towards the lower right-hand side of the photograph.
The circle, number 5, is again a Y-shaped or wishbone-shaped ridge, with a horizontal bar on the right, and then extending ridges upward toward the left and downward to the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again, are these firing-pin marks what you would call strongly characteristic?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say so.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the firing pin give any evidence of having been altered subsequent to the original manufacture?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; only in an accidental sort of way, that is, very fine
425
731-219 O--64--vol.III---28
Page 426
scratches which may have been caused by firing or dirt on a cartridge or something which may have scratched the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are firing-pin marks usually as characteristic of a given cartridge case as the primer marks?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say they are as characteristic. However, they may not always be as evident, they may not be seen as readily. However, they are just as characteristic.
Mr. McCLOY. Just to repeat again, what is this side of this picture? What does this represent?
Mr. FRAZIER. That represents the rifle cartridge.
Mr. McCLOY. The rifle cartridge itself?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And this on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. This is one of the three cartridge cases recovered from the building, Exhibit 544.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, you fired two test cartridges in the rifle, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. We fired several test cartridge cases. These two are the ones that were used in the comparisons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you fire several for possible comparison purposes, or only two for possible comparison purposes?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those we fired were in the time-fire test and we retained some of those for possible use in comparing, but it was not necessary to use them, actually.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you use both of these test cartridge cases in the photo graphs, or only one of them?
Mr. FRAZIER. I could not tell by these photographs. We did not make any distinction when we were comparing tests with the evidence as to which test cartridge case we were using.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you made your selection among cartridge cases to select the items which would be used as test cases for comparison purposes, were the items you rejected much different from those you selected?
Mr. FRAZIER. No. The marks were generally the same on all of them. Those we used in this comparison were two tests which we fired on November 23d and used them in our tests-made our examination, our identification.
Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of the other tests that were made.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you just as easily have used other of the items from your original November twenty---
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Getting to the last cartridge case, Exhibit 545, did you take a photograph of the exhibit together with the test case under the microscope after making your identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. This photograph shows that cartridge case 545 on the right, and the test cartridge case from the rifle, 139, on the left.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is marked on the right C-38 and on the left C-14?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again this is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that is of the primer?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have a second photograph here also, marked C-14 and C-38, also taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this is of the markings of the firing pin?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us the magnification first of the primer-markings photograph?
426
Page 427
Mr. FRAZIER. That is 100 diameters enlargement on the primer, and on the firing-pin it is 80 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now in all the cases of the photographs you have given us, the magnifications are equal on both sides, are they?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted into evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. They will be 564 and 565.
(The items, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 564 and 565, were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss the photograph, Exhibit 564 please, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 564 is again, a portion of the primer of the cartridge case fired by me in the rifle number 139 appearing on the left side of the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, and on the right side a portion of the surface of the cartridge case, Exhibit 545, showing its primer and the marks on it.
In the photograph four circles, or portions of circles, have been drawn, circling some of the areas where individual microscopic characteristics are found which permitted identifying the two cartridge cases as having been fired in the same weapon.
In the upper circle are again two ridges separated by a groove, the lower right-hand end of which is blocked by a raised portion in the metal of the primer.
Circle number 2 is again a depression bounded on the top by a long sloping groove, sloping from the upper left subsequently to the lower right.
In circle number 3 there is a series of ridges running horizontally across the photograph. The lowest of these three ridges is a rather wide round-topped ridge.
Circle number 4 shows the left-hand side of a figure which you could roughly call a Z in the primer, which consists of a horizontal or nearly horizontal line running from left to right which meets a second line running from right down to the left, which again meets a third line which runs from the left to the right. This is shown in both photographs as the three lines which form the shape of a Z on the primer.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, on this photograph there is shown a mark at approximately 3 o'clock on the left-hand side of the picture, and 9 o'clock on the right-hand side, and the marks seem to be different in the two pictures, being broader on the left-hand, C-14, than on the right, C-38. Could you explain the genesis of the difference? It seems to extend further down.
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately in the center of the photograph where the two images meet, there is a scraped area which is the result of the surface of the metal of the bolt scraping the surface of the primer as the bolt was turned in opening the bolt to extract the cartridge.
On the test cartridge case, this area is much broader and coarser because the bolt was pressing more tightly against the primer when it was turned. On the evidence cartridge case, the marks are relatively fine, separated, and even show portions of the surface of the primer in between the circular marks left by the rotating bolt. The reason is that this primer was not being pressed as tightly against the bolt at the time it was turned.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that be due to differences in the construction of the cartridge the two cartridges?
Mr. FRAZIER. It could be differences in the cartridge, but primarily it would be a difference in the amount of setback of the cartridge against the bolt at the time it was fired.
If a cartridge is slightly away from the bolt when it is fired, the primer is blown back out of the cartridge. As the pressure builds up, the cartridge then moves back and reseats the primer in the primer pocket. The manner in which that movement of the primer out and back in is accomplished determines how tightly the primer will bear against the face of the breach after the cartridge has been fired.
427
Page 428
It could be that, and it could be just a slight difference in the hardness of the metal of the primer which caused this one to flow back more and be marked more.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you discuss Exhibit No. 565?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; in Commission Exhibit No. 565 is shown the firing-pin impressions of the test cartridge case from the 139 rifle on the left and the cartridge case, 545, on the right, with a dividing line through the middle separating the primer of one cartridge case from the primer of the other.
No circles have been drawn around this photograph because the marks shown are marks of an abraded area on the firing pin, and are more or less parallel and formed parallel patterns, so that the eye can follow from one line across to the opposite side of the photograph.
In this area shown of the firing pin of the weapon, there was a small scraped area which left these microscopic ridges and grooves shown on the left photo graph, and also reproduced in the 545 primer or firing-pin impression on the right side of the photograph.
Mr. McCLOY. State for me again what is on the left side? What is this C-14?
Mr. FRAZIER. This is the rifle cartridge case, the test cartridge ease.
Mr. McCLOY. The test rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; the cartridge ease which I fired in 139.
Mr. McCLOY. In 139. And the one on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545.
Mr. McCLOY. Which was found in the building?
Mr. FRAZIER. Found in the building.
Mr. McCLOY. On all of these on the left is it always the same----
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; on all of the photographs we have discussed so far.
Mr. McCLOY. I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, it appears to the eye that only a portion of this is in focus. Is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Only a portion of the entire photograph is in focus, yes, and that is the area where these individual marks appear, occur.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the reason being the outer area, the area up to the edge of the firing-pin impression is considerably higher, and the microscope does not have the depth of focus to focus on a very deep groove or depression such as the firing pin at the bottom of it and still maintain the top in focus.
The firing pin is circular, I should say, hemispherical in shape, so that it leaves a cup-shaped impression of it- only one portion of it can be in focus at the same time; the other part being either higher or lower will be out of focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
428
Page 429
Mr. EISENBERG. There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the types of markings which are generated onto a bullet, as opposed to those which are generated onto a cartridge case?
Mr. FRAZIER. A bullet when it is fired picks up the marks of the barrel of the weapon. These marks consist of rifling marks of the lands and the grooves, the spiral grooves in the barrel, and, in addition, the abrasion marks or rubbing marks which the bullet picks up due to the friction between the barrel and the surface of the copper jacket on the bullet, or if it is a lead bullet, with the lead.
Mr. McCLOY. You said the marks of the groove. You mean the marks of the groove or the marks of the lands?
Mr. FRAZIER. Both, sir; both are present. In this barrel there are four lands and four grooves. Each of the raised portions in the barrel will be impressed into the surface of the bullet causing four--we call them land impressions--on the bullet, and, in between, four groove impressions.
Mr. EISENBERG. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel from which the bullets are fired.
The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or faulty cleaning.
They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they result from wear, that is an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges, bullets through it.
In this particular barrel the manufacturer's marks are caused by the drill which drills out the barrel, leaving certain marks from the drilling tool. Then portions of these marks are erased by a rifling tool which cuts the four spiral grooves in the barrel and, in turn, leaves marks themselves, and in connection with those marks of course, the drilling marks, being circular in shape, there is a tearing away of the surface of the metal, so that a microscopically rough surface is left.
Then removing part of those marks with a separate tool causes that barrel to assume an individual characteristic, a character all of its own.
In other words, at that time you could identify a bullet fired from that barrel as having been fired from the barrel to the exclusion of all other barrels, because there is no system whatever to the drilling of the barrel. The only system is in the rifling or in the cutting of the grooves, and in this case of rifle barrels, even the cutters wear down as the barrels are made, eventually of course having to be discarded or re-sharpened.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to determine whether their microscopic characteristics are identical?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say, paired barrels,. which have- been manufactured on the same machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as individual microscopic
429
Page 430
characteristics are concerned. Their rifling impressions of course would be identical, but the individual marks there would be entirely different.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. How •much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of your comparison of Exhibit 399 with a test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us the magnification?
Mr. FRAZIER. 70 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this reads C-14 on the left and C-1 on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. The one on the right is the cartridge that you just--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. 399, yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. And the one on the left is the test bullet.
Mr. McCLOY. The test. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 566, Mr. Reporter.
(The item so described was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 566 and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss photograph 566?
Mr. FRAZIER. This exhibit shows on the left side of a dividing vertical line representing the top of the prism in the microscope which was used for the comparison, a portion of the surface from the test bullet from the rifle, 139, and on the right side of the photograph a portion of the surface of the bullet, 399.
The marks shown in the photograph are on an area representing approximately one-half of one groove impression in the barrel of the weapon, which extends from approximately 2 inches up from the bottom of the photograph, being the edge of one land impression, and the beginning of a groove impression up to the top of the photograph, that area being approximately one-half or possibly two-thirds of a groove impression.
430
Page 431
The microscopic marks which were used in the identification, after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification; were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photo graph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and in between size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon.
There will be some marks which will not show up on one bullet which show up on the other bullet, and. similarly some marks on the other bullet, in this case Exhibit 399, will not be present on the test bullet, that situation being due to a number of causes.
One, the bullets could have originally been slightly different in diameter, the larger bullet, of course, picking up more marks during its passage through the barrel.
Secondly, the two bullets may not have expanded exactly the same, due to the pressure of the powder behind them as they passed through the barrel.
Third, with each bullet fired through the barrel, there are certain changes that occur due to the wearing away of the surface of the metal of the barrel, so that after a series of shots through a particular barrel, it would be expected that the pattern of microscopic marks produced by it would change.
The identification is based on areas such as this on the bullet and the comparison of the microscopic marks around the entire surface of the bullet which bears individual characteristics.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, running through the middle of the exhibit there seem to be finer lines on the right- hand side than on the left. Could you explain that, the reason why the lines come out with more detail or that there are more lines on the right side than on the left?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those marks could be the result of the bullet striking some object after it was fired, or they could be the result of changes having taken place in the barrel.
For instance, even a piece of coarse cloth, leather or some other object could have polished the surface of the metal slightly and left infinitesimal scratches which, when enlarged sufficiently, actually look like marks on the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. In making your examination of the bullet, what was the relative attention you gave to the broader lines we see in this picture and the finer lines such as those we have just been referring to?
Mr. FRAZIER. The broader lines would be more characteristic or they are looked for most, because they change less rapidly than the fine lines. For instance, firing two or three bullets through a barrel could completely erase microscopic marks which would appear as fine lines in a certain area, whereas the coarser lines and grooves on the bullet would be maintained over a series of fired bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. In evaluating these lines, do you examine the lines individually, or are you interested in their relationship with one another in addition?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a combination. You actually examine each mark and each line individually, but it is a mental process rather than a matter of adding one line to another. It is a process of looking at a series of lines and you actually notice that they are composed of round-topped ridges, V-topped ridges, flat-topped ridges, and it is a mental process of looking at the whole pattern rather than the individual marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. All these lines that we are looking at lie within a groove, within one groove, did you say?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; except for the lower portion of the photograph, there is a portion of a land impression showing one rather deep groove running across the bottom of the picture, and a series of grooves shown next to the edge of the land impression.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you identify the circular-looking mark on the right-hand side of the picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. That could be either a flaw in the bullet, the metal itself, before it was fired, or could be the result of the bullet having struck some object after
431
Page 432
it was fired and before it stopped, or as it stopped, or could be the result having been dropped or roughly handled.
This particular mark there would be invisible practically speaking to the naked eye when looking at the bullet.
Mr. McCLOY. The mark to which you refer is the one on the right-hand side of the exhibit toward the top, about an inch and a half from the center line?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that about 11 o'clock?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have another photograph, Mr. Frazier, of this?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you
whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG. How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you weigh this fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. It weighs 44.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the fragment as compared with a test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is labeled C-14 on the left and C--2 on the right, and it is a photograph taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. The test bullet from 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 70 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may that be admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. C-2 is the actual fragment?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The items described, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 567 and 568, were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, could you discuss this photograph with us?
Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 568 is again the vertical dividing line through the center of the photograph, with the test bullet from the rifle 139
432
Page 433
on the left, and the bullet, Exhibit 567, on the right. Am I right in that the bullet jacket fragment is 567?
Mr. EISENBERG. I think I put it down here. That is right, 567.
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately two-thirds of a groove impression from each of the two bullets is shown, with a very small portion at the bottom of the photograph of a land impression. The individual microscopic characteristics which were used in the comparison, and on which the identification was made, were photographed and are as shown in this photograph. However, this photograph did not enter into the actual conclusion reached. The microscopic characteristics appear as parallel horizontal lines extending from the test bullet on the left to the bullet Exhibit 567 on the right.
The marks used in the identification are grooves, paired lines, a series of ridges up and down the hairline on one bullet, and they also appear on the opposite side of the photograph.
In one particular instance it will be seen that at the edge of the land impression at the lower left portion of the photograph is a very definite paired ridge which appears on the right side of the photograph but in a slightly different area.
The reason for the difference in the location of this paired line on the exhibit, Exhibit 567, can be explained by the fact that this is a jacket fragment, that it was torn from the rest of the bullet, and is greatly mutilated, distorted, and bears only a very few areas suitable for identification purposes because of that fact.
The distortion has foreshortened the area of the jacket fragment, 567, to the extent that over this approximately one-tenth-of-an-inch surface represented in this photograph, these lines do not coincide exactly on the lower part of the photograph when they are lined up on the upper part of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say they don't correspond exactly, do you mean at all, or do you mean they aren't--
Mr. FRAZIER. I mean that the marks are present, but they do not line up at the hairline.
Mr. EISENBERG. But in your opinion the marks on the left are the same as the marks on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
Mr. McCLOY. They are not lined up in the microscope because there is mutilation on the fragment?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And there is no mutilation on the test cartridge?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, in the lower portion of each side of that photograph, which I take it is the groove of the bullet, or the land impression of the rifle is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. The land on the rifle leaves this groove on the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; the right-hand side seems to be slightly striated while the left-hand side does not seem to be striated. Can you explain that?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, the striae in this side are not apparent in this photograph. I don't know whether they actually exist on the bullet or not. You can't tell from the photograph, because they are so fine as to possibly not show at all.
A close examination right at the hairline shows a whole series of very fine scratches which do not appear further away from the hairline, and that could be very easily due to differences in the metal, as the bullet passed down the barrel, being pressed less forcibly against the barrel, or could also be due to the fact that at the edges of the lands it is very often evident that hot gases from the burning powder had passed the bullet through these cracks and actually will melt or erode away the surface of the bullet.
433
Page 434
As to why they may or may not be present is difficult to say from an examination of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. What portion of the bullet fragment provided enough markings for purposes of identification, approximately?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that one-fourth, in this instance, one-fourth of 567's surface was available. One-fifth to one-sixth would have been sufficient for identification, based on the character of the marks present.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now this portion of the fragment was an even smaller portion of the bullet, the entire bullet, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. So when you say one-fifth and one-sixth, are you referring now to the proportion of marks on the fragment, as opposed to the proportion of marks you would want from an entire bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I am referring to the proportion of marks on the fragment which were used in the examination as compared to the total bullet circumference which would have existed on an unmutilated bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, do you feel that the amount of markings here were sufficient to make positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made identifications in the past with as few or less markings as are present on this bullet fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; and on less, much less of an area. The character of the marks is more important than the number of the marks.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, here you were of course unable to see all of the lines which were present on the bullet before mutilation. Have you ever had an occasion where you examined a bullet and saw one portion of it which was an apparent match and then found out that the balance of the bullet was not an apparent match?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; and if I understand your words "apparent match," there is no such thing as an apparent match. It either is an identification or it isn't, and until you have made up your mind, you don't have an apparent match. We don't actually use that term in the FBI. Unless you have sufficient marks for an identification, you cannot say one way or the other as to whether or not two bullets were fired from a particular barrel.
In other words, you cannot nonidentify on the absence of similarities any more than you can identify when you have no similarities present.
Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any possible chance of error creeping in.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; we never use it, never.
Mr. EISENBERG. And why is that?
Mr. FRAZIER. There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is or isn't as far as we are concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in this case it--
Mr. FRAZIER. It is, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this bullet fragment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCLOY. Do we have any proof in the-record thus far as to where the fragment referred to a moment ago came from?
Mr. EISENBERG. Honestly, I am not sure. I know it will be in the record eventually, but I have not taken that up as part of this testimony.
Mr. McCLOY. That will be subject to further proof.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. If it is not in the record. As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?
434
Page 435
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER. 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY. Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER. None whatsoever.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr. EISENBERG. Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It consists of the base or most rearward portion of the jacket of a metal-jacketed bullet, from which the lead core is missing.
Mr. EISENBERG. How can you tell that it is the most rearward portion?
Mr. FRAZIER. It has the shape which bases of bullets have. It has the cannelure which is located at the rear, on the portion of bullets of this type.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER. There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now 569 is without the core; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how much weight you would add if you had the core?
435
Page 436
Mr. FRAZIER. No, I cannot.
Mr. EISENBERG. Not at all?
Mr. FRAZIER. No. I do not have the figure on the core weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, is it possible that if you did make such an estimate, the weight, the projected weight of 569 plus the actual weight of 567 would exceed the bullet weight of the 6.5 mm. bullet
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh. no; it would not.
Mr. EISENBERG. It would not?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not come even close to it, because the amount of core is only--one-quarter inch of the bullet is all that remains at the base, and that much core would not weigh more than 40 grains at the most.
Mr. EISENBERG. No cannelure shows on 567, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you make a comparison photograph of 569 with a test bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This photograph is marked C-14 on the left and C--3 on the right; is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. C-14 being the test?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, from the rifle 139, and C-3 is Exhibit 569.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the magnification on this photograph is what, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. 70 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. 570.
(The item was identified as Commission Exhibit No. 570 and was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss this picture?
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 570 shows a portion of the test bullet from Exhibit 139 on the left side of the photograph, and a portion of the bullet 569 on the right side, divided by a hairline.
The photograph was taken of the microscopic marks, examined through the comparison microscope, consisting of very fine and very coarse grooves, or scratches, or ridges, on the surface of each of the bullets as compared with those on the other bullet.
The photograph did not, of course, enter into the conclusion reached in the examination, but was merely taken to demonstrate, to illustrate the types of marks present insofar as a photograph can show them.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, what portion of the Exhibit 569 was unmutilated enough to allow you to make a comparison of its markings?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately one-third. Actually, the entire base section of the bullet was present, but approximately one-half of that base was mutilated. On the mutilated area, either marks were destroyed completely by striking some object, or being compressed or stretched, or they were thrown out of relationship with each other by stretching or compressing to the extent that they were of no value.
So I would estimate approximately one-third of the area was present.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say one-third, is this total area or circumference?
Mr. FRAZIER. Circumference, one-third of the circumference.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any further pictures of any of the bullets, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, I do not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I hand you two bullets and ask whether you are familiar with them.
436
Page 437
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am. These are the two test bullets which I fired from this rifle, Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Exhibit 572?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 572, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials.
Mr. EISENBERG. As you examined the bullet and the two bullet fragments, are they in the same condition now as they were when they entered your hands?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. One other question on the cartridge cases.
Did you examine the cartridge cases for chambering marks, extraction marks, or ejection marks?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did, but I did not make any comparisons of either extractor or ejector marks or chambering marks, since the purpose of my examination was primarily to determine whether they were fired in this rifle, and such marks would not have assisted in that determination. They were not necessary because they would have indicated only that it may have been loaded into and extracted from the weapon, whereas the marks which I found served to identify it as having been fired in the weapon, actually.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, unless you have further questions on the cartridge cases or bullets, I would like to move on to another subject.
Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
Mr. FRAZIER. Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.
Mr. McCLOY. And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at the minimum?
Mr. FRAZIER. I meant at least two bullets.
Mr. McCLOY. There were at least two different bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER. At least two, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets fired in the various tests made with this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 60 rounds.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any misfires?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find the ammunition dependable?
Mr. FRAZIER. Very dependable.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might think this is an undependable type of ammunition?
437
Page 438
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; The Western Cartridge Co. has always manufactured, in my experience, very dependable ammunition. There is other ammunition on the market available for this particular rifle in this caliber, which in my opinion is undependable or would be a very poor quality of ammunition. It may have been a confusion between that other ammunition of the same caliber and this Western ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you elaborate as to what that other ammunition consists of?
Mr. FRAZIER. Certain companies have imported into the United States cartridges of foreign manufacture. Those I have seen for this rifle were of Italian manufacture. They have pulled the military bullets from those cartridges and reloading hunting type or soft-point bullets into the cartridges. In doing that, they did not, apparently, take any great pains in loading them. Occasionally, the mouth of the case would be bent over and the bullet driven in right on top of the bent case.
I have seen split cartridge cases, even before they were fired, badly corroded cartridge cases. All in all, the ammunition is of generally poor overall appearance, and it has been reported to me that it was of poor firing quality.
I have not fired any of it, personally.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you heard anything about the dependability of the Italian-made ammunition, unreloaded?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not as such.
However, I have experienced the examination of Italian ammunition of various years of manufacture and, of course, various makes. And I think it is rather poor quality in this particular caliber, primarily due to the very short seating depth to which bullets of this type are seated in the cartridge, which causes the bullets to loosen very readily in the cartridge case even before they are loaded into a clip or fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice, Mr. Frazier, in your examination of targets and so forth, whether there was any marked degree of yaw or tumbling by the bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER. No evidence at all of tumbling or yaw.
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the firing of 60 shots materially affect the microscopic characteristics of Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would change them, if not completely, practically completely.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, some witnesses to the assassination have stated that they heard more than three shots. Can you think of any reason why they might have come to that conclusion--in terms of acoustical properties of high-velocity bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER. They could very readily have heard other sounds which could be confused with shots. It is apparent--it is obvious with any weapon in which the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, which is 1,127, approximately, feet per second, the bullet itself will cause a shock wave or a sound wave, and a person standing in front of that weapon will hear the report of the bullet passing and then subsequently the sound will reach them of the cartridge explosion, which could very easily be confused with two shots. There will be the crack of the bullet going by, overhead or in the vicinity, and then the sound of the shot.
So that you would hear for three shots actually six reports, which could have caused some confusion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a bullet in a pill box which is marked Q-188. I ask you whether you are familiar with this bullet.
I would like to state for the record that this bullet was found in the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.
Mr. McCLOY. As far as you know, we have no proof of that yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I am familiar with it. I have made an examination of that bullet.
With reference to this bullet, I could furnish everything except the weight of it.
438
Page 439
Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Just taking one thing at a time. You are familiar with it with it. Does it have your marking on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 573?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admired.
(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 573, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this bullet, do you recall, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would need to refer to my notes for that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply that for us at a subsequent time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the weight.
Is this bullet in the same condition as it was when you received it in the laboratory, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean it up or in any way alter it when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER. I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions. And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a jacketed bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.
The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.
The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the direction of the twist?
Mr. FRAZIER. To the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you estimate how many types of rifle would produce, on
439
Page 440
a 6.5 mm. bullet, four lands and four grooves, right twist, with the width of lands and grooves which you established as being those on this bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Only from experience, I could. say that it would be relatively few which would agree with all of those characteristics. I have, of come, not seen or measured all of the foreign rifles, and therefore I could not estimate the number that there might be.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any microscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine the depth of the grooves of the bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. The bullet, 573, had what appeared to be normal-depth grooves. However, this bullet is completely flattened due to hitting a plaster or cement or other hard material on one side, and the opposite side, as a result of the flattening--has assumed a concave appearance, which has stretched the surface in various places and changes its overall appearance that is the basis for actually having to state that there were not enough unmutilated marks for identification purposes on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you do conclude that this was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel characteristics?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, do you have any further questions on this?
Mr. McCLOY. When you say you were able to determine it was fired from this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with which I am not familiar in the foreign field.
Mr. McCLOY. But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a 6.5 mm. bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And the bullet, such as we find it, has now characteristics similar to the type of bullet which was our Exhibit No. 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does. Placing them side by side, the cannelure, which is really the only physical characteristic apparent, comes to exactly the same place on both 399 and 573, indicating that this bullet was loaded to exactly the same depth in the cartridge--the two bullets, both 399 and 573.
Mr. McCLOY. I think I have no further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did any other firearms experts in the FBI laboratory examine the three cartridge cases, the bullet, and the two bullet fragments which you have testified as to today?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, all of the actual firearms comparisons were also made by Charles Killion and Cortlandt Cunningham. These examinations were made separately, that is, they made their examination individually and separately from mine, and there was no association between their examination and mine until both were finished.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did the three of you come to the conclusions which you have given us today as your own conclusions?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone in the FBI laboratory who examined the evidence come to a different conclusion as to any of the evidence you have discussed today?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything you would like to add to your testimony, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not with reference to this material, no.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you thinking of--
Mr. FRAZIER. I am thinking of other examinations which I made, but which probably will come up at another time.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to examinations such as the clothing, holes in the clothing, and the fracture in the automobile windshield?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
440
Page 441
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. There will be testimony elicited at another time on those examinations, Mr. Frazier.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier will be a witness in those, too?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter will probably elicit that testimony.
Mr. Chairman, or gentlemen, are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.
Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. I have one photograph here that might be useful in this regard, and that is of a clip showing the six cartridges loaded into it.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that might be a good idea. You might identify that, to show what we mean by clips.
Mr. EISENBERG. You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. One photograph loaded, and one unloaded?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take those photographs?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Frazier, you testified that if you didn't use the clip you would only be able to shoot one shell at a time, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this weapon does not have the box magazine commonly found in most military weapons which holds the cartridges and can be re-loaded one at a time, but they must remain in the clip, or they will malfunction. The follower in the weapon will throw the cartridges right back out of the gun.
Mr. McCLOY. That explains it to my mind, because I know I have fired rifles with clips and fired them without clips. But they were much more convenient in loading.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this one is designed--
Mr. McCLOY. For example, the Springfield you could load with clip or load without a clip.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. But this one has to have a clip in order not to malfunction?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Those will be 574 and 575.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 574 and 575, and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. You have been very helpful.
FRAZIER-ROUNDS CLEAN BARREL Volume III
394
Page 395
Mr. EISENBERG. So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the last user?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is impossible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER. The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.
Mr. McCLOY. With the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, with the scope.
The CHAIRMAN. And the sling?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is with the sling, yes, sir. The sling weighs 4 3/4 ounces. The stock length is 34.8 inches, which is the wooden portion from end to end with the butt plate attached. The barrel and action from the muzzle to the rear of the tang, which is this portion at the rearmost portion of the metal, is 28.9 inches. The barrel only is 21.18 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "this portion," Mr. Frazier, I don't think that is coming down clear in the record. I wonder whether you could rephrase that so as to describe the part of the barrel or part of the stock to which you are pointing when you say "tang."
Mr. FRAZIER. The tang is the rear of the receiver of the weapon into which the rear mounting screw is screwed to hold the rearmost part of the metal action of the weapon. into the wooden stock. From the end of that portion to the muzzle of the weapon is 28.9 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the length of the longest component when the rifle is dissembled, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. 34.8 inches, which is the length of the stock, the wooden portion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us the telescopic sight on the rifle in terms of--
Mr. McCLOY. Before you get to the sight, can I ask a question?
Mr. EISENBERG. Surely.
Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?
Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.
It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.
Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel. XXXXXXX
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the rifle? Magnification, country of origin?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood California," and
395
THOMAS J. KELLEY, LEO J. GAUTHIER, LYNDAL L.
SHANEYFELT, AND ROBERT A. FRAZIER
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY, LEO J. GAUTHIER, LYNDAL L.
SHANEYFELT, AND ROBERT A. FRAZIER
The President's Commission met at 2:10 p.m., on June 4, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE. Washington, D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, Allen W. Dulles, and John J. McCloy, members.
Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas; and Charles Murray, observer.
Thomas J. Kelley
Page 129
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Representative Ford, Mr. Dulles, and Mr. McCloy.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, we have witnesses today who are Thomas J. Kelley of the Secret Service; Leo J. Gauthier, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, and Robert A. Frazier of the FBI. They are going to testify concerning certain
129
Page 130
onsite tests made in Dallas at the scene of the assassination, and of preliminary studies which were made prior to the onsite tests at Dallas.
May we have them sworn in as a group?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Will you rise and raise your right hands, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. KELLEY. I do.
Mr. GAUTHIER. I do.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do.
Mr. FRAZIER. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, gentlemen. Mr. Kelley, will you take the witness chair, please? Mr. Specter will conduct the examination.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?
Mr. KELLEY. Thomas J. Kelley.
Mr. SPECTER. By whom are you employed?
Mr. KELLEY. I am employed by the U.S. Secret Service.
Mr. SPECTER. In what capacity?
Mr. KELLEY. I am an inspector.
Mr. SPECTER. In a general way, of what do your duties consist, Mr. Kelley?
Mr. KELLEY. As an inspector, I am part of the chief's headquarters staff. I conduct office inspections of our field and protective installations, and report on their actions to the chief.
Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been with the Secret Service?
Mr. KELLEY. Twenty-two years.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the planning of the onsite tests at Dallas, Tex.?
Mr. KELLEY. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you participate in the making of those tests?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. On what date was the onsite testing made?
Mr. KELLEY. It was a week ago Sunday.
Mr. SPECTER. That would be May 24, 1964?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What car was used for testing purposes?
Mr. KELLEY. The car that was used was a 1956 specially built Cadillac, open, a convertible, seven-passenger Cadillac. It has a termination of 679--X, the Secret Service calls it. It is a car that is used as a followup car to the President's car when he is in a motorcade.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that car actually in the motorcade on November 22, 1963, in Dallas?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; it was.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any special reason why the car in which the President rode on November 22 was not used?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; the car in which the President rode has been modified by a body builder in Cincinnati, the Hess & Eisenhardt Co. of Cincinnati.
Mr. SPECTER. And do you have a diagram showing the dimensions of the Secret Service followup car which was used during the onsite tests?
Mr. KELLEY. I have. It was felt that the best simulation of the test could be presented by having a car that was similar to the car in which the President was riding, which was also an open Lincoln convertible.
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, I would like to mark the diagram of the followup car as Commission Exhibit No. 871 and move its admission into evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 871 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have diagrams showing the dimensions of the Presidential car?
Mr. KELLEY. I have.
130
Page 131
Mr. SPECTER. I would like to have that marked as Commission Exhibit No. 872 and move for its admission into evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 872 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Without specifying all of the details, Inspector Kelley, are the followup car and the Presidential car generally similar in dimensions?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; they are. There are very few, of course, seven-passenger convertible cars in existence, and these are specially--these cars are specially built for us by the Lincoln--the Ford Motor Co., and the followup car by the General Motors Co.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe what seating arrangements are present in each of those cars in between the permanent front seat and the permanent rear seat?
Mr. KELLEY. There are two jump seats that can be opened up for riders in each of the cars. In the Presidential followup car, these jump seats are usually occupied by Secret Service agents.
In the President's car, they are occupied by the President's guests.
On the day of the assassination, of course, the jump seats were occupied by Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kelley, have you brought with you two photographs depicting the interior of the President's car?
Mr. KELLEY. I have. These are photographs of the interior of the President's car which is known to us as 100-X.
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, I would like to mark one of these photographs as Commission Exhibit No. 873, and move its admission into evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 873 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. I would like to mark the second photograph as Commission Exhibit No. 874 and move, also, its admission into evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 874 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe briefly what Exhibit No. 873 depicts, please?
Mr. KELLEY. Exhibit No. 873 is a photograph of the interior of the rear section of the 100-X, the President's car, showing the seating arrangement in the car and the jump seats are in an open position.
Mr. McCLOY. As of what time were these photographs taken?
Mr. KELLEY. I am sorry, Commissioner. I don't know just when those photographs were taken. They were taken some time in the last 2 years.
Mr. SPECTER. As to Exhibits Nos. 873 and 874, do they accurately depict the condition of the President's car as of November 22, 1963?
Mr. KELLEY. They do, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe briefly what Exhibit No. 874 shows?
Mr. KELLEY. Exhibit No. 874 is another photograph of the car taken from the rear, and it shows the relative positions of the jump seats in an open position as they relate to the back seat of the car.
Mr. SPECTER. So that the record may be clear, which Commission number has been given to the diagram of the President's car?
Mr. KELLEY. The President's car is Exhibit No. 872.
Mr. SPECTER. And the followup car diagram is what?
Mr. KELLEY. Exhibit No. 871.
Mr. McCLOY. Do you know whether these photographs were taken before or after the assassination?
Mr. KELLEY. Before the assassination.
Mr. DULLES. Did the car that you used for this test---did that car have the seat lifting capacity that I understand the President's car had?
Mr. KELLEY. No; it did not, sir. I might say that there is in the Commission's records photographs of the President's car after the assassination, showing the condition of it after the assassination, at the garage.
Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the right
131
Page 132
edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?
Mr. KELLEY. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and the door.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the relative position of the jump seat to the rear seat on the Presidential automobile?
Mr. KELLEY. There is 8 1/2 inches between the back of the jump seat and the front of the back seat of the President's car, the rear seat.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the relative height of the jump seat and the rear seat?
Mr. KELLEY. The jump seat is 3 inches lower than the back seat in its bottom position. That is, the back seat of the President's car had a mechanism which would raise it 10 1/2 inches. But at the time of the assassination, the seat was in its lowest position.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the differential between the jump seats and the rear seat on the Secret Service followup car?
Mr. KELLEY. The jump seat of the Secret Service car is a little closer to the right door.
However, the seating arrangement is not exactly the same in these cars, in that there is a portion of a padding that comes around on the rear seat.
But relatively, when two persons are seated in this car, one in the rear seat and one in the jump seat, they are in the same alinement as they were in the President's car.
Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the assassination? How do you know that?
Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in his custody all the time. And he did not move it.
When it was in the White House garage, it was at its lowest point.
Mr. DULLES. And there would be no opportunity to lower it from the time the President was shot?
Mr. KELLEY. No, sir. The President, of course, operates that thing himself. But when it was examined, at the time it was examined, and it was in the custody of this man all the time, it had not been touched.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the height of President Kennedy?
Mr. KELLEY. He was 72 1/2 inches.
Mr. SPECTER. And were you present when a man was placed in the same position in the Secret Service followup car as that in which President Kennedy sat in the Presidential car when the tests were simulated on May 24th of this year?
Mr. KELLEY. I was.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the name of that individual?
Mr. KELLEY. He was an FBI agent by the name of James W. Anderton.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the height of Mr. Anderton?
Mr. KELLEY. He was 72 1/2 inches.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the height of Governor Connally?
Mr. KELLEY. Governor Connally was 6 foot 4.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that the height of the Governor himself or the Governor's stand-in?
Mr. KELLEY. It was my understanding that Governor Connally was--6 foot 2, I guess. The Governor's stand-in, Mr. Doyle Williams, was 6 foot 4.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you present when those two individuals were seated in the Secret Service followup car?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And what adjustment was made, if any, so that the relative positions of those two men were the same as the positioning of President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22, 1963?
Mr. KELLEY. The officials at Hess Eisenhardt, who have the original plans of the President's car, conducted a test to ascertain how high from the ground a person 72 1/2 inches would be seated in this car before its modification. And
132
Page 133
it was ascertained that the person would be 52.78 inches from the ground--that is, taking into consideration the flexion of the tires, the flexion of the cushions that were on the car at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say 52.78 inches, which individual would that be?
Mr. KELLEY. That would be the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And what part of his body?
Mr. KELLEY. The top of the head would be 52.78 inches from the ground. When Mr. Anderton was placed in the followup car, it was found that the top of his head was 62 inches from the ground. There was an adjustment made so that there would be--- the stand-in for Governor Connally would be in relatively the same position, taking into consideration the 3-inch difference in the jump seat and the 2-inch difference in his height.
Mr. SPECTER. Considering the 3-inch difference in the jump seat--and I believe it would be an inch and a half difference in height between President Kennedy and Governor Connally--how much higher, then, approximately, was President Kennedy sitting than the Governor on November 22?
Mr. KELLEY. I am not----
Mr. SPECTER. Would the President have been about an inch and half higher than the Governor on the day of the assassination?
Mr. KELLEY. The day of the assassination, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And were----
The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't the height of these men depend upon the length of their torso?
Mr. KELLEY. Well----
The CHAIRMAN. You have some people who are shortwaisted, some people who are longwaisted. I don't know which either of these men were who were of the same height. But I know there is a lot of difference in men. We sometimes see the--a man who looks large sitting down, when he stands up he is small, because he has a long torso, and vice versa.
Mr. KELLEY. Of course the relative positions are apparent from the films that were taken at the time of the assassination. It would be, of course, that judgment---and it would have to be a judgment. But I think the films indicate there was just about that much difference in their height when both were seated.
Mr. SPECTER. Inspector Kelley, I hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. 697, which has heretofore been admitted into evidence, and identified by Governor Connally as depicting the President and the Governor as they rode in the motorcade on the day of the assassination, and I ask you if the stand-ins for the President and the Governor were seated in approximately the same relative positions on the reconstruction on May 24.
Mr. KELLEY. Yes., sir; in my judgment that is very close.
Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy?
Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent?
Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?
Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval.
Mr. McCLOY. Not Parkland, as I understand it?
Mr. SPECTER No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show, the President was not turned over at Parkland.
Mr. KELLEY. I was shown a drawing of--that was prepared by some medical technicians indicating the point of entry.
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck.
133
Page 134
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And the record will show, may it please the Commission, that this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda.
And was there any marking placed on the back of Governor Connally?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; there was a marking placed on the back of his coat in the area where the medical testimony had indicated the bullet had entered Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. And what coat was worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally?
Mr. KELLEY. It was the coat that Governor Connally was wearing at the time he was injured.
Mr. SPECTER. And was the chalk circle placed around the hole which appeared on the back of that coat garment?
Mr. KELLEY. It was.
Mr. SPECTER. Were certain tests made by the Secret Service shortly after the day of the assassination?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And were those tests reduced to photographs which were compiled in an album?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; in Commission Document No. 88, we took some photographs of the scene of the assassination on December 5, 1963, from the window of the Texas Book Depository, and from the street.
Mr. SPECTER. The number which you refer to bears Commission No. 88, which is an index number which was given for internal Commission document filing, but it has not been marked as a Commission exhibit.
I would now like to mark it Commission Exhibit No. 875 and move for its admission into evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 875 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Does a photograph in that group show the condition of the foliage of the trees in the vicinity where the assassination occurred?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And is there----
Mr. DULLES. One question. This photograph was taken, though, several weeks later, wasn't it?
Mr. KELLEY. On December 5.
Mr. DULLES. That was 2 weeks later.
Mr. KELLEY. Two weeks later; yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. So the foliage would presumably be somewhat less in that picture, would it not, than it was on November 22?
Mr. KELLEY. No; actually, the foliage hadn't changed very much even in the latest tests we are making.
The CHAIRMAN. It was an evergreen?
Mr. KELLEY. It was an oak tree, Mr. Chief Justice, I have been told the foliage doesn't change much during the year. They call it pine oak. Some people call it a life oak. But the people down there I talked to said it was called a pine oak.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you observe the foliage on the tree on May 24?
Mr. KELLEY. I did, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And would you state the relative condition of that foliage, as contrasted with the photographs you have before you taken on December 5?
Mr. KELLEY. It was very similar, practically the same.
Mr. SPECTER. And the description which you have just given applies to a large oak tree which intervened between a point on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and any automobile which would have been driven down the center lane of Elm Street in a westerly direction?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, the purpose of having Inspector Kelley testify was just to set the scene. That completes our questioning of him.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Thank you, Inspector Kelley.
Mr. SPECTER. The next witness will be Inspector Gauthier.
134
Leo J. Gauthier
Page 135
TESTIMONY OF LEO J. GAUTHIER
Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier.
Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir?
Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the presentation of cases in court.
Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Twenty-nine years.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to reconstruct certain models to scale in connection with the investigation on the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene of the assassination itself?
Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4,. of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the followup car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and the followup car behind the Vice-Presidential car.
Mr. SPECTER. On the model of the scene itself, Mr. Gauthier, did you reproduce a portion of the scene which is depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 876?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. Handing you that Commission Exhibit No. 876, I will ask you to describe what it represents in toto.
Mr. GAUTHIER. This is an aerial view of the site known as Dealey Plaza, in Dallas, Tex.
It indicates the large buildings that surround this area. They are numbered 1 through 11. It indicates the main streets--Commerce, Main, and Elm Streets, and the roadways through the plaza, including the triple underpass.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a document which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 877 and ask you if that document was obtained by you in connection with the survey for the model which you prepared.
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; this is a description of Dealey Plaza stating the historical background and the physical description.
Mr. SPECTER. I move at this time for the admission into evidence of Commission Exhibits Nos. 876 and 877.
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 876 and 877 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Inspector, I now hand you two photographs marked as Commission Exhibits Nos. 878 and 879 and ask you to state what those depict.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 878 and 879 for identification.)
Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 878 is a view of the scale model looking toward the northeast with the Texas School Book Depository Building in the background, together with the Daltex Building, and a portion of the Dallas County Courthouse. It includes the pergola to the left, and the pericycle structure on the right with the reflecting pool in the immediate background.
It also shows the roadway through the plaza, which is an extension of Elm Street, upon which appears miniature scale models of the vehicles in the motorcade.
Mr. DULLES. What motorcade is this?
Mr. GAUTHIER. We are depicting the Presidential motorcade at the time of the assassination, the motorcade that passed that area.
135
731-221 O---vol. V----10
Page 136
Mr. DULLES. And this was done on what day?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you now describe what is shown on the photograph?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 879 is a view of the scale model looking toward the southwest, in the direction of the Triple Underpass, from a position on the sixth floor in the southeast corner window.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you two additional photographs marked as Commission Exhibits Nos. 880 and 881, and ask you to state what they represent.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 880 and 881 for identification.)
Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 880 is a scale dimension view of the sixth floor looking toward the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. SPECTER. And in the corner of that photograph is the area depicted which has been described as the possible site of the rifleman?
Mr. GAUTHIER. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 881 shows?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 881 is a three-dimensional view of leading down from Main Street and Commerce Street. Positioned on the ramps are scale models of an armored van and two police squad cars. There are also miniature mockups of individuals--representing position of people in this area of the basement garage.
Mr. SPECTER. And what event is depicted in that model, if any?
Mr. GAUTHIER. This represents the arrangement, physical arrangement, in the basement at the time Lee Harvey Oswald walked out from the elevator through the jail office onto the basement ramp.
Mr. SPECTER. And where have these models been maintained since the time they were prepared by the FBI?
Mr. GAUTHIER The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, I now move for the admission into evidence of the photographs 878, 879, 880, and 881.
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted. (The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 878, 879, 880, and 881, were received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas?
Mr. GAUTHIER. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made?
Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County Courthouse, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today?
Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that?
Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container.
Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.
Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
136
Page 137
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?
Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of the tracing measuring 40 inches in width, 72 inches in length. It is made to a scale of 1 inch equals 10 feet. From the data compiled on that day by the surveyor, this tracing was prepared.
The area is bounded on the north by the Texas School Book Depository Building, and on further here by railroad property.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a general westerly direction from the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I am pointing towards the west.
On the east it is bounded by Houston Street.
On the south by Main, which is a roadway going through Dealey Plaza.
And on the west by the triple underpass.
Located on this plat map are street lights accurately located, a catch basin, certain trees, location of trees, the delineation of the concrete pergola, which you see here on the photograph, the outer boundaries of the pericycle, and the reflecting pool--locating exactly the window in the Texas School Book Depository Building, in the southeast corner, and also a tabulation of the measurements and angles that the surveyor has compiled from certain positions identified for him on the street by an observation from this window, an observation from the position of Mr. Zapruder----
Mr. SPECTER. When you say this window, which window did you mean?
Mr. GAUTHIER. The window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, the one in the southeast corner, the farthest window.
Mr. SPECTER. And when you identify the Zapruder position, what did you mean by that?
Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a concrete abutment of the pergola, located in the area upon which Zapruder was standing at the time the movies were made.
(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)
(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other positions noted on the diagram that you have been describing showing where other movies were made?
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. GAUTHIER. We also locate the position of Mr. Nix, who also made movies of the motorcade at certain points on the roadway.
Mr. SPECTER. On what street was Mr. Nix standing?
Mr. GAUTHIER. I am pointing now to the south side of Main Street, approximately in front of the concrete pylon of the south pericycle structure. That is a short distance from the intersection of Main and Houston.
Mr. SPECTER. A short distance west of the intersection?
Mr. GAUTHIER. West.
Mr. SPECTER. And what other position is shown of the situs of a movie photographer?
Mr. GAUTHIER. We have another position here by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, who made movies of the motorcade movement along the Elm Street roadway on November 22, 1963.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.)
Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.
137
Page 138
It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line.
It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height.
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting.
I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore.
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier.
I would like to call Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. McCLOY. Mr Shaneyfelt?
Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt
Page 138
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT
Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. SPECTER. By whom are you employed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am employed as a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. SPECTER. And how long have you been so employed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Fourteen years.
Mr. SPECTER. What are your duties, in a general way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am assigned to the FBI Laboratory, as a document examiner, and photographic expert.
Mr. SPECTER. Daring the course of those duties, have you had occasion to make an analysis of certain movies which purport to have been taken of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. What movies have you examined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have examined a roll of 8-mm. motion pictures made by Mr. Abraham Zapruder of Dallas, Tex., that he took on November 22, of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by Mr. Zapruder came into your possession?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.
The original and other copy he sold to Life magazine.
The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.
Mr. SPECTER. At any time in the course of the examination of the Zapruder film, was the original of that movie obtained?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. On February 25, Mr. Herbert Orth, who is the assistant chief of the Life magazine photographic laboratory, provided the original of the Zapruder film for review by the Commission representatives and representatives of the FBI and Secret Service here in the Commission building.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for his making that original available?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Life magazine was reluctant to release the original because of the value. So he brought it down personally and projected it for us and allowed us to run through it several times, studying the original.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that because the copies were not distinct on certain important particulars?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The original had considerably more detail
138
Page 139
and more there to study than any of the copies, since in the photographic process each time you copy you lose some detail.
Mr. SPECTER. And subsequently, were slides made from the original of the Zapruder film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline what you mean by frames, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. In motion picture films, the actual motion picture film consists of consecutive pictures that are made in rapid succession, each one being a separate exposure. And as the camera runs, it films these, and they are projected fast enough on the screen when you do not have the sensation of them being individual pictures, but you have the sensation of seeing the movement even though they are individual little pictures on the film. So each one of those little pictures on the film is called a frame.
Mr. SPECTER. And how did you number the frames?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I numbered the frames on the Zapruder film beginning with No. 1 at the assassination portion of his film.
He did have on his film some photographs of a personal nature that we disregarded, and started at the first frame of his motion picture that was made there on Elm Street of the assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was happening at the time of frame 1?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the time of frame 1, the police motorcycle lead portion of the parade is in view, and that goes for several frames. Then he stopped his camera, feeling that it might be some time before the Presidential car came into view. Then when the Presidential car rounded the corner and came into view, he started his camera again, and kept it running throughout the route down Elm Street until the car went out of sight on his right.
Mr. SPECTER. What other movies have been examined by you in the course of this analysis?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. An amateur 8-mm. motion picture film made by a Mr. Orville Nix of Dallas, Tex., has been examined. Mr. Nix was standing on the corner of Houston and Maine Streets, photographing the motorcade as it came down Main Street and turned right into Houston Street.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you explain briefly how you ascertained the location of Mr. Nix when he took those movies?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At the time Mr. Nix took his movies of the motorcade coming down Main Street, he was standing on the corner, and photographed them turning the corner and going down Houston Street.
Mr. SPECTER. You are now indicating the southwest corner of Houston and Main?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; southwest corner. After he heard the shots, he hurried down along the curb of Main Street, but did not remember exactly where he was standing. On the basis of his motion pictures, we were able to analyze the pictures using his camera, and on the 23d of May of this year, during the survey, preparatory to the reenactment, we reestablished this point by viewing pictures taken from his motion picture camera, at varying angles across here, in order to reestablish the point where he was standing, based on the relationship of this street light to other items in the background of the photograph.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say this point, you mean the point of the Nix position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And when you say this street light, you are referring to a street lamp on the opposite side of Main Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline in a general way how you obtained the copy of the Nix film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
139
Page 140
The Nix film was obtained as a result of a notice that the FBI gave to processing plants in the Dallas area, that the FBI would be interested in obtaining or knowing about any film they processed, that had anything on it, relating to the assassination.
And, as a result of this, we learned of the Nix film and arranged to obtain a copy of it.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you analyze any other film in connection with this inquiry?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I analyzed a film that was 8-mm. motion picture film taken by Mrs. Mary Muchmore of Dallas, Tex.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you obtain a copy of that film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.
Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.
Mr. SPECTER. Where was Mrs. Muchmore standing at the time she took those movies?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mrs. Muchmore was standing along Houston Street, close to the corner of Main, on the west side of Houston Street, and photographed the motorcade as it came down Main, turned into Houston, and proceeded down Houston. She says that when she heard the shots, she panicked, and did not take any further pictures. But a review of her film shows pictures of the assassination route, the motorcade going down Elm Street, beginning just before the shot that hit the President in the head, and continuing a short period after that.
Since she did not remember taking the pictures, we then, in the same manner we established Mr. Nix's position, by checking the photograph in relation to objects in the background, established her position along this structure that is marked on the map and found that she had come from the curb over to this point----
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a position on Exhibit No. 883 marked "Muchmore Position."
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
And this we established as her position when she photographed a portion of the assassination--motorcade.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you elaborate just a bit more on how you ascertained that position from fixed points in the background of the movie?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we took a frame of the motion picture that is close to the beginning and a picture that is close to the end, and made a still photograph of those. We then establish a position and try to line up the relationship of objects close to where we are standing with objects in the background, so that they are in relation to each other as they are in the picture.
Then we take the other picture from farther along the motion picture film, and do the same thing, and where those two lines intersect is where she had to be standing.
Mr. SPECTER. You draw two straight lines through two objects that you line up on each of those pictures, and the intersection point of those two lines is the calculated position of the camera.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And was that same system used to ascertain the position of Mr. Nix?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And how did you ascertain the position of Mr. Zapruder?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mr. Zapruder's position was known, as he was on the top of the abutment along Elm Street--he stated that he was standing on the abutment. And there is relatively no room to move around there, other than to stand there. It is about 2 feet wide by 3 to 4 feet deep.
140
Page 141
(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And aside from that, we checked that position against his photographs and determined that that was in fact correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the position of Mr. Zapruder confirmed through the use of any other film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in Mr. Nix's motion picture films you can see Mr. Zapruder standing on the abutment.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there?
After you had made those calculations to establish the position of Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix and Mr. Zapruder, did you then identify those positions to the three and ask them whether or not it corresponded--your findings corresponded with their recollection as to where they were standing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We did not do that; no. Mr. Nix, I might say, did state that he went down along this side--the south side of Main Street, along the curb, and it generally conforms to where he stated he went, but he could not place the exact position. We did, by this study.
Senator COOPER. Mr. Zapruder's position was established by another photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand you correctly that Mrs. Muchmore didn't realize she had taken the later pictures that appear?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. According to her statement, she said after hearing the shots, she panicked, and didn't take any more pictures.
Mr. DULLES. You think she did?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the film there are pictures.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the position of Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix ascertained through a geometric calculation, lining up various points as you have just described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, it is actually a geometric calculation, although no strings were drawn or no lines were drawn. It is a matter of standing in a position out there with Mr. Nix's camera, and viewing the two different photographs we had selected, until we arrived at a point that matched.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there reasonable mathematical certainty in that alinement, within the limits of your observations of their pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Did Mr. Zapruder himself point out his location on the abutment as depicted on Exhibit No. 883?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.
Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. And who else has been with you at the time you analyzed those films just stating in a general way without identifying each person present on each of the occasions?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service.
Representatives of the Commission were always present--normally Mr. Redlich, Mr. Specter, or Mr. Eisenberg were present.
On several occasions Mr. Ball and Mr. Belin were present. Mr. Rankin was present on some occasions.
I believe Mr. McCloy was present on one occasion.
Various representatives of the Commission were present.
Mr. SPECTER. And how long did those analysis sessions ordinarily last?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They would normally last most of the day, about all day.
141
Page 142
Mr. SPECTER. And what would be done during the course of those analytical sessions?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In each case we would take the film and run it through regular speed, slow motion, we would stop it on individual frames and study it frame by frame, trying to see in the photographs anything that would give any indication of a shot hitting its mark, a reaction of the President, a reaction of Mr. Connally or Mrs. Connally, reaction of the Secret Service agents, reaction of people in the crowd, relating it to all the facts that we felt were important.
When we obtained the slides from Life magazine, we went through those very thoroughly, because they gave so much more detail and were so much clearer and analyzed again all these things about the reaction of the President and Mr. Connally, trying to ascertain where he was reacting--whether either one was reacting to being hit.
Of course the only shot that is readily apparent in any of the films, and it appears in the Zapruder, the Nix, and the Muchmore film, is the shot that hit the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say that is readily apparent?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because on the film there is practically an explosion of his head and this is obviously the shot that hit the President in the head. It is very apparent from the photograph.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, were any others present at any time, such as witnesses who appeared before the Commission, during the analysis sessions on these films and slides?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
On April 14, representatives of the Commission, FBI, and doctors--Dr. Hume of the Navy, who is at Bethesda, Commander Boswell from the U.S. Navy Medical School at Bethesda, Colonel Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Mr. SPECTER. Are those the autopsy surgeons?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is my understanding. Dr. Olivier, from Edgewood Arsenal, Dr. Light, from Edgewood Arsenal, were present also with Dr. Humes and the others, on April 14.
Mr. SPECTER. Did any individuals who were present at the motorcade itself ever have an opportunity to view the films and slides?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; on April 21, films were again viewed by representatives of the Commission and the FBI, and at that time Drs. Gregory and Shaw, from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, were available, Drs. Light and Olivier, and a Dr. Dolce, and Governor and Mrs. Connally were present.
And at all of the viewings, they were again reviewed frame by frame, studied by the doctors to tie it in with their findings, studied by the Parkland doctors, and studied by the Connallys, to try to tie in where the shots occurred along the film.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an album which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 885.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 885 for identification.)
Mr. SPECTER. I ask you to state what that album depicts.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film----
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed?
142
Page 143
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334.
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other photographs in that album in addition to the Zapruder frames?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there are. There are six photographs selected at random from the Nix film, including frame 24, which is a frame depicting the shot to the head of the President, and there are three photographs picked at random from the Muchmore film, including frame 42, which is the frame depicting the head shot. These are the pictures that were used in establishing the location of the Nix and Muchmore cameras on location in Dallas. Frame 10, which is the first one of the Nix series, is the one showing Mr. Zapruder standing on the projection.
Mr. SPECTER. And where was the viewing of the films and slides undertaken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They have been viewed here at the Commission--all those in addition to the ones I have made personally in the FBI Laboratory.
Mr. SPECTER. And was that down on the first floor of the VFW Building here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And was there any model available adjacent to the area where the films were shown, for use in re-creating or reconstructing the assassination events?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the model was available and used.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that the model which has been described earlier this afternoon by Inspector Gauthier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment.
Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich.
Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was present, with some aids, assistants.
Mr. SPECTER. Other aids from the FBI were also present?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted.
Mr. SPECTER. And were there representatives of the Secret Service participating in that onsite testing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. Inspector Kelley was present, Agent John Howlett was present, the driver of the car, or the Secret Service agent whose name I do not recall----
Mr. SPECTER. George Hickey?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And at what time did the onsite test start?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They started at 6 o'clock Sunday morning.
Mr. SPECTER. Why was that time selected?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The time was selected because of the traffic in the area. The Dallas Police Department recommended that that would be the most logical time to do it, causing the least problem with traffic.
Mr. SPECTER. At what time did the onsite tests conclude?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They concluded about 1 o'clock, 12:45 to 1 o'clock.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any subsequent testing done in Dallas on that day?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes;there was.
143
Page 144
Mr. SPECTER. And where was that testing undertaken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There was some testing done in a railway express agency garage nearby the assassination site.
Mr. SPECTER. At what time did that start?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That started at 3 p.m., and lasted until 5:30 p.m.
Mr. SPECTER. Where were the various individuals positioned who participated in these onsite tests at the outset, at, say, 6 a.m, on the 24th of May?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the very beginning, at 6 a.m., Mr. Rankin and Mr. Specter were in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which is the southeast corner of the building, sixth floor window, which was referred to as our control point, and where we had the master radio control for the other units.
Mr. Redlich was on the street with the car. At the car on the street were the occupants of the car, the Secret Service driver, Mr. Hickey, an agent from the FBI, who handled radio contact with control, Agents Anderton and Williams in the President's and Connally's seats, Mr. Gauthier and his aids, a surveyor, and I, were all on the ground in the vicinity of the car.
Agent Frazier was in the window of the Book Building at the control point with the rifle that was found at the window following the assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was that rifle found at the window or in another location on the sixth floor?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In another location on the sixth floor.
Mr. SPECTER. And that is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which was heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And where were you positioned on most of the occasions at the time of the onsite tests?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. For the first portion of them, I was at the car in the street, and at the position of Mr. Zapruder, the position from which he took his pictures.
Mr. SPECTER. What communications were available, if any, among the participants at the various locations heretofore described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had radio contact between all points.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in.
Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 886 for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film.
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. What is that exhibit number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SPECTER. And why was that location selected for the position of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This location was selected as the first point at which a person
144
Page 145
in the sixth floor window of the Book Building at our control point could have gotten a shot at the President after the car had rounded the corner from Houston to Elm.
Mr. SPECTER. And what position is station C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Station C is on a line drawn along the west curb line of Houston Street in a direct line, and station C is at a point along that line that is in line with where the car would have turned coming around that corner. It is on a line which is an extension of the west curb line of Houston Street.
Mr. DULLES. Where is position A on that chart?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Position A is here.
Mr. McCLOY. That is before you get to the tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet.
Mr. SPECTER. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A sighted on for measuring purposes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the President's stand-in?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Could the marksman then have taken a shot at the President at any prior position and have struck him with the point of entry on that spot, on the base of the President's neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't quite understand the question.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the distance between that point on the President and station C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 44 feet from station C--91.6 feet to the rifle in the window from the actual chalk mark on the coat. All measurements were made to the chalk mark on the coat.
Mr. SPECTER. On the coat of the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. The President's stand-in?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right. The angle to the rifle in the window was 40°10'.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the other data?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the overpass was 447 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0°27'; that is, 27' below the horizontal.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? How did you establish the location of the rifle in making those calculations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the rifle was established on the basis of other testimony and information furnished to us by the Commission, photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the assassination, and the known opening of the window.
It was an estimation of where the rifle most likely was based on the knowledge that the Commission has through testimony.
Mr. SPECTER. Senator Cooper, Mr. Frazier is present and has been sworn, and he is going to identify that. He could do it at this time, to pinpoint that issue.
145
Page 146
Senator COOPER. I think we can just make a note of that, and go ahead with this witness.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. We will proceed then with this witness and Mr. Frazier will testify in due course.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that this position was determined by Mr. Frazier in the window. We moved the car around until he told us from the window, viewing through the rifle, the point where he wanted the car to stop. And he was the one in the window that told us where the point A was. Once we established that, we then photographed it.
Mr. DULLES. Could he see the mark on the back of the coat from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; through the rifle scope, he could see the mark.
Mr. SPECTER. Does the picture designated "photograph through rifle scope" depict the actual view of the rifleman through the actual Mannlicher-Carcano weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. At point A.
Senator COOPER. When Mr. Frazier testifies, then, will he correlate this photograph with a frame from photographs taken of the actual motorcade at the time of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; we cannot correlate this with a frame from the motion picture because Mr. Zapruder didn't start taking pictures until the car had passed this point.
So we, therefore, on this frame and for the next two or three points, have no picture from Mr. Zapruder, since he wasn't taking pictures at that time.
Mr. DULLES. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.
Do I understand that you are not suggesting that a shot was necessarily fired at this point A, but this was the first point where this particular vision of the President's back could have been obtained?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is only an arbitrary point showing the first possible shot that could have entered the President's coat at this chalk mark.
Representative FORD. What criteria did you use for determining that you could see the chalk mark? Was the criteria a part or the whole of the chalk mark?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The actual manner in which it was set up--let me see if this answers your question. As we moved the car around, Mr. Frazier was in the window looking through the actual scope of the rifle, and could see very clearly the President or the man taking the President's place, as the car moved around.
And the instant that he could first see that chalk mark is the point where he radioed to us to stop the car, and is the first point at which a shot could be fired that would go in where the chalk mark is located.
Mr. DULLES. And that is point A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is point A. Does that answer your question?
Representative FORD. I think it does. Is that picture in the lower left-hand corner of Exhibit No. 886 an actual photograph taken through the sight of the weapon that was allegedly used in the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Representative FORD. And the chalk mark we see there is through that sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. And that is exactly what an individual looking through the sight would see.
Mr. SPECTER. Then at point A, could the rifleman see the entire back of the President's stand-in as well as the specific chalk mark, as depicted on the exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He could see only a portion of the back.
Mr. SPECTER. And the portion, which he could not see, is that which is below the seat level?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. You didn't say the President's stand-in, did you?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; stand-in.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, for purposes of illustration would you produce the photograph
146
Page 147
at this time showing the mounting of the motion picture camera on the weapon found on the sixth floor?
I now hand you a photograph which is being marked as Commission Exhibit No. 887 and ask you to state for the record who that is a picture of, and what else is in the photograph.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 887 for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight.
This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. 886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission.
Mr. DULLES. You used the same boxes, did you, that the assassin had used?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were those boxes used by Mr. Frazier.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They were used by Mr. Frazier and used in making the measurements. I had to use a tripod because of the weight of the camera and placed the elevation of the rifle at an approximate height in a position as though the boxes were there.
Mr. SPECTER. Was Mr. Frazier present at the time you positioned the rifle on the tripod?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he was.
Mr. SPECTER. Did he assist in describing for you or did you have an opportunity to observe the way he held a rifle to ascertain the approximate position of the rifle at that time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will, with Mr. Frazier, indicate, the reasons he held the rifle in the way he did to approximate the way we believe it was held at the time of the assassination.
What is the next position which has been depicted on one of your exhibits, please.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The next position that we established during the reenactment is frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture film.
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to mark that if you would as Commission Exhibit No. 888.
(Commission Exhibit No. 888 was marked for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This position which has been designated by us as frame 161 and as Commission Exhibit No. 888, was established as the last position that the car could be in where the rifleman in the window could get a clear shot of the President in the car before the car went under the covering of the tree.
Mr. SPECTER. How was that position located, from the ground or from the sixth floor?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was positioned by Mr. Frazier in the sixth floor window. In addition we knew from the Zapruder photographs the relative position of the car in the street as related to the curb and the guidelines or the lane lines.
147
Page 148
Following those lane lines we then moved the car down to a point where Mr. Frazier radioed to us that it was the last point at which he could get a clear shot and we stopped the car there.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you then select the appropriate frame from the Zapruder film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. After Mr. Frazier had stationed the car at this point, I then went to the position of Mr. Zapruder. Based on his motion pictures, a comparison of the photograph that we made with the photograph from the film, I was able to state that because of the relative position of the car in the street and in relation to other objects in the background, it corresponded to frame 161 of the motion picture.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have on Exhibit No. 888 a reproduction of frame 161?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the upper left-hand corner is a reproduction of the frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture. The picture on the upper right is a photograph that I made with a speed graphic camera from Zapruder's position of the car reestablished in that location. The photograph in the lower left-hand corner, is a photograph of the view through the rifle scope that Mr. Frazier saw at the time he positioned the car there. This is the view that you would obtain from looking through the rifle scope from the sixth floor window.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile in exactly the same position at the time of the taking of the "photograph through rifle scope" and the "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; approximately the same. We went through all stations with Mr. Frazier in the window and I took photographs from Mr. Zapruder's position, and once establishing a frame position, we marked it clearly in the street. After we had taken all of the photographs from Zapruder's position, we then took the car back, and went to the sixth floor window and mounted the motion picture camera on the rifle. These photographs were made by rolling the car in the same position based on the marks we had in the street so it was as accurate as could be done in the same position.
Mr. DULLES. There is no one sitting in that right-hand corner of the rear seat, is there in that picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the person taking President Kennedy's place is sitting in the back seat.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; I see it. It is rather hard to see through the trees.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we moved it up to a point where the chalk mark was just about to disappear on the street.
Mr. DULLES. I don't think I see the chalk mark maybe someone else can.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It may be covered by the crosshair of the rifle scope.
Representative FORD. In that picture photographed through the rifle scope on Exhibit No. 888 a man standing in for Governor Connally is also in the car, is he not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. He is mostly hidden by the tree.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; I see.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and. the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.
Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then
148
Page 149
sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 889.
(Commission Exhibit No. 889 was marked for identification.)
Mr. DULLES. Is that 10 inches difference due to the difference in the two cars?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. That is the President's--the car the President was in and the car you had to use for this particular test?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 889, is the car in the same position on the "photograph through rifle scope" as it is on "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, the same position.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the comparison between the photograph from Zapruder film on that Exhibit No. 889 and the photograph from reenactment?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The car is in the same position relative to the surrounding area in both the reenactment photograph and the Zapruder photograph.
Incidentally, the position that was used throughout all of the positioning of the car was the President's. His placement in the photograph, and this will be clearer in some of the later photographs, if the President's head was directly under a stop sign or a street sign or whatever, in the background, this was then the way we positioned the car with the person standing in for the President directly below or slightly to the side or directly below the stop sign and so on; so all of the calculations were based upon the position of the President.
Mr. SPECTER. Before leaving frame 161 finally, would you recite the distances which appear from the various points on that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes,
At the position that has been designated as frame 161, and appears on Commission Exhibit No. 888, the distance from the wound mark on a stand-in for President Kennedy to station C was 94.7 feet.
The distance to the rifle in the window was 137.4 feet, the angle to the window was 26°58' based on the horizontal line, the distance to the overpass was 392.4 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0°7'.
Mr. SPECTER. Are all angles calculated thereon based on the horizontal?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any street angle taken into consideration in the calculations here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is a 3° street grade that has to be deducted from the angle to the window to determine the actual angle from the street to the window as opposed to the horizon.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now----
Mr. DULLES. Frame 161 is 3° on 161?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees all along Elm Street.
Mr. DULLES. All along. That applies to all of these different pictures, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you now read the same statistical data from frame 166 on Exhibit No. 889, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
From the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, to station C is 95.6 feet, the distance to rifle in window, 138.2 feet, the angle to rifle in window based on the horizontal, is minus 26 52'.
Distance to overpass is 391.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0 7'.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the back of President Kennedy ever come into view at any time while he was passing through the foliage of the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What frame number was ascertained with respect to that position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was determined to be frame 185. There is a slight opening in the tree, where the car passed under the tree, where a shot could have
149
Page 150
been fired that would have passed through this opening in the tree. This again was positioned on the basis of Mr. Frazier in the window looking through the rifle scope and telling us on the street where to stop the car at the point where he could get a shot through the trees.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been assigned to frame 185?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 890, frame 185.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the "photograph through rifle scope" taken with the position of the car at the same place as "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And is the "photograph from reenactment" in the same position, as close as you could make it to the "photograph from Zapruder's film"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 185?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; from the point of the chalk on the back of the stand-in for the President at position 185 to station C is 114.8 feet, the distance to rifle on window is 154.9 feet.
The angle to rifle in window based on horizontal is 24°14', distance to overpass is 372.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°3' above horizontal.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any adjustment made for the difference in the height of the automobiles on the location where the back of the President's stand-in was visible through the tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was an adjustment made for the 10 inch differential in the heights because of the different cars, and this was established as frame 186.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number is affixed to frame 186?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 891.
Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 891 is the car in the same position in "photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the cars on those two pictures in the same positions on all of the frames which you are going to show this afternoon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. In the "photograph from Zapruder film", does that "photograph from Zapruder film" show the Presidential automobile to be in the same position or as close to the same position as you could make it as is the replica car in the "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 186, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
At frame 186 position the distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President was 116.3 feet from the station C. It was 156.3 feet to the rifle in the window.
The angle to the rifle in the window was 24°3' based on the horizontal. Distance to the overpass was 371.7 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°3'.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that position ascertained where the chalk spot on the back of President Kennedy's coat was first visible from the sixth floor window through the telescopic sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. This is after passing the tree.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. After passing out from under the oak tree.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What frame did that turn out to be?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was frame 207.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic sequence on frame 207?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 892.
150
Page 151
Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position on "photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment" on that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position, as closely as you could make it, on the "photograph from reenactment" and "photograph from Zapruder film"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now read the statistical data from that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President to the station C is 136.6 feet.
Distance to rifle in the window is 174.9 feet. The angle to the rifle in the window based on the horizontal is 21°50. The distance to the overpass is 350.9 feet, and the angle to the overpass is 0°12'.
This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892.
Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the layout of frame 210 exactly the same as that for frames 207 and 185 that you have already testified about?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. In viewing the films on the frames preceding 210, what was President Kennedy doing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He is waving to the crowd, and in some frames it is obvious that he is smiling, you can actually see a happy expression on his face and his hand----
Mr. DULLES. Which way is he turning, to the left or to the right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He is looking toward the crowd to his right during most of that area, he is looking slightly to his right. His arm is up on the side of the car and his hand is in a wave, in approximately this position and he appears to be smiling.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the latest frame count where, to your eye, it appears that he is showing no reaction to any possible shot?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately--I would like to explain a little bit, that at frames in the vicinity of 200 to 210 he is obviously still waving, and there is no marked change.
In the area from approximately 200 to 205 he is still, his hand is still in a waving position, he is still turned slightly toward the crowd, and there has been no change in his position that would signify anything occurring unusual. I see nothing in the frames to arouse my suspicion about his movements, up through in the areas from 200 on and as he disappears behind the signboard, there is no change.
Now, 205 is the last frame, 205 and 206 are the last frames where we see any of his, where we see the cuff of his coat showing above the signboard indicating his hand is still up generally in a wave.
From there on the frames are too blurry as his head disappears you can't really see any expression on his face. You can't see any change. It is all consistent as he moves in behind the signboard.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "signboard" what do you mean by that, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I refer to the sign that is between the photographer, Mr. Zapruder, and the Presidential car.
Representative FORD. Not any sign post between the rifleman and the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; this is a sign between the cameraman and the President. So that we are unable to see his reaction, if any.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the frame at which Governor Connally first emerges from behind the sign you just decribed?
151
731-221 O---64---vol. V----11
Page 152
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 222.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you prepared a model demonstration on frame 222?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has just been affixed on that frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 222 has been given Commission Exhibit No. 894.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the location of the automobile fixed from the window or from the street on frame 222?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On frame 222, the position of the automobile was fixed from the street, based on the photograph from the Zapruder film.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the various photographs on that frame and the various distances the same in terms of general layout as the prior exhibit you testified to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the first frame at which President Kennedy is visible coming out from behind that sign?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 225.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit has been affixed to frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 225 has been assigned Commission Exhibit No. 895.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, is detectable from a view of the Zapruder film frame 225 as to the positions or reaction of President Kennedy?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 225 there appears to be a reaction on the part of the President. This is----
Mr. SPECTER. Describe specifically what movement he is making in that picture or what his position is?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At frame 225 his hand is down, his right hand that was waving is down, and has been brought down as though it were reaching for his lapel or his throat. The other hand, his left had is on his lapel but rather high, as though it were coming up, and he is beginning to go into a hunched position.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say beginning to go into a hunched position is that apparent to you from viewing the motion picture and slides from the frames which succeed frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is primarily apparent from the motion picture because of the two or three or four frames that show as he emerges from the sign; that is, in the motion picture, you see the President reaching for his coat lapels and going into a hunched position, leaning forward and lowering his head.
Mr. McCLOY. That doesn't exist in frame 225 yet, does it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is just beginning in frame 225. That is frame 225 is the first view we have of the President.
Mr. McCLOY. Out past the sign.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. As he comes out from behind the sign that obstructs the cameraman from the President.
Mr. DULLES. But there is no obstruction from the sixth floor window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; no obstruction at this point. There is no obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Do the photographs on frame 225 depict the same circumstances as those depicted on the prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And do the measurements on frame 225 cover the same subjects as those covered on prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle from the rifle to the spot on the President's back on frame 210, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On frame 210, the angle from the rifle to the window, based on the horizon is 21°34'.
Mr. SPECTER. That is from the rifle to what, Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. From the rifle to the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President.
152
Page 153
Mr. SPECTER. What is the same angle at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 20°11'.
Mr. SPECTER. Those angles are computed to the horizontal?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the range of distance from the position of the car in frame 210 to the position of the car in frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 14.9 feet between frame 210 and frame 225.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the position of President Kennedy at frame 210 with respect to position C.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. President Kennedy is 138.9 feet from station C at frame 210.
Mr. SPECTER. Station C.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; station C to President Kennedy on frame 210 is 138.9 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the distance between station C and President Kennedy at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 153.8 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the car further positioned at frame 231?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number are we affixing to that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 896.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the photographs and measurements on 896 the same layout as those affixed to prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile stopped at frame 235 and similar photographs and measurements taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 235.
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Exhibit No. 897.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 240 with measurements and photographs taken similar to those in prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to that frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 898.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 249 with similar photographs and measurements taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And what Commission exhibit number is given to those calculations and photographs on frame 249?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit 899.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to frame 249, that is how many frames beyond the first point at which the spot on President Kennedy's back was visible after he passed out from under the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 249?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 42 frames.
Mr. SPECTER. And does a 42-frame count have any significance with respect to the firing time on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we have established that the Zapruder motion picture camera operates at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second. And we have been advised that the minimum time for firing the rifle in successive shots is approximately two and a quarter seconds. So this gives us then a figure of two and a quarter seconds of frames; at 18.3, this gives us this figure of 41 to 42 frames.
Representative FORD. Would you repeat that again, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The camera operates at a speed of 18.3 frames per second. So that in two and a quarter seconds it would run through about 42--41 to 42 frames.
Representative FORD. Then the firing of the rifle, repeat that again?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. As to the firing of the rifle we have been advised that the minimum time for getting off two successive well-aimed shots on the rifle is approximately two and a quarter seconds. That is the basis for using this 41
153
Page 154
to 42 frames to establish two points in the film where two successive quick shots could have been fired.
Representative FORD. That is with one shot and then the firing.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Work the bolt and fire another one.
Mr. SPECTER. At frame 249 was Governor Connally in a position where he could have taken a shot with the bullet entering at the point immediately to the left under his right armpit with the bullet then going through and exiting at a point immediately under his right nipple?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; Governor Connally has begun to turn in his seat around in this manner, in such a way, turn to his right so that his body is in a position that a shot fired from the sixth floor window could not have passed through the path that it reportedly took through his body, if the bullet followed a straight, undeflected path.
Mr. DULLES. I don't quite get that. You mean because of his having turned this way, the shot that was then--had then been fired and apparently had hit the President could not have gone through him at that point?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct under the stated conditions. Even a shot, independent of the shot that hit the President, could not have gone through in that manner, coming from the sixth floor window, because the window was almost directly behind the automobile at that time and the Governor was in a position where the bullet couldn't have gone through his body in the manner that it reportedly did.
It would have come in through his shoulder and out through the other shoulder, in the way that he was lined up with the window.
Mr. SPECTER. So you say it could have gone through him, but it could not have passed through him with the angle of entry as disclosed in the Parkland Hospital records and described by Dr. Shaw?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, if it followed a straight path.
Mr. SPECTER. And exiting immediately under his right nipple, again as described in the hospital records at Parkland and by Dr. Shaw.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Have those points of entry and exit been made available to you in your analysis of this situation?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they have.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you elaborate just a little further on the observations and reasoning which you have undertaken to come to the conclusion which you have just expressed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We are speaking of frame 249, are we?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir, frame 249.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Could I see that exhibit? The photograph in the lower left corner of Commission Exhibit No. 899 is the photograph taken through the scope of the rifle on the sixth floor window when the car was stationed in this frame number position. It is noted from this photograph that the rifle is not quite directly behind the car but very nearly directly behind the car.
Governor Connally's body is turned. We have duplicated the position in the Zapruder photographs of Governor Connally and the President in the reenactment photograph, as nearly as possible, duplicated the same body position, and from the sixth floor window then you can see from the photograph that the Governor's body is turned to the Governor's right in such a fashion that an undeflected shot would not go through in the path as described by the Parkland doctors.
Mr. McCLOY. I don't quite follow that yet. The President has been shot at frame 249, according to your theory.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Might he not also have been shot at some earlier frames in--the indications are the reactions are shown considerably ahead of that frame.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. So, for. example, at frame 237 and at frame 237 Governor Connally hasn't turned to the right.
Mr. DULLES. But a shot has been fired at this time.
154
Page 155
Mr. McCLOY. But a shot has been fired at that time.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. So at that point he could have been hit; Governor Connally could have been hit.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Governor Connally could have been hit by frame 238.
Mr. McCLOY. But your point is when he gets farther along, he couldn't have been hit, let's say at frame 249 in the same spot where he was hit.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. He made the turn later than those frames you have been discussing at the time apparently of the first shot at the President.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; the first shot, but according to these frames, the first shot hit the President considerably before this.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And at a time again when Governor Connally's back was square to the window.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, not exactly square. I believe he was turned slightly to the right as he went behind the sign.
Mr. McCLOY. Take frame 231.
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. There the President has got his hands up as you put it to his throat.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. And here is Connally facing to the front.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. So at that point a bullet coming through the President's throat could have hit Connally in the spot where it did hit Connally.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am going to defer that question to Mr. Frazier who is in the window with the rifle scope and made a more thorough study of the possible path of the bullet. But he is straight in the car in frame 231.
Mr. McCLOY. But your testimony is in frame 248--frame 249 Connally couldn't have been hit from this window in the position where he was sitting.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, on the basis stated.
Mr. DULLES. But you would have then the problem you would think if Connally had been hit at the same time, would have reacted in the same way, and not reacted much later as these pictures show.
Mr. McCLOY. That is right.
Mr. DULLES. Because the wounds would have been inflicted.
Mr. McCLOY. That is what puzzles me.
Mr. DULLES. That is what puzzles me.
Senator COOPER. Would you identify the frame in which Governor Connally started turning to the right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as--in the motion picture as the car comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and there is a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there, at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn.
Mr. DULLES. Jerky motion in Connally in the film.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is--it may be merely where he stopped turning and started turning this way. It is hard to analyze.
Mr. DULLES. What I wanted to get at--whether it was Connally who made the jerky motion or there was something in the film that was jerky. You can't tell.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. You can't tell that.
Mr. McCLOY. Certainly the film is jerky at that point. I mean there is a big blur.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He does turn.
Mr. McCLOY. Just before and after that.
Representative FORD. But isn't it apparent in those pictures that after a
155
Page 156
slight hesitation Governor Connally's body turns more violently than the President's body?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. The President's only reaction is a motion to his throat or to his neck with his hands.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Representative FORD. Whereas Governor Connally actually turns his body rather sharply?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he turns as they go behind the signboard, he turns this way and he is turning a little bit this way and as he comes out of the signboard he is facing slightly to the right, comes around straight on and then he turns to his left straight on, and then he turns to his right, continues to turn around and falls over in Mrs. Connally's lap.
But in the motion picture it is a continuous movement as he goes around and fills.
Senator COOPER. Will you again answer my question which I asked and hasn't been answered and I say with all respect, in what frame did Governor Connally begin to turn to the right after he had placed his position straightforward as you have testified.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am sorry. That starts approximately at frames 233 to 234.
Senator COOPER. In what frame does the photograph show or in what frame is it shown that President Kennedy had moved his hands to his throat?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That shows on frame--it is clearer on frame 226, 225 is the frame where you first see him, and frame 226.
Mr. DULLES. How many frames between those two?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. From 26 to 33, eight. That would be a fraction of a second in time.
That is less than half second.
Representative FORD. It can be contended that based on these photographs of films that the first shot apparently was fired in frames 220 to 224, in that area.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I think you have to go back even to 210 because of reaction times; we don't know reaction times. But I would say between 210 and 225 because at 295 we have the President reacting.
So, in that 15 frames there it is behind the signboard, we can't see what is happening.
Mr. DULLES. What frame first shows him with his hands at his throat?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 225, 226.
Mr. McCLOY. 225, it is not too clear. It is much more pronounced in the next frame is where he puts his both hands to his throat, such as that.
Mr. DULLES. And Mrs. Kennedy has apparently turned around and looking at him.
Mr. McCLOY. One hand may be coming down from waving in 225.
Mr. DULLES. That is his left hand there--no; it is his right hand, your right. His right hand.
Representative FORD. Then based on the mathematics of how quickly a second shot could be fired, the second shot would be fired in approximately what frame? If you assume it, the first shot is from 210 to 224.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be 252 to 266, down in there.
Representative FORD. That would be the elapsed time of what?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Two and a quarter seconds.
Representative FORD. Two and a quarter seconds.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the very quickest.
Mr. SPECTER. On fixing the range from frames 210 to 225, where the President was first struck, did you take frame 210 because that was the first point after the President had passed out from under the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the first point from this, and although we are able to see in the films that there is no apparent reaction from the President from 205 to 210, and as he disappears from behind the signboard, we cannot estimate the reaction time.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say reaction time you mean?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Of the President?
156
Page 157
Mr. SPECTER. Reaction time from 205----
Representative FORD. To 210?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. But there at frame 210, that is the first point at which the marksman had a clear shot after the President passed out from under the tree.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Representative FORD. Then you select frame 225 as the outside limit of the shot which struck the President because that is where you first observe a reaction by the President when he comes out from behind the sign.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. What frames are blanked out because of the sign?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The President, the last we get any scene of him at all, and this is just the very top of his head is 210.
Mr. DULLES: 210 to what is blanked out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 225.
Mr. DULLES. To 225 is blanked out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, that is 15 frames.
Mr. McCLOY. 224 he just begins to appear.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. I don't think if you assume the President was hit at 225 and 1 don't think that is clear at all. I think it begins to get clear about 227 that he had been hit, that the reaction really develops. But I think that 225 it my very well be that he has not been hit because his hand isn't at his throat, he may be just moving from the position of waving.
Mr. DULLES. But that is about a tenth of a second.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; it is a very short time entirely, but I don't think the frame unequivocally shows the reaction to the, bullet at 225. I think it does unequivocally show it at 226 and 227.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps an additional question on the clarity of the slide itself as a point of reaction would be in order for Mr. Shaneyfelt, and then, may I say parenthetically, we want to have the Commission see these slides this afternoon.
We have prepared them to show to you so that you can observe for yourself what we are bringing to you through the witness to give you a frame of reference and an orientation.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, then what was your impression by frame 225, as you viewed it most recently this morning, with respect to a possible reaction on that frame made from the original Zapruder film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my feeling that at frames 225, 226 and 227 you are having a reaction. You have a split second there, and at 225 the reaction is barely discernible, more discernible on the film and the slides than the reproduction you have here but it has to be considered in the light of the motion picture you see as he starts this reaction, and the reaction is by frame in either the slides or pictures--is clearly apparent in 226, and barely apparent in 225.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was frame 249 selected as a situs for calculations on the possible construction that President Kennedy was struck in the back at the first point unadjusted at which he emerged from the tree, to wit: frame 207, with an additional calculation of 42 frames giving the approximately two and a quarter seconds for the firing of a second shot to determine through this one means whether there was time for the rifleman to have operated the bolt, assuming he made a shot at 207, and to have made another shot at the earliest possible time at 249.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the selection of frame 249, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, going back just a moment, was frame 231 selected as a basis for analysis as the first frame after 225 because Governor Connally expressed the opinion when he viewed the frames that he thought he was hit by or at frame 231.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
157
Page 158
Mr. SPECTER. And was frame 235 selected as a basis of analysis because that was one point at which a number of the viewers, including staff and agents of the FBI and Secret Service thought that might be the last frame at which Governor Connally had turned enough to the right to still take a shot and have the bullet pass through his body from the sixth floor window at the angle described in the medical reports and by his doctors.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct on the basis of an undeflected path. That is the frame that the doctors selected as the frame beyond which he could not have received this shot and have it travel in the path that it reportedly traveled.
Mr. SPECTER. Was frame 240 selected for analysis as being the absolutely last time, based on the observations of those whom you have described as seeing the films, that the Governor could have conceivably taken a shot from the sixth floor window and have it pass through the body of the Governor in the way described in the medical reports and by the Governor's doctors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the analysis, made on the ability of the Governor to take the shot at each of the positions, based on the position he had at that particular frame in accordance with the amount of turn to the right which he had made at that particular time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there a still photograph known as AP photograph, which was taken at the time of the assassination or a view seconds thereafter, studied by you and others in connection with the analysis that you have been describing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the simulated automobile placed in the same position that the Presidential automobile was in when the photograph was made by the AP photographer, as closely as it could be positioned at the time of the reenactment?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is attached to the photographs of that AP shot and the reenactment picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 900.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe what Photographs appear then on Commission Exhibit No. 900?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Commission Exhibit No. 900, the top photograph is a photograph purportedly made by an AP photographer shortly after one of the shots. It depicts the side of the Governor's head, the left side of the Governor's head, his ear is visible, he has turned considerably. It depicts the President's hand touching his lapels, and a portion of the President's face.
Secret Service agents on the followup car are seen also. The Texas School Book Building in the background.
The reenactment photograph was made after positioning the car by looking at the photograph, based on the position of the car as related to the lane line in the street, as related to the position of the building, the column of the building and so on to reestablish the location.
We also reestablish in reenactment the position of the agent taking Governor Connally's position in the car used in the reenactment and the position of President Kennedy to closely approximate the actual photograph made by the AP, Associated Press. This was then studied, the car in this position was then studied, from the Zapruder position, and was determined to be frame 255.
Mr. SPECTER. Was an exhibit prepared then on frame 255?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 255?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 901.
Mr. SPECTER. Does that have the same layout of Photographs and measurements as on frames 225, 222 and those which preceded them.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has. It has the Zapruder photographs, the matching reenactment photograph, and the photograph through the rifle scope along with the measurements and the angles.
Mr. SPECTER. On the AP Photograph shown on Commission Exhibit No. 900, what reaction, if any, do you observe by the Secret Service agents on the followup car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Secret Service agents on the right-hand side of the
158
Page 159
followup car are looking back and to their right. The one to the front on the left-hand side of the car is looking generally toward the President.
The one in back of him on the left fender is looking slightly to his right.
Representative FORD. What is the distance on frame 255 between the President and the rifle?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the rifle in the window is 218 feet. This is frame 255, which is well past the signboard, well past 249 which is the last frame we considered.
Mr. McCLOY. Well past the first evidence of reaction?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. On the part of the President to a shot.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well past, and past the point in the film where Governor Connally states he has been hit.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that simulated car placed in any other position to duplicate still a subsequent frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the frame No. 313, which is the frame that records the shot to the President's head, was recorded as frame 313 and was reestablished during reenactment.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission number has been affixed to frame 313?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 902.
Mr. SPECTER. Is this exhibit organized in a somewhat different fashion from the prior frame exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you start with the photograph in the upper left-hand corner and describe for the Commissioners, please, each photograph or picture which appears thereon and what it represents?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I might state first that all of the other photographs were reestablished on the basis of the Zapruder film using reference points in the background of the pictures.
As is apparent here from the photograph of the Zapruder frame 313 there are no reference points. There is just a grassy plot. So there is no reference point on which we can reestablish the position of the car in the roadway.
For this reason it was necessary to use the Nix film of the head shot and the Muchmore film of the head shot to establish this position in the road.
The right-hand photograph represents frame 24 from the Nix film, and is the frame that depicts the shot to the head. We used Mr. Nix's camera and a print of this picture and stood in the previously determined position of Mr. Nix when he took his photographs, and had them roll the car down to a position so that the President's head was directly under the point where Mr. Zapruder is standing on the projection.
Mr. SPECTER. You are describing the photograph on which side----
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the----
Mr. SPECTER. Of the viewer.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the upper left-hand side.
Mr. McCLOY. I think you said right.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper left-hand photograph is the photograph from the taken from the frame 24 of the Nix film.
The photograph on the right, upper right, is the photograph taken at the re-enactment from the position where Mr. Nix was standing. We then proceeded over to the point that we had established as the position of Mrs. Muchmore, and using frame 42, which is a frame in her film depicting the shot to the head, and using the steps and their relation to the President and the objects in the background in relation to the President as shown in this lower left-hand photograph, which is the Muchmore frame 42, we reestablished, we checked the position we had placed the car in, based on the Nix photographs, and found that it conformed and checked out as being in a closely accurate position.
This is the basis used for establishing the position of the car. After we had established that, through the Nix and Muchmore films, we then checked it against the Zapruder photograph, which is the second from the top on the left of Commission Exhibit No. 902, frame 313, which shows the explosion from the top of the President's head. Just to the right of that second
159
Page 160
picture down from the right, is the photograph made at the reenactment from Zapruder's position.
We know from studying the films that just two or three frames before frame 313 we can see a little bit of yellow along the curb, and this checks out because along this area of the photograph from the Zapruder position of the reenactment is a yellow strip.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say this area you are referring to the yellow area which appears on the left-hand curb immediately to the rear of the simulated car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, and this, therefore, checks out this as being a fairly accurate position for the car in frame 313.
This photograph then, the third down on the left, is a photograph through the telescope of the rifle of the car positioned in frame 313.
Mr. McCLOY. Would you read off those dimensions from that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The dimensions from the surveyor on frame 313 of the distance from the wound mark on the President's stand-in to station C is 230.8 feet.
Distance to the rifle in the window is 265.3 feet. The angle to rifle in window is 15°21' and this is based on the horizontal.
Distance to the overpass is 260.6 feet, the angle to the overpass is 1°28'.
Mr. SPECTER. What would the angle be considering the adjustment on the angle of the street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be less 3° or 12°21', approximately.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say approximately is that because the adjustment is somewhat greater than 3°?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. How much is it exactly, if you know?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 3.9. It is almost 4.
Mr. SPECTER. Three degrees nine minutes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees nine minutes, I am sorry.
Mr. DULLES. Would you have to make a similar adjustment to the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because the angle to the overpass is based on the horizontal. The overpass, you would have to add the 3°9'.
Mr. DULLES. From the overpass, is this an angle up or angle down?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an angle down.
Mr. DULLES. So it is an angle down in both cases?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say that you are reducing the angle of 15°21' by to an angle of 12°12', is that as the shot passes through the body of the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is at that point.
Mr. SPECTER. How was the speed of the camera ascertained, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore; their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or for the full running time, and averages were taken.
Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to more or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras are approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into consideration and were averaged.
The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second.
The Nix and Muchmore cameras were both found around 18.5 frames per second.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a
160
Page 161
specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313.
This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds.
This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run.
Mr. DULLES. Over the entire run between what points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Between frame 161 and 313.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; but where, could you place that on that chart, for example?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And describe the points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 161 which is the frame where they have just gone under the tree, to frame 313 which is the shot to the head. So that it is that distance there which is 136.1 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. In referring to those points, will you specify what exhibit number you are referring to there?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is----
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if we could mark those points on that exhibit?
Mr. SPECTER. Of course, Mr. Dulles.
That is Commission Exhibit No. 883, is it not, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you take the first point Mr. Dulles has referred to and mark it as point X. I think we already have some letter designations in the early part of the alphabet.
Mr. McCLOY. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The first point?
Mr. SPECTER. This frame 161.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film.
Mr. DULLES. It is only to get the speed and distance here.
Mr. McCLOY. It has no relation to any shots.
Mr. DULLES. No relation to shots. Speed and distance.
Mr. SPECTER. It is the first frame we have where the marksman has his last clear shot of the back of the President's neck before it passes under the tree without adjustment. Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. What letter designations did you want?
Mr. SPECTER. Mark 161, frame 161, with the letter designation X, if you will, please.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And 313?
Mr. SPECTER. With the letter designation Y.
Mr. McCLOY. The record ought to show the two points are the point which you merely calculated the speed at which the car is going, isn't that right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Between those two points the car went at an average speed of 11.2 miles an hour?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Between point X and Y on Exhibit No. 883 the speed of the car was determined to be an average speed of 11.2 miles per hour.
Mr. DULLES. How long did the car take to go that distance, do you know, translated into time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 8.3 seconds.
Mr. DULLES. 8.3 seconds.
161
Page 162
Mr. SPECTER. What motion pictures, if any, were taken during the reenactment?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. During the reenactment the black-and-white photographs were made from Zapruder's position with a Speedgraphic camera and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they were established with the car just stationary in those locations.
After establishing all those points and making these film records of it, we then had the car proceed along that Elm Street route at approximately 11 miles per hour, and filmed it with Mr. Zapruder's camera loaded with color film from Mr. Zapruder's position and simultaneously photographed it with Mr. Nix's camera from Mr. Nix's position, and Mrs. Muchmore's camera from Mrs. Muchmore's position, and this was done twice.
(Off the record.)
Mr. SPECTER. The last question was about what movies and stills you took?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We haven't discussed them all yet.
Mr. SPECTER. Were any other movies taken or photographs taken in addition to those which you heretofore described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; after positioning the car in the street at the specific locations and making the movies with the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore cameras with the car running at 11 miles an hour on the route, I then went to the sixth-floor window and mounted the camera on the rifle, and photographs were made with black and white film motion pictures of the car in the fixed positions from frame 161 through frame positions 313. The car was stopped at each position. The individuals and the car were positioned by Mr. Gauthier on the street using the Zapruder pictures to reposition the individuals in the car, and motion pictures were made of the car sitting in those various positions. After this the car was driven at 11 miles an hour along the route and photographs were made through the rifle scope with a 16-mm. motion picture camera following the car as a target, as the car drove down the assassination route.
Following this, there were three runs made on black and white film. Then color film was loaded in the camera and it was again photographed on color film, 16 mm. with the car traveling at 11 miles an hour and the scope of the rifle following the car as the target.
This completed all the photographs that were made at the assassination site.
Mr. SPECTER. Was a subsequent photograph taken in the garage which you previously identified as the railway express garage?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat, even though you have heretofore mentioned them, the angles between the spot on the back of President Kennedy's neck which was marked with a white chalk mark and the muzzle of the rifle when the car was positioned at frame 210?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the rifle in the window was 21°34'.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the comparable angle at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 20 11'.
Mr. SPECTER. So what would be the average angle then between those two points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The average angle, allowing for the 309, street grade results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of 17°43'30''.
Mr. SPECTER. And that is the average angle from the muzzle to President Kennedy as he sat in the car or President Kennedy's stand-in as he sat in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. To the wound entrance.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the average angle of 17 43'30'' measured from the muzzle to the President's body as the President would be seated in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is out on the street in those frame positions, yes. It is measured to the point of the wound on the back of the President.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph.
162
Page 163
Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at an angle of 17°43'30''.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He did.
Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from the signboard.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a couple of questions?
Am I correct in assuming that you have made these determinations about the degree of the angle of the trajectory of the bullet at the time the President was struck, locating the position of the President in the car on the one hand, and the location of the rifle at the time the shots were fired?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the wound, you mean the angle of the wound?
Senator COOPER. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle----
Senator COOPER You had to establish the position of the President at the time the bullet struck him and the position of the rifle to make a determination about the degree of the angle of the direction?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The positions in the car, their positions in the car, were based on the Zapruder film.
Senator COOPER And you were able to determine what you think very accurately the position of the President in the car by the films that you have examined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Senator COOPER. Then the factor then, which is not determinable exactly, then is the location of the rifle, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. Upon what did you determine the location of the rifle upon what factors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rifle was positioned in the sixth floor window of the Book Building where the cartridges were found, and was determined from information furnished by representatives of the Commission.
Senator COOPER. Did you have information about the location of certain boxes that were seen--were found--at the window after the shooting occurred?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Yes; we had photographs of the boxes and we were advised, of the approximate position in the window and how far down the window was, the fact that some observers noted the rifle sticking out the window.
163
Page 164
Senator COOPER. I want to ask you--you did have information from the testimony of witnesses who said they saw the rifle protruding from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had this information furnished to us by the Commission.
Senator COOPER. And those facts, those locations were made known to you, and upon that evidence did you locate the rifle, in making these calculations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the location of the rifle in all of our calculations.
Senator COOPER. Just one other question. Assuming that there might have been some variation in the location of the rifle, length of the window, the breadth of the window, or that the rifle you used was held higher than the rifle might have been, would it have made how much variation would it have made, in your judgement, in these calculations you made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't believe that any movement of the rifle in that specific window would alter our calculations to any appreciable degree if you stay within that window, because our reenactment and our repositioning of the bodies in the car based on the photographs is subject to some variation, too, so we have variations throughout.
And the variations from the position of the rifle at that particular window, I feel would be negligible.
Senator COOPER. At every point where you made it, hypothetically, at least, made the determination that at a particular point the President was struck by a bullet, at that point the car and the President could be seen from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Even under the tree you still could see the car and the President through the tree.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did the surveyors calculate the angle and distance from each position where the simulated car was stopped from the President to the triple underpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER And are those figures reproduced in terms of distance to overpass, and angle to overpass on every one of the exhibits which also depict distance to window, referring to the sixth floor window, and angle to rifle in window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they do. They are on all the exhibits.
Mr. SPECTER. Now; is there any point on the overpass where the angle to the President's car or the angle to the President's stand-in seated in the simulated car, would permit a shot to be fired and to create the wound in the President's neck, which has an angle of decline of approximately 17°, based on the information furnished to you by the medical evidence, which we have asked you to assume, where that wound could be inflicted on the President's neck without regard to the point of entry?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; none of the angles from the overpass are anywhere near 17°. They range from frame 161 at a minus 7', from horizontal, to frame 313 which is 1°28'. None of them are even close to 17°.
Senator COOPER. From the exhibit that has been introduced, showing the position of the car and the President at the time of the first shot--what was the distance from that point to the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The approximate location of the first shot----
Senator COOPER. Frame what?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, the exact frame has not been established, but it would be in the range from frames 207 to 225. At frame 207, the distance to the handrail on a line of sight vision to the wound on the President is 350.9 feet. At frame 225 the line of sight distance from the handrail of the overpass to the wound on the President is 334 feet.
Senator. COOPER. What is the distance at those points to the window in the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 207 line of sight distance from the wound to the window is 174.9 feet. This distance to the overpass from there is 350.9.
On frame 225, line of sight to the window is 190.8 feet as opposed to the distance to the handrail on the overpass of 334.0 feet.
Senator COOPER. Did you yourself stand at the handrail of the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Did I?
164
Page 165
Senator COOPER. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean, Mr. Shaneyfelt, by line of sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Straight line distance.
Representative FORD. Is that what is calculated by the surveyor?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct; by Mr. West.
Mr. SPECTER. Were there members of the testing teams that did go to the handrail at the triple underpass to make observations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were.
Mr. SPECTER. Who were they?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am not real sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, those conclude my questions for Mr. Shaneyfelt. If it please the Commission, I would like to call Mr. Frazier at this time.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Robert A. Frazier
Page 165
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED
Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Mr. FRAZIER. Robert A. Frazier.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, you have appeared before to testify, but will you at this juncture again give us the outline of your occupation and experience?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
I work in the firearms identification unit in the laboratory, making examinations of firearms, bullets, the effects of bullets, trajectories, firing tests, powder pattern tests, and various other types of examinations.
(At this point Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)
Mr. SPECTER. Have you appeared heretofore before the Commission to testify about examinations which you have conducted of the clothing worn by President Kennedy, the clothing worn by Governor Connally, the examination of the Presidential limousine and certain ballistics information?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests at Dallas on May 24, 1964?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What was your position during most of the time of those onsite tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. I was stationed at the window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at the southeast corner of the building.
Mr. SPECTER. How far was that window open at the time the tests were being conducted?
Mr. FRAZIER. I estimated it as approximately one-third. It was somewhat less than halfway open.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that the distance depicted on Commission Exhibit No. 492, which has heretofore been introduced in evidence?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the distance open on that window about the same as that which you had it open at the time these tests were run?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say that this is very close. The window was placed according to information already furnished to the Commission as to how much it had been opened at that time.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you handle the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle during the course of the onsite tests?
Mr. FRAZIER Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. The rifle previously identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. At what position--what was the basis for your positioning of that rifle during those tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. To position the rifle, we selected boxes of the same size and contour as boxes shown in a photograph or rather in two photographs, reportedly taken by the police department at Dallas shortly after the assassination.
165
Page 166
We placed these boxes in their relative position in front of the window spacing them from left to right, according to the photographs which were furnished to us, and also placing them up against the window, with one of them resting on the window ledge as it was shown in the photographs.
Mr. SPECTER. In addition to the placement of the boxes, were there any other guides which you had for reconstructing the position of the rifle to the way which you believed it to have been held on November 22, 1963?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; there was one physical obstruction in the building which could not be moved consisting of two vertical pipes located just at the left side of the sixth floor window. These prevented me or anyone who was shooting from that window from moving any further to the left.
The position of the rifle, of course, had to be such that it could be sighted out through the window, using the telescopic sight high enough above the window ledge so that the muzzle of the weapon would clear the window ledge, and low enough in position so that the bottom of the window, which was only partially raised, would not interfere with a view through the telescopic sight, which is approximately 2 inches higher than the actual bore of the weapon.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you position the rifle further, based on information provided to you concerning the testimony of certain eyewitnesses at the assassination scene concerning what they observed?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we attempted to put the muzzle of the weapon sufficiently far out the window so it would have been visible from below.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, referring to Commission Exhibit No. 886, did you view through the sight that depicted in "photograph through rifle scope" on the positioning of the Presidential limousine or the car to simulate the limousine at position A?
Mr. FRAZIER Yes, sir; this would be the first position that an individual in that sixth floor window could sight at the car due to the interference of the window ledge of the building and the fact that the angle downward is limited by the partially lowered window.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 888 and ask you if you had the view depicted on the "photograph through the rifle scope" shown on that exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this Exhibit No. 888 is frame 161, and is the position at which I had the car stopped just before the spot, indicating the entrance wound on the back of the President's stand-in, passed into the foliage of the tree.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Exhibits Nos. 889, 890, and 891, and ask you if you had the view on each of those depicted in the "photograph through rifle scope"?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine.
Mr. DULLES. Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter.
Mr. FRAZIER. They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile.
You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's stand-in.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. FRAZIER. Continuing with Commission Exhibit No. 890, represented by frame ----
Mr. McCLOY. Hold that around so I can see it.
Mr. FRAZIER. Represented by frame 185, this is the first or rather the only position through the foliage of the tree at which a person from the sixth floor
166
Page 167
could get a clear shot at the back of the President, and I had the car stopped at this position and then we determined that this was frame 185 from the Zapruder films.
Mr. DULLES. There are no heavy limbs in there of any kind, are there----
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. That would obstruct a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The tree--it is a live oak tree which retains its leaves all year around and the limbs at that point are relatively small.
Mr. DULLES. All right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you compare the appearance of the foliage on the pictures taken by the Secret Service, about which Inspector Kelley earlier testified, with the appearance of the foliage on May 24?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. What was that comparison?
Mr. FRAZIER. They are so nearly identical that you could not really pick out any difference between the foliage and the photograph taken previously in November.
In Commission Exhibit No. 891, which is marked frame 186, this is the adjusted position to which the car was moved to accommodate the 10-inch distance at which the actual wound in the President would have been located had the car been the actual Presidential limousine rather than the stand-in car.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you standing, seated, or kneeling at the time when these photographs were taken and the sighting of the rifle was made by you.
Mr. FRAZIER. I was actually sitting on a carton with my left elbow resting on the boxes stacked in front of the window.
Mr. SPECTER. Did that position represent to you the most likely position which the rifleman assumed on November 22, 1963, based upon the positioning of the various boxes?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And the eyewitness accounts as to how far the rifle protruded?
Mr. FRAZIER Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in all of the frames that you have described up to now, did you position the automobile on the street or give instructions over the radio as to where the automobile ought to be stopped for those various sightings?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 892 and 893, and ask you if you observed the views depicted in the "photograph through rifle scope" on each of those exhibits?
Mr. FRAZIER. On Commission Exhibit No. 892, also marked frame No. 207, the car was moved forward under the tree to the point where the spot on the Presidential stand-in's back just became visible beyond the foliage of the tree. I had the car stopped at that point so that this photograph could be made there.
On Commission Exhibit No. 893, also marked frame 210, we have the photograph made at the adjusted position to accommodate the 10-inch difference in height between the stand-in and the actual position of the wound above the street and on the President's body.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the alinement of President Kennedy's stand-in with Governor Connally's stand-in at frames 207 and 210?
Mr. FRAZIER. They both are in direct alinement with the telescopic sight at the window. The Governor is immediately behind the President in the field of view. Was that your question?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. FRAZIER. Alinement of people?
Mr. SPECTER Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could Governor Connally have taken a shot in the range of frames 207 to 210 which would have traversed his body with the entry and exit points being approximately what they were shown to be through the medical records?
Preliminarily, let me ask you if, for the record, you had seen or had made available to you the contents of the medical records showing the point of entry on the back of the Governor and the point of exit on the front side of his chest?
167
731-221 O---64---vol. V----12
Page 168
Mr. FRAZIER No, sir; I don't recall having seen the medical testimony. However, information has been furnished to me by Commission members as to the relative positions on the back and the front of the Governor.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you in addition had an opportunity to examine personally the clothing worn by the Governor consisting of his jacket and shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the Governor's position then in frames 207 and 210, was he lined up so that a bullet fired from the sixth floor would have passed through his body in about the way that the entry and exit holes were described to you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say that this could have happened at these two frames.
However, this would assume that the path of the bullet through the Governor's body was the same as the path of the bullet before it struck, that is, there was no appreciable deflection in the body itself. Since I have no actual technical evidence available to me that there was no deflection, I can only say that it is a possibility under the circumstances as set up in these photographs.
Mr. SPECTER. You would state that as a possibility based upon the observations you made and the facts provided to you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
I now hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 894 and 895 and ask you if you saw the photograph as depicted on the "photograph through rifle sight" on those exhibits?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Commission Exhibit No. 894 is marked frame 222, and the photograph through the scope is the same field which I saw looking through the telescope on May 24, 1964.
This is similarly true of Commission Exhibit No. 895--895 being frame No. 225.
Mr. SPECTER. I now show you Exhibits Nos. 896 and 897 and ask you if the picture shown on "photograph through rifle scope" is that which you observed at the times those pictures were taken.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This Exhibit No. 896 is also marked frame No. 231, and represents the relative positions of the President's and Governor's stand-in on May 24.
Commission Exhibit No. 897, which is marked frame 235, also represents the positions of the Presidential and Governor's stand-in as I saw it from the sixth floor on that date.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Exhibits Nos. 899, 898, and 901 and ask if you saw the pictures or if your view was the same as "photograph through rifle scope" depicted on those exhibits?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are. In each case Commission Exhibit No. 898, which is marked frame 240, Commission Exhibit No. 899, which is also marked frame 249, and Commission Exhibit No. 901, which is also marked frame 255.
In the "photographs through the scope" the individuals representing the President and the Governor are as they were positioned on May 24.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, assuming certain factors, Mr. Frazier, to wit: That the President and Governor Connally were seated in an open automobile in the approximate positions taken by the President's stand-in and the Governor's stand-in during the onsite tests, that a bullet passed through President Kennedy entering at a velocity of 1,900 feet per second striking 14 centimeters below the right mastoid process and 14 centimeters to the left of the right acromion process which is the tip of the right shoulder, that the bullet passed through a fascia channel, hitting no bones, and proceeded in a straight line, exiting through the lower one-third of his neck, passing out of his shirt at the position which you observed personally from your inspection of the President's shirt, nicking the knot on the President's tie in the way you observed from your examination of that tie; do you have an opinion as to whether it is probable, based on the fact which I have asked you to assume, that a bullet could have gone through the President and missed the interior of the limousine and all of its occupants between frames 207 and 225?
168
Page 169
Mr. FRAZIER. I can give you my opinion based on this reconstruction, as I understand your question.
All of these things refer to the reconstruction and assuming particularly that the path of the projectile to the President was also the same path, the same angle as it went through his body and then on, and in that connection, yes.
In my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car itself or an occupant of the car.
Mr. SPECTER. And is that a probable opinion of yours based on what you saw during the tests and the facts I have asked you to assume?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is, and in fact, I think it is rather--it is obvious when you look at the photographs themselves that the crosshair of the telescopic sight actually would give you the point of impact of the bullet if the weapon is sighted in and if there is no change in the line of sight the bullet had to strike the cars shown in each of these photographs which is frame 225 on this end of this series, and frame 207 on the other end of the series.
It shows that there would be no chance for the bullet to miss the car at all if it had no deviation in its--if it had no deflection in its path.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine the car shortly after the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did, on the early morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. SPECTER. The record will show you have testified about it heretofore, but will you again state at this juncture whether or not you found any indication within the car that the interior of the car was struck by a missile proceeding at a high velocity such as 1,775 feet per second?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; we found none.
We examined in particular the passenger's section, the rear seat area of the back of the automobile clear up to the back of the rear seat, the rear seat itself, the floorboards and the back of the front seat, the backs primarily of the jump seats, and other areas in the front of the car, the windshield and the chrome and the front hoods and fenders and sides of the automobile and we found no evidence of a bullet impact having those characteristics you mentioned.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you also examine the windshield of the car, interior and exterior?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And the chrome of the car on the interior and the exterior?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you also examine the front portion of the Presidential limousine?
Mr. FRAZIER Yes; we did. That portion, the dashboard below the windshield and the dashboard in the area immediately under that were particularly examined, because the rest of it would have been shielded from a shot due to the height of the dashboard and the height of the back of the front seat.
Mr. SPECTER. Did any of that area examined disclose any impact of such a missile?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not of a high velocity. Only the lead area smeared on the inside of the windshield from a relatively light object which struck the inside, and did not even break the inside surface of the glass, and then there was a possible bullet impact area at the top of the chrome to the right of the rearview mirror. This was made by a projectile not having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving at, in the range of a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the position of Governor Connally as depicted in the Zapruder slides at frames 222 and 225, could he have taken a shot, assuming the firing point to have been the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which entered and exited from his body in accordance with the known medical evidence?
Mr. FRAZIER I have not made a very thorough study of the Zapruder film which I understand you mentioned in this particular question with reference to the Zapruder film itself.
Mr. SPECTER. We will take it with reference to the reconstructed positions of Governor Connally in frames 222 and 225, which you have testified you did observe at the time the measurements and photographs were taken.
169
Page 170
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say, yes, under the conditions that I mentioned previously, that the reconstruction would represent the Governor as it was in November, then he could have been struck anywhere in that frame area of from 207 to 225.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question in frames 231, 235, 240 and thereafter?
Mr. FRAZIER. There is only one position beyond frame 225 at which the Governor could have been struck according to the information furnished to me and from my examination of his clothing that he was struck near the right sleeve seam and that the bullet came out through the inside pocket of his jacket.
At frame 281 the Governor is, as I saw it from the window on that date, turned to the front to such an extent that he could not have been hit at that particular frame.
Mr. SPECTER. Why not, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER The angle through his body, as I measured it on the coat is approximately 20° from the right toward the left. On May 24 in our reconstruction I found that the Governor had turned farther to the front from a position slightly facing the right than he was in at frame 225. He had turned back to the front so that a shot which struck him in this shoulder in the back----
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right shoulder?
Mr. FRAZIER. Indicating the right shoulder near the seam would have come out much further to his right than the actual exit hole described to me as being just under the right nipple.
Mr. SPECTER. How would the bullet have passed through his body based on his position as shown in frame 235?
Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 235, which is Commission Exhibit No. 897, the Governor in our reconstruction, according to the Zapruder film was also facing too far, too much towards the front. The angle of the bullet through his body, assuming no deflection, would not have corresponded to the angle through his clothing or according to the information furnished from the medical examiners.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position in frame 240?
Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 240 the Governor again could not have been shot, assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body, from the window on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case too far to the right. Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in between frame 235 and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car around to the right to the point that a bullet entering his back on the right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his left chest area rather than from his right chest area.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position at frame 249?
Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our reconstruction, has turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in frame 249 represented by Commission Exhibit No. 899, he again could not have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor and struck him in an undetected fashion and passed through his body undeflected.
Mr. SPECTER. How about frame 255?
Mr. FRAZIER. On frame 255 which is in Commission Exhibit No. 901 the Governor is turned again too far to the right, and the same situation would hold true as to what we saw in frame 249.
The bullet would have exited too far on his left side, provided there was no deflection between the window and the point of exit from the Governor's body.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, based on the angles, distances, and speeds of the car and bullet in this situation, what lead would a marksman have to give to strike the moving target, allowing for all of those factors?
Mr. FRAZIER. The lead would be approximately the same for all of these positions represented by your frame or rather your Commission Exhibit No. 888, which is frame 161, all the way up to frame 313 which I don't have, the Commission's Exhibit is No. 902 on frame 313, a lead of 6 inches above the point of
170
Page 171
impact would be sufficient to account for the movement of the car during the flight of the bullet.
The fact that the same lead would be necessary at each place is because at the closer frame numbers, the lower frame numbers, 161, 166, 185, and so forth, there is a relatively steep downward angle beginning at 40°, whereas the last shot, the downward angle is approximately 17° or 20°, in that neighborhood.
Just one thing more, it would require less apparent elevation of the crosshair over the point of impact at the distant target to allow for a further movement of the car of approximately 2 feet at the point where the head shot occurred.
So the lead would be constant between 5.9 inches above the point of impact to 6.3 inches above the point of impact.
Mr. DULLES. Have you asked the witness--I was studying these frame pictures at about what frame he thinks the body of Governor Connally would have been in a position to receive a bullet that would go through the body with this trajectory?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; I believe I did.
Mr. DULLES. I wasn't quite clear.
Mr. FRAZIER I testified that it would have been in position from anywhere from frames 207 to 225.
However, I cannot limit it to 207 because at that point the car goes back under the foliage and you can't actually see clearly enough.
Mr. DULLES. Between frames 207 and 225?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; approximately frame 207 to approximately frame 225.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. SPECTER. Looking at Exhibit No. 902, frame 313, on the view shown on the "photograph through rifle scope," is that the way you saw it at the time of the reconstruction, when the ear was in that position as shown in that exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. At this time I move for the admission into evidence of Commission Exhibits Nos. 885 through 903 which constitute all of the photographs referred to by Mr. Shaneyfelt and Mr. Frazier during their testimony.
(Commission Exhibits Nos. 885 through 903 were marked for identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
Mr. SPECTER. That completes the questioning.
Mr. McCLOY. As I get it, Mr. Frazier, what you are saying is there is only a certain point at which the bullet could pass through the President, could have hit Mr. Connally, and that is at a point when he is not sitting full face forward and at a point when he is not too far turned around.
Mr. FRAZIER. That is exactly right.
Mr. McCLOY. Somewhere when he is turning to the right.
Mr. FRAZIER. He was placed approximately 20° to the right.
Mr. McCLOY. To the right.
Mr. FRAZIER. That is 20° according to my examination of his clothing but I don't know the exact figures of the angle through his body.
Mr. SPECTER. I have one additional question.
Mr. Frazier, assuming the factors which I have asked you to accept as true for the purposes of expressing an opinion before, as to the flight of the bullet and the straight line penetration through the President's body, considering the point of entry and exit, do you have an opinion as to what probably happened during the interval between frames 207 and 225 as to whether the bullet which passed through the neck of the President entered the Governor's back.
Mr. FRAZIER. There are a lot of probables in that. First, we have to assume there is absolutely no deflection in the bullet from the time it left the barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's body. That assumes that it has gone through the President's body and through the Governor's body.
I feel that physically this would have been possible because of the positions of the Presidential stand-in and the Governor's stand-in, it would be entirely possible for this to have occurred.
171
Page 172
However, I myself don't have any technical evidence which would permit me to say one way or the other, in other words, which would support it as far as my rendering an opinion as an expert. I would certainly say it was possible but I don"t say that it probably occurred because I don't have the evidence on which to base a statement like that.
Mr. SPECTER. What evidence is it that you would be missing to assess the probabilities?
Mr. FRAZIER. We are dealing with hypothetical situations here of placing people in cars from photographs which are not absolutely accurate. They are two dimensional. They don't give you the third dimension. They are as accurate as you can accurately place the people but it isn't absolute.
Secondly, we are dealing with the fact that we don't know whether, I don't know technically, whether there was any deviation in the bullet which struck the President in the back, and exited from his front. If there were a few degrees deviation then it may affect my opinion as to whether or not it would have struck the Governor.
We are dealing with an assumed fact that the Governor was in front of the President in such a position that he could have taken. So when you say would it probably have occurred, then you are asking me for an opinion, to base my opinion on a whole series of hypothetical facts which I can't substantiate.
Mr. McCLOY. Let me put it to you in another way--from your best judgment about what you know about this thing, what was the sequence of the shots, and who was hit, and when in relation to----
Mr. FRAZIER. I will say this--I have looked at the film and have seen evidence of one shot occurring which struck the President in the head. That was at frame 313.
Mr. SPECTER. Frame 313? Yes.
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 902. I have seen evidence in the film of the President with both arms up clutching at his throat, and having examined his clothing and having seen the hole in his shirt and his back, I might assume that he is clutching his throat because a bullet exited from his throat. I don't have the technical knowledge to substantiate that. There was no metal on this hole in front, and there is no way for me to say from my own examination that it actually was a bullet hole. Nowhere else in this film have I seen any indication of a bullet striking.
Mr. SPECTER. The President?
Mr. FRAZIER. Either the President or the Governor. Because I do not know the reaction time which would exist from the time a bullet struck until someone made a move. It may be a half second, it may be a full second. It may be a tenth of a second. It depends upon the intensity of the pain, and actually what happened.
And therefore, in looking at the film you can't say a bullet struck right here because he started to move his hands here. It may have been a full second, a half second behind that spot. I would say that two bullets at least struck in the automobile. I cannot say that three bullets did not strike in the automobile from my examination, but it appears and due to the reconstruction at Dallas, it appears that if the one bullet did strike the President, then it landed in the automobile, and if it landed in the automobile, and we found no evidence of it having hit the car itself, then I say it is possible that it struck the Governor.
Now, as to the sequence of the shots, that one obviously was before the head shot. If there was a third shot fired, I could not tell you from anything I know whether it was the first, the second, or the third.
Mr. McCLOY. It is possible, according to your analysis of it, that the first shot could have gone through the back of the President and exited through the front of his neck, and the second shot could have hit Connally, and the third shot could have hit the President.
Mr. DULLES. Where would the first shot have gone under that thesis?
Mr. McCLOY. I just say I don't know where it could have gone.
Mr. FRAZIER. From what I know from my examination that is true, because I have seen bullets strike small twigs, small objects, and ricochet for no apparent
172
Page 173
reason except they hit and all the pressure is on one side and it turns the bullet and it goes off at an angle.
If there was no deviation from the time the bullet left the rifle barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's body, then the physical setup exists for it to have gone through the President, and through the Governor.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean from the time it exited through the Governor's body?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is right? Otherwise, you have nothing to base a conclusion upon. If you have deviation anywhere along the line then you both affect the position at which the Governor could have been shot--for instance--if the bullet entered the Governor's back and immediately took a 20° leftward angle, then the Governor could have been shot when he was facing straightforward in the automobile.
Now, I can't tell that, and therefore I can only say that my opinion must be based on your assumption that there was not a deviation of the bullet through, the President's body and no deviation of the bullet through the Governor's body, no deflection. On that basis then you can say that it is possible for both of them to have been hit with one bullet.
Representative FORD. Does that opinion rule out the possibility or cast doubt on the possibility of a third shot?
Mr. FRAZIER. It does not rule out the possibility of a third shot. No, sir; because I can only base my opinion on what I saw and my own experience, and that is that a bullet could have struck the President, if it had deflection in the President's body it could have, and he happened to be in a certain position in the car which would affect the angle, the bullet may have exited from the automobile.
Representative FORD. As I understood your assumptions there was no deviation and no deflection, and I thought I phrased my question based on your opinion under those facts, it might rule out a third shot.
Mr. DULLES. Do you mean rule out a third shot entirely or just rule out a third shot hitting in the car?
Representative FORD. Rule out a third shot in one instance or establish the possibility of a third shot that missed everything.
Mr. FRAZIER. As I understand your question I am now assuming these various factors to exist, that there was no deviation, no change in the path of the bullet.
Representative FORD. The bullet went through the President and through the Governor.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; then under that premise and the reconstruction showing the position of the car with reference to the path of the bullet, then it is entirely possible that these two individuals were hit with one bullet and that there was not another bullet that struck in the car other than the one that struck the President in the back of the head and exited from his head.
Representative FORD. Under these assumptions there is a possibility there was not a third shot or there was a third shot that missed everything.
Mr. FRAZIER. That missed everything; yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Is there any way of correlating the time of the shot with the position of the car so as to know whether possibly the first shot was fired before the car was out from the tree and it might have hit a branch of the tree and be deflected so it didn't hit the car? If he had fired too soon. I guess it is impossible.
Mr. FRAZIER. It is possible, I don't have any evidence to support it one way or the other.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. FRAZIER. As to whether or not a limb of the tree may have deflected one shot. However, I think it should be remembered that the frame 207 is just as he exits under the tree; from there to frame 225 to where the President shows a reaction is only a matter of 1 second. He is under the tree in frames 166 until frame 207, which is about 2 seconds. So somewhere in that 3-second interval there may have been a shot--which deflected from a limb or for some other reason and was never discovered.
Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I return to questions that I was asking Mn Frazier?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Representative FORD. Again making those same assumptions we made a moment
173
Page 174
ago, is there any evidence that a third shot hit the car or any occupant of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER. Assuming all those assumptions we had before; no. I would say that, and again I have not the technical evidence to back this up one way or the other but you make these assumptions and I would say under those conditions only two shots hit the occupants or the car because the one through the President had to cause Connally's wound otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it did not strike somewhere else.
Therefore, it had to go through Governor Connally.
And the second shot had to strike the President in the head.
Mr. McCLOY. How about these shots you spoke of, one of the fragments, at least, hitting the glass, the windshield and one possibly hitting the chrome. Was there anything, could it have been any fragmentation of the first shot which didn't hit, the first shot that hit the President, let's say, but didn't hit Connally, might that again make the possibility of three shots, one of them hitting the President and fragmenting as you indicated, and a second one hitting Connally, and the third one hitting the President for the lethal shot.
Mr. FRAZIER. Under that circumstance the bullet exiting from the President would have had to strike something else in the car to break it up.
Mr. McCLOY. Break it up inasmuch as it was broken up?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; there was no evidence that the bullet which exited from the President was in any but complete condition, that is there was only one hole through the shirt, there was only one hole through his coat or shirt actually and the testimony of the medical examiners was that it made a relatively straight path through the body.
Mr. SPECTER. That completes my questions of Mr. Frazier.
Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one more question?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; Mr. Dulles.
Mr. DULLES. There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot or what is believed to be the report, explosion of the first shot and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind, what would you say, 2 to 1, 3 to 1?
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. Is it possible that the assassin attempted to fire when the car was behind the tree or going into the tree, that that shot went astray, and that that accounts for, if there was a longer delay between one and two, that would account for it, and then the lethal shots were fired or the wound, the one shot that was fired that hit the two and then the lethal shot was fired immediately after. It is speculation.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that must be speculation because there certainly is conflicting evidence as to the intervals between the first and the second shot and the second and the third shot.
Mr. DULLES. I think if you will read the testimony you will find it at least 2 to 1 except for the people in the car.
Mr. McCLOY. Maybe, but what weight do you give these, I don't know. I think that is quite possible that a bullet was deflected by that tree, but there is no evidence whatever of the bullet landing anywhere in the street or among the crowd.
And yet there seems to be no doubt at all that three shots were fired.
Mr. DULLES. That seems to be the evidence.
Mr. McCLOY. At least three shots were fired, and probably three shots were fired because of the three shells that were found.
Mr. DULLES. Three shells?
Mr. MCCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. We probably won't settle that today.
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know how to answer that question except possibly to go back to the frame numbers of the Zapruder film and you will find they are about equally spaced from frame 161 just before the tree to frame, say, 220, which is just a few frames after the tree, that is 59 or approximately 60 frames, from that point. But from frame 222 to the last shot of frame 313 is 78 and 13, 91 frames, so there is more time between the second and third than the first and
174
Page 175
second, assuming that the second one actually occurred and that it occurred at about the middle of that interval.
Mr. McCLOY. In the middle of that frame, yes. I think that is pretty persuasive.
Mr. DULLES. I didn't quite follow that.
Mr. McCLOY. There seemed to be more frames between, going backwards, between the third shot, that is between the time that----
Mr. DULLES. The first shot went astray, you don't know whether it was fired. You have no way of getting at that. (Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.
Mr. SPECTER. I want to call Inspector Kelley for observations from the underpass.
May the record show that Inspector Thomas Kelley has returned to the witness chair.
Thomas J. Kelley
Page 175
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY RESUMED
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Before we conclude the testimony, Inspector Kelley, I want to ask you if on May 24 you had occasion to go over to the triple underpass and observe the simulated car and occupants drive down Elm Street from Houston Street?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; I accompanied Mr. Redlich and Mr. Specter from the Commission on the point on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. From the Commission or from where to the overpass--pardon me. I understand your sequence there.
What did you observe as to the position of the President's stand-in concerning whether he could have been struck by a bullet which was fired from the top of the triple underpass?
Mr. KELLEY. I observed as the car came down Elm Street that the President's stand-in was in our view all the time as he was coming down the street from the right-hand side of the car. As the more you moved over to the left of the under-pass, the longer the stand-in was in direct view of anybody standing on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER And was the stand-in obstructed by the windshield at anytime as the car drove down Elm Street?
Mr. KELLEY. No; he was not. However, never at any time was he in a position to take a wound in the throat which from the drawings that have been given me, that I have been shown by the Commission, would he take a wound in the throat which would have exited higher than the throat or in the shoulder.
From the evidence that has been shown previously, the wound in the throat was lower on the President's body than the wound in the shoulder, and----
Mr. SPECTER. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the back of the President's neck, the base of his neck?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER So, could a shot have been fired from the top of the triple under-pass which would have passed through the President's neck, disregarding the medical evidence on point of entry, which traveled in an upward direction from the front of his neck upward to the back of his neck?
Mr. KELLEY. In my judgment, no.
Representative FORD. If a person were standing where you have indicated you were on that triple overpass, on November 22, he would have been in full view of anybody in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. KELLEY. Yes; and there were people on the overpass. There was a policeman on the overpass, there were a number of railroad workmen on the overpass at that time.
Representative FORD. There would have been no place where such a person could have hidden himself and not been detected?
Mr. KELLEY. Not on the overpass.
Mr. DULLES. What were the railway workmen doing on the overpass, were they helping to guard, the overpass or just spectators?
175
Page 176
Mr. KELLEY. No; they were working. There are a great many tracks indicated here.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; I was up there and I remember it very well.
Mr. KELLEY. They were doing some repairs on the tracks.
Mr. DULLES. I see.
Mr.McCLOY. I had the impression there was more than one policeman also guarding up there, at least two, but maybe I am wrong. At least there is some testimony.
Mr. DULLES. Do you recall, Mr. Specter, what the testimony is on that--the number of policemen on the overpass?
Mr. SPECTER. I believe there were two officers on the overpass, who said that no shots came from that direction.
Mr. McCLOY. No shots came from that direction. Is that all you wanted?
Mr. SPECTER. That completes the testimony of Mr. Kelley and all of the individuals this afternoon.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelley.
(Whereupon, at 6:40 p.m., the President's Commission recessed to view the films.)
Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt
Page 176
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L SHANEYFELT RESUMED
(Present were Mr. McCloy, Mr. Dulles, and Representative Ford.)
Mr. SPECTER. May the record now show that the Commission has now reassembled on the first floor of the VFW Building where a motion picture projector and slide projector and screen have been set up for viewing of the films. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what are you going to show us first of all?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first film will be of the color motion picture made through the rifle scope as the car drove down the assassination route at approximately 11 miles an hour. It wi11 give the view the rifleman had as he aimed the rifle from the sixth floor window of the Book Building.
(Film)
Mr. DULLES. Is that going 11 miles per hour?
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film will be the black and white photographs of the car in the fixed still positions in each of the frame numbers described in previous testimony.
In addition the final portion of the film is a run through of the car at 11 miles an hour on three separate runs filmed as the rifleman would have seen the car looking through the rifle.
On the first run of the car going down the assassination route I have stained frames in the vicinity of frame 222 which is after the first clear shot after the tree, I have stained the frame at the location of shot 313, which is the second pink flash you will see.
I found, in examining the film, that this is a shorter span of time than in the actual film. It is a span on the reenactment of about three and a half seconds between 222 and 313.
The second frame stained is 313 but since it is running at a faster speed I have also stained a spot that represents 5 seconds which is what the time lapse was between frame 222 and frame 313 in the actual assassination films. That will be after the car driving scene.
(Film)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the last clear shot and this is an adjusted last clear shot before going under the tree. This is the shot approximately 185. This is frame 186 which is the adjusted shots which would account for a 10-inch variance.
Shot of frame 207, and the adjusted frame which was 210. This is frame 222 and you can see the tree is still in the background.
This is 225 now. 231. At this point Governor Connally states he has been hit by now. This is 235. 240--249--255--and the shot to the head which is 313.
Mr. SPECTER. What is this? Describe this, Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the run at 11 miles an hour containing the pink stain. This is another run at 11 miles an hour. It will give you some idea
176
Page 177
of the difficulty of tracking a car with a heavy camera mounted on the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. You have to sight that with a camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Sighting through a camera.
(Film)
Mr. REDLICH. Just as a final thing, Mr. McCloy, would you like to see the Zapruder film?
Mr. McCLOY. I think we will take the original Zapruder again, I don't know whether we have anything that is more significant in the black and whites, I am talking about the particular movies of the frames, we have not seen those.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. I think we have seen all we need to see with regard to that. What have you got left?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The original Zapruder film.
Mr. McCLOY. We will see that.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have the duplication of the Zapruder film reenactment. The first portion of the reel is the still shots and the last portion is the run through at 11 miles an hour.
Mr. SPECTER. I think you would find that worth while to see.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Then we have Nix and Muchmore of the same run.
Mr. McCLOY. Let's do those, too.
Representative FORD. First is the original Zapruder.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Original Zapruder. This is not the original. This is the first copy.
(Film)
Mr. SPECTER. Will you state for the record what film we just saw?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film we just viewed is a copy made directly from the original Zapruder film of the actual assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you now show us the film which was taken at the reconstruction from the Zapruder position?
(Film)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. These films we made in Dallas have been developed and left intact and have not been edited in any way so there are a lot of blank spaces where we run the leader off and turn the film. This is position 161. This side-to-side jiggle is a camera malfunction.
Mr. McCLOY. This is 16 mm.?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; 8 mm.
Representative FORD. Is this from his camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; taken with his camera. Frame 222, frame 225. This is frame 231.
Representative FORD. He has a delayed reaction compared to what the President did.
Mr. SPECTER. What frame is this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 313, the head shot.
Mr. McCLOY. The head shot.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the position which is not duplicated on the Zapruder film. This is running the film out to reload it.
During that run at 11 miles an hour we made no effort to duplicate the body position because it would have been most difficult to know just when to turn. The only other films we have are the ones we shot with the Nix and Muchmore cameras of this same run from their positions.
Mr. McCLOY. Did Nix, Muchmore get a second shot of the head shot?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mrs. Muchmore got the head shot and Mr. Nix got the head shot.
Mr. McCLOY. They both got it.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have both those films.
Mr. McCLOY. We might take a look at it while we are here. I don't think I have ever seen those. Those are 88 mm, too.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
(Film.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film is the film that was taken by Mr. Orville Nix of the assassination. This is along Houston street going toward Elm. There
177
Page 178
was the head shot. We will roll it back and run it at slow motion. The head shot shows just a very faint pink.
Mr. McCLOY. Very soon after this sequence begins. Just as the President is directly under the white abutment in the background. I will try to give you a clue about when it is going to happen, there.
The next film is the film that was exposed in Mr. Nix's camera standing in the position determined to be his camera position at the reenactment in Dallas, with the car traveling at approximately 11 miles an hour along Elm street.
These films were compared with each other and found to be consistent in the size of the car in the area of the picture and verified the position as being that of Mr. Nix.
(Film)
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now shown us, Mr. Shaneyfelt, all of the movies that we saw, we took in Dallas?
Mr. McCLOY. Mrs. Muchmore.
Mr. SPECTER. Mrs. Muchmore.
(Film)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the motorcade coming down Main and turning into Houston street.
Mr. McCLOY. She didn't know she took that.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Have we now seen all the films from Dallas? That concludes the films.
Mr. McCloy, for the record, I would like to have the films marked with Commission Exhibit No. 904 identifying the Zapruder copy. That is the copy of the original Zapruder film.
May I say here, parenthetically, that we do not intend to reproduce all of this in the published record of the Commission since we have extracted the key numbers on Exhibit 885 on the album which shows the frames of the Zapruder film after the President's automobile turns left off of Houston onto Elm, but for the permanent archives these films should be made a part of the permanent record.
I would like to have a copy of the original Nix film marked as Commission Exhibit No. 905. I would like to have the copy of the original Muchmore film marked as Commission Exhibit No. 906. I would like to have all of the movies which we took at Dallas marked in a group as Commission Exhibit No. 907.
Mr. McCLOY. That is all the movies that were taken on May 24 in Dallas by the test team, so to speak.
Mr. SPECTER. Right, Commissioner McCloy. They are marked as Commission Exhibit No. 907, and I would like to move formally for the admission into evidence of Commission Exhibits Nos. 904 through 907 at this time.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibits Nos. 904, 905, 906, and 907 were marked for identification, and received in evidence.)
(Whereupon, at 7:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELTMr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. SPECTER. By whom are you employed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am employed as a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. SPECTER. And how long have you been so employed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Fourteen years.
Mr. SPECTER. What are your duties, in a general way?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am assigned to the FBI Laboratory, as a document examiner, and photographic expert.
Mr. SPECTER. Daring the course of those duties, have you had occasion to make an analysis of certain movies which purport to have been taken of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. What movies have you examined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have examined a roll of 8-mm. motion pictures made by Mr. Abraham Zapruder of Dallas, Tex., that he took on November 22, of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by Mr. Zapruder came into your possession?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.
The original and other copy he sold to Life magazine.
The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.
Mr. SPECTER. At any time in the course of the examination of the Zapruder film, was the original of that movie obtained?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. On February 25, Mr. Herbert Orth, who is the assistant chief of the Life magazine photographic laboratory, provided the original of the Zapruder film for review by the Commission representatives and representatives of the FBI and Secret Service here in the Commission building.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for his making that original available?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Life magazine was reluctant to release the original because of the value. So he brought it down personally and projected it for us and allowed us to run through it several times, studying the original.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that because the copies were not distinct on certain important particulars?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The original had considerably more detail
138
Page 139
and more there to study than any of the copies, since in the photographic process each time you copy you lose some detail.
Mr. SPECTER. And subsequently, were slides made from the original of the Zapruder film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline what you mean by frames, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. In motion picture films, the actual motion picture film consists of consecutive pictures that are made in rapid succession, each one being a separate exposure. And as the camera runs, it films these, and they are projected fast enough on the screen when you do not have the sensation of them being individual pictures, but you have the sensation of seeing the movement even though they are individual little pictures on the film. So each one of those little pictures on the film is called a frame.
Mr. SPECTER. And how did you number the frames?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I numbered the frames on the Zapruder film beginning with No. 1 at the assassination portion of his film.
He did have on his film some photographs of a personal nature that we disregarded, and started at the first frame of his motion picture that was made there on Elm Street of the assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was happening at the time of frame 1?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the time of frame 1, the police motorcycle lead portion of the parade is in view, and that goes for several frames. Then he stopped his camera, feeling that it might be some time before the Presidential car came into view. Then when the Presidential car rounded the corner and came into view, he started his camera again, and kept it running throughout the route down Elm Street until the car went out of sight on his right.
Mr. SPECTER. What other movies have been examined by you in the course of this analysis?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. An amateur 8-mm. motion picture film made by a Mr. Orville Nix of Dallas, Tex., has been examined. Mr. Nix was standing on the corner of Houston and Maine Streets, photographing the motorcade as it came down Main Street and turned right into Houston Street.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you explain briefly how you ascertained the location of Mr. Nix when he took those movies?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At the time Mr. Nix took his movies of the motorcade coming down Main Street, he was standing on the corner, and photographed them turning the corner and going down Houston Street.
Mr. SPECTER. You are now indicating the southwest corner of Houston and Main?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; southwest corner. After he heard the shots, he hurried down along the curb of Main Street, but did not remember exactly where he was standing. On the basis of his motion pictures, we were able to analyze the pictures using his camera, and on the 23d of May of this year, during the survey, preparatory to the reenactment, we reestablished this point by viewing pictures taken from his motion picture camera, at varying angles across here, in order to reestablish the point where he was standing, based on the relationship of this street light to other items in the background of the photograph.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say this point, you mean the point of the Nix position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And when you say this street light, you are referring to a street lamp on the opposite side of Main Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline in a general way how you obtained the copy of the Nix film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
139
Page 140
The Nix film was obtained as a result of a notice that the FBI gave to processing plants in the Dallas area, that the FBI would be interested in obtaining or knowing about any film they processed, that had anything on it, relating to the assassination.
And, as a result of this, we learned of the Nix film and arranged to obtain a copy of it.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you analyze any other film in connection with this inquiry?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I analyzed a film that was 8-mm. motion picture film taken by Mrs. Mary Muchmore of Dallas, Tex.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you obtain a copy of that film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.
Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.
Mr. SPECTER. Where was Mrs. Muchmore standing at the time she took those movies?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mrs. Muchmore was standing along Houston Street, close to the corner of Main, on the west side of Houston Street, and photographed the motorcade as it came down Main, turned into Houston, and proceeded down Houston. She says that when she heard the shots, she panicked, and did not take any further pictures. But a review of her film shows pictures of the assassination route, the motorcade going down Elm Street, beginning just before the shot that hit the President in the head, and continuing a short period after that.
Since she did not remember taking the pictures, we then, in the same manner we established Mr. Nix's position, by checking the photograph in relation to objects in the background, established her position along this structure that is marked on the map and found that she had come from the curb over to this point----
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a position on Exhibit No. 883 marked "Muchmore Position."
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
And this we established as her position when she photographed a portion of the assassination--motorcade.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you elaborate just a bit more on how you ascertained that position from fixed points in the background of the movie?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we took a frame of the motion picture that is close to the beginning and a picture that is close to the end, and made a still photograph of those. We then establish a position and try to line up the relationship of objects close to where we are standing with objects in the background, so that they are in relation to each other as they are in the picture.
Then we take the other picture from farther along the motion picture film, and do the same thing, and where those two lines intersect is where she had to be standing.
Mr. SPECTER. You draw two straight lines through two objects that you line up on each of those pictures, and the intersection point of those two lines is the calculated position of the camera.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And was that same system used to ascertain the position of Mr. Nix?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And how did you ascertain the position of Mr. Zapruder?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mr. Zapruder's position was known, as he was on the top of the abutment along Elm Street--he stated that he was standing on the abutment. And there is relatively no room to move around there, other than to stand there. It is about 2 feet wide by 3 to 4 feet deep.
140
Page 141
(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And aside from that, we checked that position against his photographs and determined that that was in fact correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the position of Mr. Zapruder confirmed through the use of any other film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in Mr. Nix's motion picture films you can see Mr. Zapruder standing on the abutment.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there?
After you had made those calculations to establish the position of Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix and Mr. Zapruder, did you then identify those positions to the three and ask them whether or not it corresponded--your findings corresponded with their recollection as to where they were standing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We did not do that; no. Mr. Nix, I might say, did state that he went down along this side--the south side of Main Street, along the curb, and it generally conforms to where he stated he went, but he could not place the exact position. We did, by this study.
Senator COOPER. Mr. Zapruder's position was established by another photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand you correctly that Mrs. Muchmore didn't realize she had taken the later pictures that appear?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. According to her statement, she said after hearing the shots, she panicked, and didn't take any more pictures.
Mr. DULLES. You think she did?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the film there are pictures.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the position of Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix ascertained through a geometric calculation, lining up various points as you have just described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, it is actually a geometric calculation, although no strings were drawn or no lines were drawn. It is a matter of standing in a position out there with Mr. Nix's camera, and viewing the two different photographs we had selected, until we arrived at a point that matched.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there reasonable mathematical certainty in that alinement, within the limits of your observations of their pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Did Mr. Zapruder himself point out his location on the abutment as depicted on Exhibit No. 883?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.
Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. And who else has been with you at the time you analyzed those films just stating in a general way without identifying each person present on each of the occasions?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service.
Representatives of the Commission were always present--normally Mr. Redlich, Mr. Specter, or Mr. Eisenberg were present.
On several occasions Mr. Ball and Mr. Belin were present. Mr. Rankin was present on some occasions.
I believe Mr. McCloy was present on one occasion.
Various representatives of the Commission were present.
Mr. SPECTER. And how long did those analysis sessions ordinarily last?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They would normally last most of the day, about all day.
141
Page 142
Mr. SPECTER. And what would be done during the course of those analytical sessions?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In each case we would take the film and run it through regular speed, slow motion, we would stop it on individual frames and study it frame by frame, trying to see in the photographs anything that would give any indication of a shot hitting its mark, a reaction of the President, a reaction of Mr. Connally or Mrs. Connally, reaction of the Secret Service agents, reaction of people in the crowd, relating it to all the facts that we felt were important.
When we obtained the slides from Life magazine, we went through those very thoroughly, because they gave so much more detail and were so much clearer and analyzed again all these things about the reaction of the President and Mr. Connally, trying to ascertain where he was reacting--whether either one was reacting to being hit.
Of course the only shot that is readily apparent in any of the films, and it appears in the Zapruder, the Nix, and the Muchmore film, is the shot that hit the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say that is readily apparent?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because on the film there is practically an explosion of his head and this is obviously the shot that hit the President in the head. It is very apparent from the photograph.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, were any others present at any time, such as witnesses who appeared before the Commission, during the analysis sessions on these films and slides?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
On April 14, representatives of the Commission, FBI, and doctors--Dr. Hume of the Navy, who is at Bethesda, Commander Boswell from the U.S. Navy Medical School at Bethesda, Colonel Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Mr. SPECTER. Are those the autopsy surgeons?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is my understanding. Dr. Olivier, from Edgewood Arsenal, Dr. Light, from Edgewood Arsenal, were present also with Dr. Humes and the others, on April 14.
Mr. SPECTER. Did any individuals who were present at the motorcade itself ever have an opportunity to view the films and slides?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; on April 21, films were again viewed by representatives of the Commission and the FBI, and at that time Drs. Gregory and Shaw, from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, were available, Drs. Light and Olivier, and a Dr. Dolce, and Governor and Mrs. Connally were present.
And at all of the viewings, they were again reviewed frame by frame, studied by the doctors to tie it in with their findings, studied by the Parkland doctors, and studied by the Connallys, to try to tie in where the shots occurred along the film.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an album which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 885.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 885 for identification.)
Mr. SPECTER. I ask you to state what that album depicts.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film----
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed?
142
Page 143
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334.
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other photographs in that album in addition to the Zapruder frames?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there are. There are six photographs selected at random from the Nix film, including frame 24, which is a frame depicting the shot to the head of the President, and there are three photographs picked at random from the Muchmore film, including frame 42, which is the frame depicting the head shot. These are the pictures that were used in establishing the location of the Nix and Muchmore cameras on location in Dallas. Frame 10, which is the first one of the Nix series, is the one showing Mr. Zapruder standing on the projection.
Mr. SPECTER. And where was the viewing of the films and slides undertaken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They have been viewed here at the Commission--all those in addition to the ones I have made personally in the FBI Laboratory.
Mr. SPECTER. And was that down on the first floor of the VFW Building here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And was there any model available adjacent to the area where the films were shown, for use in re-creating or reconstructing the assassination events?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the model was available and used.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that the model which has been described earlier this afternoon by Inspector Gauthier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment.
Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich.
Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was present, with some aids, assistants.
Mr. SPECTER. Other aids from the FBI were also present?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted.
Mr. SPECTER. And were there representatives of the Secret Service participating in that onsite testing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. Inspector Kelley was present, Agent John Howlett was present, the driver of the car, or the Secret Service agent whose name I do not recall----
Mr. SPECTER. George Hickey?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And at what time did the onsite test start?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They started at 6 o'clock Sunday morning.
Mr. SPECTER. Why was that time selected?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The time was selected because of the traffic in the area. The Dallas Police Department recommended that that would be the most logical time to do it, causing the least problem with traffic.
Mr. SPECTER. At what time did the onsite tests conclude?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They concluded about 1 o'clock, 12:45 to 1 o'clock.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any subsequent testing done in Dallas on that day?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes;there was.
143
Page 144
Mr. SPECTER. And where was that testing undertaken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There was some testing done in a railway express agency garage nearby the assassination site.
Mr. SPECTER. At what time did that start?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That started at 3 p.m., and lasted until 5:30 p.m.
Mr. SPECTER. Where were the various individuals positioned who participated in these onsite tests at the outset, at, say, 6 a.m, on the 24th of May?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the very beginning, at 6 a.m., Mr. Rankin and Mr. Specter were in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which is the southeast corner of the building, sixth floor window, which was referred to as our control point, and where we had the master radio control for the other units.
Mr. Redlich was on the street with the car. At the car on the street were the occupants of the car, the Secret Service driver, Mr. Hickey, an agent from the FBI, who handled radio contact with control, Agents Anderton and Williams in the President's and Connally's seats, Mr. Gauthier and his aids, a surveyor, and I, were all on the ground in the vicinity of the car.
Agent Frazier was in the window of the Book Building at the control point with the rifle that was found at the window following the assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was that rifle found at the window or in another location on the sixth floor?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In another location on the sixth floor.
Mr. SPECTER. And that is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which was heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And where were you positioned on most of the occasions at the time of the onsite tests?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. For the first portion of them, I was at the car in the street, and at the position of Mr. Zapruder, the position from which he took his pictures.
Mr. SPECTER. What communications were available, if any, among the participants at the various locations heretofore described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had radio contact between all points.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in.
Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 886 for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film.
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. What is that exhibit number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SPECTER. And why was that location selected for the position of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This location was selected as the first point at which a person
144
Page 145
in the sixth floor window of the Book Building at our control point could have gotten a shot at the President after the car had rounded the corner from Houston to Elm.
Mr. SPECTER. And what position is station C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Station C is on a line drawn along the west curb line of Houston Street in a direct line, and station C is at a point along that line that is in line with where the car would have turned coming around that corner. It is on a line which is an extension of the west curb line of Houston Street.
Mr. DULLES. Where is position A on that chart?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Position A is here.
Mr. McCLOY. That is before you get to the tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet.
Mr. SPECTER. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A sighted on for measuring purposes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the President's stand-in?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Could the marksman then have taken a shot at the President at any prior position and have struck him with the point of entry on that spot, on the base of the President's neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't quite understand the question.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the distance between that point on the President and station C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 44 feet from station C--91.6 feet to the rifle in the window from the actual chalk mark on the coat. All measurements were made to the chalk mark on the coat.
Mr. SPECTER. On the coat of the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. The President's stand-in?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right. The angle to the rifle in the window was 40°10'.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the other data?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the overpass was 447 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0°27'; that is, 27' below the horizontal.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? How did you establish the location of the rifle in making those calculations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the rifle was established on the basis of other testimony and information furnished to us by the Commission, photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the assassination, and the known opening of the window.
It was an estimation of where the rifle most likely was based on the knowledge that the Commission has through testimony.
Mr. SPECTER. Senator Cooper, Mr. Frazier is present and has been sworn, and he is going to identify that. He could do it at this time, to pinpoint that issue.
145
Page 146
Senator COOPER. I think we can just make a note of that, and go ahead with this witness.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. We will proceed then with this witness and Mr. Frazier will testify in due course.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that this position was determined by Mr. Frazier in the window. We moved the car around until he told us from the window, viewing through the rifle, the point where he wanted the car to stop. And he was the one in the window that told us where the point A was. Once we established that, we then photographed it.
Mr. DULLES. Could he see the mark on the back of the coat from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; through the rifle scope, he could see the mark.
Mr. SPECTER. Does the picture designated "photograph through rifle scope" depict the actual view of the rifleman through the actual Mannlicher-Carcano weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. At point A.
Senator COOPER. When Mr. Frazier testifies, then, will he correlate this photograph with a frame from photographs taken of the actual motorcade at the time of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; we cannot correlate this with a frame from the motion picture because Mr. Zapruder didn't start taking pictures until the car had passed this point.
So we, therefore, on this frame and for the next two or three points, have no picture from Mr. Zapruder, since he wasn't taking pictures at that time.
Mr. DULLES. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.
Do I understand that you are not suggesting that a shot was necessarily fired at this point A, but this was the first point where this particular vision of the President's back could have been obtained?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is only an arbitrary point showing the first possible shot that could have entered the President's coat at this chalk mark.
Representative FORD. What criteria did you use for determining that you could see the chalk mark? Was the criteria a part or the whole of the chalk mark?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The actual manner in which it was set up--let me see if this answers your question. As we moved the car around, Mr. Frazier was in the window looking through the actual scope of the rifle, and could see very clearly the President or the man taking the President's place, as the car moved around.
And the instant that he could first see that chalk mark is the point where he radioed to us to stop the car, and is the first point at which a shot could be fired that would go in where the chalk mark is located.
Mr. DULLES. And that is point A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is point A. Does that answer your question?
Representative FORD. I think it does. Is that picture in the lower left-hand corner of Exhibit No. 886 an actual photograph taken through the sight of the weapon that was allegedly used in the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Representative FORD. And the chalk mark we see there is through that sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. And that is exactly what an individual looking through the sight would see.
Mr. SPECTER. Then at point A, could the rifleman see the entire back of the President's stand-in as well as the specific chalk mark, as depicted on the exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He could see only a portion of the back.
Mr. SPECTER. And the portion, which he could not see, is that which is below the seat level?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. You didn't say the President's stand-in, did you?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; stand-in.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, for purposes of illustration would you produce the photograph
146
Page 147
at this time showing the mounting of the motion picture camera on the weapon found on the sixth floor?
I now hand you a photograph which is being marked as Commission Exhibit No. 887 and ask you to state for the record who that is a picture of, and what else is in the photograph.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 887 for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight.
This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. 886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission.
Mr. DULLES. You used the same boxes, did you, that the assassin had used?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were those boxes used by Mr. Frazier.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They were used by Mr. Frazier and used in making the measurements. I had to use a tripod because of the weight of the camera and placed the elevation of the rifle at an approximate height in a position as though the boxes were there.
Mr. SPECTER. Was Mr. Frazier present at the time you positioned the rifle on the tripod?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he was.
Mr. SPECTER. Did he assist in describing for you or did you have an opportunity to observe the way he held a rifle to ascertain the approximate position of the rifle at that time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will, with Mr. Frazier, indicate, the reasons he held the rifle in the way he did to approximate the way we believe it was held at the time of the assassination.
What is the next position which has been depicted on one of your exhibits, please.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The next position that we established during the reenactment is frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture film.
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to mark that if you would as Commission Exhibit No. 888.
(Commission Exhibit No. 888 was marked for identification.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This position which has been designated by us as frame 161 and as Commission Exhibit No. 888, was established as the last position that the car could be in where the rifleman in the window could get a clear shot of the President in the car before the car went under the covering of the tree.
Mr. SPECTER. How was that position located, from the ground or from the sixth floor?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was positioned by Mr. Frazier in the sixth floor window. In addition we knew from the Zapruder photographs the relative position of the car in the street as related to the curb and the guidelines or the lane lines.
147
Page 148
Following those lane lines we then moved the car down to a point where Mr. Frazier radioed to us that it was the last point at which he could get a clear shot and we stopped the car there.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you then select the appropriate frame from the Zapruder film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. After Mr. Frazier had stationed the car at this point, I then went to the position of Mr. Zapruder. Based on his motion pictures, a comparison of the photograph that we made with the photograph from the film, I was able to state that because of the relative position of the car in the street and in relation to other objects in the background, it corresponded to frame 161 of the motion picture.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have on Exhibit No. 888 a reproduction of frame 161?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the upper left-hand corner is a reproduction of the frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture. The picture on the upper right is a photograph that I made with a speed graphic camera from Zapruder's position of the car reestablished in that location. The photograph in the lower left-hand corner, is a photograph of the view through the rifle scope that Mr. Frazier saw at the time he positioned the car there. This is the view that you would obtain from looking through the rifle scope from the sixth floor window.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile in exactly the same position at the time of the taking of the "photograph through rifle scope" and the "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; approximately the same. We went through all stations with Mr. Frazier in the window and I took photographs from Mr. Zapruder's position, and once establishing a frame position, we marked it clearly in the street. After we had taken all of the photographs from Zapruder's position, we then took the car back, and went to the sixth floor window and mounted the motion picture camera on the rifle. These photographs were made by rolling the car in the same position based on the marks we had in the street so it was as accurate as could be done in the same position.
Mr. DULLES. There is no one sitting in that right-hand corner of the rear seat, is there in that picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the person taking President Kennedy's place is sitting in the back seat.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; I see it. It is rather hard to see through the trees.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we moved it up to a point where the chalk mark was just about to disappear on the street.
Mr. DULLES. I don't think I see the chalk mark maybe someone else can.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It may be covered by the crosshair of the rifle scope.
Representative FORD. In that picture photographed through the rifle scope on Exhibit No. 888 a man standing in for Governor Connally is also in the car, is he not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. He is mostly hidden by the tree.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; I see.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and. the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.
Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then
148
Page 149
sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 889.
(Commission Exhibit No. 889 was marked for identification.)
Mr. DULLES. Is that 10 inches difference due to the difference in the two cars?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. That is the President's--the car the President was in and the car you had to use for this particular test?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 889, is the car in the same position on the "photograph through rifle scope" as it is on "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, the same position.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the comparison between the photograph from Zapruder film on that Exhibit No. 889 and the photograph from reenactment?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The car is in the same position relative to the surrounding area in both the reenactment photograph and the Zapruder photograph.
Incidentally, the position that was used throughout all of the positioning of the car was the President's. His placement in the photograph, and this will be clearer in some of the later photographs, if the President's head was directly under a stop sign or a street sign or whatever, in the background, this was then the way we positioned the car with the person standing in for the President directly below or slightly to the side or directly below the stop sign and so on; so all of the calculations were based upon the position of the President.
Mr. SPECTER. Before leaving frame 161 finally, would you recite the distances which appear from the various points on that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes,
At the position that has been designated as frame 161, and appears on Commission Exhibit No. 888, the distance from the wound mark on a stand-in for President Kennedy to station C was 94.7 feet.
The distance to the rifle in the window was 137.4 feet, the angle to the window was 26°58' based on the horizontal line, the distance to the overpass was 392.4 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0°7'.
Mr. SPECTER. Are all angles calculated thereon based on the horizontal?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any street angle taken into consideration in the calculations here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is a 3° street grade that has to be deducted from the angle to the window to determine the actual angle from the street to the window as opposed to the horizon.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now----
Mr. DULLES. Frame 161 is 3° on 161?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees all along Elm Street.
Mr. DULLES. All along. That applies to all of these different pictures, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you now read the same statistical data from frame 166 on Exhibit No. 889, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
From the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, to station C is 95.6 feet, the distance to rifle in window, 138.2 feet, the angle to rifle in window based on the horizontal, is minus 26 52'.
Distance to overpass is 391.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0 7'.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the back of President Kennedy ever come into view at any time while he was passing through the foliage of the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What frame number was ascertained with respect to that position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was determined to be frame 185. There is a slight opening in the tree, where the car passed under the tree, where a shot could have
149
Page 150
been fired that would have passed through this opening in the tree. This again was positioned on the basis of Mr. Frazier in the window looking through the rifle scope and telling us on the street where to stop the car at the point where he could get a shot through the trees.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been assigned to frame 185?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 890, frame 185.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the "photograph through rifle scope" taken with the position of the car at the same place as "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And is the "photograph from reenactment" in the same position, as close as you could make it to the "photograph from Zapruder's film"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 185?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; from the point of the chalk on the back of the stand-in for the President at position 185 to station C is 114.8 feet, the distance to rifle on window is 154.9 feet.
The angle to rifle in window based on horizontal is 24°14', distance to overpass is 372.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°3' above horizontal.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any adjustment made for the difference in the height of the automobiles on the location where the back of the President's stand-in was visible through the tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was an adjustment made for the 10 inch differential in the heights because of the different cars, and this was established as frame 186.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number is affixed to frame 186?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 891.
Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 891 is the car in the same position in "photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the cars on those two pictures in the same positions on all of the frames which you are going to show this afternoon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. In the "photograph from Zapruder film", does that "photograph from Zapruder film" show the Presidential automobile to be in the same position or as close to the same position as you could make it as is the replica car in the "photograph from reenactment"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 186, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
At frame 186 position the distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President was 116.3 feet from the station C. It was 156.3 feet to the rifle in the window.
The angle to the rifle in the window was 24°3' based on the horizontal. Distance to the overpass was 371.7 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°3'.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that position ascertained where the chalk spot on the back of President Kennedy's coat was first visible from the sixth floor window through the telescopic sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. This is after passing the tree.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. After passing out from under the oak tree.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What frame did that turn out to be?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was frame 207.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic sequence on frame 207?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 892.
150
Page 151
Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position on "photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment" on that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position, as closely as you could make it, on the "photograph from reenactment" and "photograph from Zapruder film"?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now read the statistical data from that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President to the station C is 136.6 feet.
Distance to rifle in the window is 174.9 feet. The angle to the rifle in the window based on the horizontal is 21°50. The distance to the overpass is 350.9 feet, and the angle to the overpass is 0°12'.
This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892.
Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the layout of frame 210 exactly the same as that for frames 207 and 185 that you have already testified about?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. In viewing the films on the frames preceding 210, what was President Kennedy doing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He is waving to the crowd, and in some frames it is obvious that he is smiling, you can actually see a happy expression on his face and his hand----
Mr. DULLES. Which way is he turning, to the left or to the right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He is looking toward the crowd to his right during most of that area, he is looking slightly to his right. His arm is up on the side of the car and his hand is in a wave, in approximately this position and he appears to be smiling.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the latest frame count where, to your eye, it appears that he is showing no reaction to any possible shot?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately--I would like to explain a little bit, that at frames in the vicinity of 200 to 210 he is obviously still waving, and there is no marked change.
In the area from approximately 200 to 205 he is still, his hand is still in a waving position, he is still turned slightly toward the crowd, and there has been no change in his position that would signify anything occurring unusual. I see nothing in the frames to arouse my suspicion about his movements, up through in the areas from 200 on and as he disappears behind the signboard, there is no change.
Now, 205 is the last frame, 205 and 206 are the last frames where we see any of his, where we see the cuff of his coat showing above the signboard indicating his hand is still up generally in a wave.
From there on the frames are too blurry as his head disappears you can't really see any expression on his face. You can't see any change. It is all consistent as he moves in behind the signboard.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "signboard" what do you mean by that, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I refer to the sign that is between the photographer, Mr. Zapruder, and the Presidential car.
Representative FORD. Not any sign post between the rifleman and the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; this is a sign between the cameraman and the President. So that we are unable to see his reaction, if any.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the frame at which Governor Connally first emerges from behind the sign you just decribed?
151
731-221 O---64---vol. V----11
Page 152
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 222.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you prepared a model demonstration on frame 222?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has just been affixed on that frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 222 has been given Commission Exhibit No. 894.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the location of the automobile fixed from the window or from the street on frame 222?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On frame 222, the position of the automobile was fixed from the street, based on the photograph from the Zapruder film.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the various photographs on that frame and the various distances the same in terms of general layout as the prior exhibit you testified to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the first frame at which President Kennedy is visible coming out from behind that sign?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 225.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit has been affixed to frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 225 has been assigned Commission Exhibit No. 895.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, is detectable from a view of the Zapruder film frame 225 as to the positions or reaction of President Kennedy?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 225 there appears to be a reaction on the part of the President. This is----
Mr. SPECTER. Describe specifically what movement he is making in that picture or what his position is?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At frame 225 his hand is down, his right hand that was waving is down, and has been brought down as though it were reaching for his lapel or his throat. The other hand, his left had is on his lapel but rather high, as though it were coming up, and he is beginning to go into a hunched position.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say beginning to go into a hunched position is that apparent to you from viewing the motion picture and slides from the frames which succeed frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is primarily apparent from the motion picture because of the two or three or four frames that show as he emerges from the sign; that is, in the motion picture, you see the President reaching for his coat lapels and going into a hunched position, leaning forward and lowering his head.
Mr. McCLOY. That doesn't exist in frame 225 yet, does it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is just beginning in frame 225. That is frame 225 is the first view we have of the President.
Mr. McCLOY. Out past the sign.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. As he comes out from behind the sign that obstructs the cameraman from the President.
Mr. DULLES. But there is no obstruction from the sixth floor window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; no obstruction at this point. There is no obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Do the photographs on frame 225 depict the same circumstances as those depicted on the prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And do the measurements on frame 225 cover the same subjects as those covered on prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle from the rifle to the spot on the President's back on frame 210, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On frame 210, the angle from the rifle to the window, based on the horizon is 21°34'.
Mr. SPECTER. That is from the rifle to what, Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. From the rifle to the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President.
152
Page 153
Mr. SPECTER. What is the same angle at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 20°11'.
Mr. SPECTER. Those angles are computed to the horizontal?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the range of distance from the position of the car in frame 210 to the position of the car in frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 14.9 feet between frame 210 and frame 225.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the position of President Kennedy at frame 210 with respect to position C.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. President Kennedy is 138.9 feet from station C at frame 210.
Mr. SPECTER. Station C.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; station C to President Kennedy on frame 210 is 138.9 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the distance between station C and President Kennedy at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 153.8 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the car further positioned at frame 231?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number are we affixing to that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 896.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the photographs and measurements on 896 the same layout as those affixed to prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile stopped at frame 235 and similar photographs and measurements taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 235.
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Exhibit No. 897.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 240 with measurements and photographs taken similar to those in prior exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to that frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 898.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 249 with similar photographs and measurements taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. And what Commission exhibit number is given to those calculations and photographs on frame 249?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit 899.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to frame 249, that is how many frames beyond the first point at which the spot on President Kennedy's back was visible after he passed out from under the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 249?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 42 frames.
Mr. SPECTER. And does a 42-frame count have any significance with respect to the firing time on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we have established that the Zapruder motion picture camera operates at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second. And we have been advised that the minimum time for firing the rifle in successive shots is approximately two and a quarter seconds. So this gives us then a figure of two and a quarter seconds of frames; at 18.3, this gives us this figure of 41 to 42 frames.
Representative FORD. Would you repeat that again, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The camera operates at a speed of 18.3 frames per second. So that in two and a quarter seconds it would run through about 42--41 to 42 frames.
Representative FORD. Then the firing of the rifle, repeat that again?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. As to the firing of the rifle we have been advised that the minimum time for getting off two successive well-aimed shots on the rifle is approximately two and a quarter seconds. That is the basis for using this 41
153
Page 154
to 42 frames to establish two points in the film where two successive quick shots could have been fired.
Representative FORD. That is with one shot and then the firing.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Work the bolt and fire another one.
Mr. SPECTER. At frame 249 was Governor Connally in a position where he could have taken a shot with the bullet entering at the point immediately to the left under his right armpit with the bullet then going through and exiting at a point immediately under his right nipple?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; Governor Connally has begun to turn in his seat around in this manner, in such a way, turn to his right so that his body is in a position that a shot fired from the sixth floor window could not have passed through the path that it reportedly took through his body, if the bullet followed a straight, undeflected path.
Mr. DULLES. I don't quite get that. You mean because of his having turned this way, the shot that was then--had then been fired and apparently had hit the President could not have gone through him at that point?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct under the stated conditions. Even a shot, independent of the shot that hit the President, could not have gone through in that manner, coming from the sixth floor window, because the window was almost directly behind the automobile at that time and the Governor was in a position where the bullet couldn't have gone through his body in the manner that it reportedly did.
It would have come in through his shoulder and out through the other shoulder, in the way that he was lined up with the window.
Mr. SPECTER. So you say it could have gone through him, but it could not have passed through him with the angle of entry as disclosed in the Parkland Hospital records and described by Dr. Shaw?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, if it followed a straight path.
Mr. SPECTER. And exiting immediately under his right nipple, again as described in the hospital records at Parkland and by Dr. Shaw.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Have those points of entry and exit been made available to you in your analysis of this situation?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they have.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you elaborate just a little further on the observations and reasoning which you have undertaken to come to the conclusion which you have just expressed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We are speaking of frame 249, are we?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir, frame 249.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Could I see that exhibit? The photograph in the lower left corner of Commission Exhibit No. 899 is the photograph taken through the scope of the rifle on the sixth floor window when the car was stationed in this frame number position. It is noted from this photograph that the rifle is not quite directly behind the car but very nearly directly behind the car.
Governor Connally's body is turned. We have duplicated the position in the Zapruder photographs of Governor Connally and the President in the reenactment photograph, as nearly as possible, duplicated the same body position, and from the sixth floor window then you can see from the photograph that the Governor's body is turned to the Governor's right in such a fashion that an undeflected shot would not go through in the path as described by the Parkland doctors.
Mr. McCLOY. I don't quite follow that yet. The President has been shot at frame 249, according to your theory.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Might he not also have been shot at some earlier frames in--the indications are the reactions are shown considerably ahead of that frame.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. So, for. example, at frame 237 and at frame 237 Governor Connally hasn't turned to the right.
Mr. DULLES. But a shot has been fired at this time.
154
Page 155
Mr. McCLOY. But a shot has been fired at that time.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. So at that point he could have been hit; Governor Connally could have been hit.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Governor Connally could have been hit by frame 238.
Mr. McCLOY. But your point is when he gets farther along, he couldn't have been hit, let's say at frame 249 in the same spot where he was hit.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. He made the turn later than those frames you have been discussing at the time apparently of the first shot at the President.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; the first shot, but according to these frames, the first shot hit the President considerably before this.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And at a time again when Governor Connally's back was square to the window.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, not exactly square. I believe he was turned slightly to the right as he went behind the sign.
Mr. McCLOY. Take frame 231.
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. There the President has got his hands up as you put it to his throat.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. And here is Connally facing to the front.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. So at that point a bullet coming through the President's throat could have hit Connally in the spot where it did hit Connally.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am going to defer that question to Mr. Frazier who is in the window with the rifle scope and made a more thorough study of the possible path of the bullet. But he is straight in the car in frame 231.
Mr. McCLOY. But your testimony is in frame 248--frame 249 Connally couldn't have been hit from this window in the position where he was sitting.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, on the basis stated.
Mr. DULLES. But you would have then the problem you would think if Connally had been hit at the same time, would have reacted in the same way, and not reacted much later as these pictures show.
Mr. McCLOY. That is right.
Mr. DULLES. Because the wounds would have been inflicted.
Mr. McCLOY. That is what puzzles me.
Mr. DULLES. That is what puzzles me.
Senator COOPER. Would you identify the frame in which Governor Connally started turning to the right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as--in the motion picture as the car comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and there is a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there, at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn.
Mr. DULLES. Jerky motion in Connally in the film.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is--it may be merely where he stopped turning and started turning this way. It is hard to analyze.
Mr. DULLES. What I wanted to get at--whether it was Connally who made the jerky motion or there was something in the film that was jerky. You can't tell.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. You can't tell that.
Mr. McCLOY. Certainly the film is jerky at that point. I mean there is a big blur.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He does turn.
Mr. McCLOY. Just before and after that.
Representative FORD. But isn't it apparent in those pictures that after a
155
Page 156
slight hesitation Governor Connally's body turns more violently than the President's body?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. The President's only reaction is a motion to his throat or to his neck with his hands.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Representative FORD. Whereas Governor Connally actually turns his body rather sharply?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he turns as they go behind the signboard, he turns this way and he is turning a little bit this way and as he comes out of the signboard he is facing slightly to the right, comes around straight on and then he turns to his left straight on, and then he turns to his right, continues to turn around and falls over in Mrs. Connally's lap.
But in the motion picture it is a continuous movement as he goes around and fills.
Senator COOPER. Will you again answer my question which I asked and hasn't been answered and I say with all respect, in what frame did Governor Connally begin to turn to the right after he had placed his position straightforward as you have testified.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am sorry. That starts approximately at frames 233 to 234.
Senator COOPER. In what frame does the photograph show or in what frame is it shown that President Kennedy had moved his hands to his throat?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That shows on frame--it is clearer on frame 226, 225 is the frame where you first see him, and frame 226.
Mr. DULLES. How many frames between those two?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. From 26 to 33, eight. That would be a fraction of a second in time.
That is less than half second.
Representative FORD. It can be contended that based on these photographs of films that the first shot apparently was fired in frames 220 to 224, in that area.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I think you have to go back even to 210 because of reaction times; we don't know reaction times. But I would say between 210 and 225 because at 295 we have the President reacting.
So, in that 15 frames there it is behind the signboard, we can't see what is happening.
Mr. DULLES. What frame first shows him with his hands at his throat?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 225, 226.
Mr. McCLOY. 225, it is not too clear. It is much more pronounced in the next frame is where he puts his both hands to his throat, such as that.
Mr. DULLES. And Mrs. Kennedy has apparently turned around and looking at him.
Mr. McCLOY. One hand may be coming down from waving in 225.
Mr. DULLES. That is his left hand there--no; it is his right hand, your right. His right hand.
Representative FORD. Then based on the mathematics of how quickly a second shot could be fired, the second shot would be fired in approximately what frame? If you assume it, the first shot is from 210 to 224.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be 252 to 266, down in there.
Representative FORD. That would be the elapsed time of what?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Two and a quarter seconds.
Representative FORD. Two and a quarter seconds.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the very quickest.
Mr. SPECTER. On fixing the range from frames 210 to 225, where the President was first struck, did you take frame 210 because that was the first point after the President had passed out from under the oak tree?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the first point from this, and although we are able to see in the films that there is no apparent reaction from the President from 205 to 210, and as he disappears from behind the signboard, we cannot estimate the reaction time.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say reaction time you mean?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Of the President?
156
Page 157
Mr. SPECTER. Reaction time from 205----
Representative FORD. To 210?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Representative FORD. But there at frame 210, that is the first point at which the marksman had a clear shot after the President passed out from under the tree.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Representative FORD. Then you select frame 225 as the outside limit of the shot which struck the President because that is where you first observe a reaction by the President when he comes out from behind the sign.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. What frames are blanked out because of the sign?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The President, the last we get any scene of him at all, and this is just the very top of his head is 210.
Mr. DULLES: 210 to what is blanked out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 225.
Mr. DULLES. To 225 is blanked out?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, that is 15 frames.
Mr. McCLOY. 224 he just begins to appear.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. I don't think if you assume the President was hit at 225 and 1 don't think that is clear at all. I think it begins to get clear about 227 that he had been hit, that the reaction really develops. But I think that 225 it my very well be that he has not been hit because his hand isn't at his throat, he may be just moving from the position of waving.
Mr. DULLES. But that is about a tenth of a second.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; it is a very short time entirely, but I don't think the frame unequivocally shows the reaction to the, bullet at 225. I think it does unequivocally show it at 226 and 227.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps an additional question on the clarity of the slide itself as a point of reaction would be in order for Mr. Shaneyfelt, and then, may I say parenthetically, we want to have the Commission see these slides this afternoon.
We have prepared them to show to you so that you can observe for yourself what we are bringing to you through the witness to give you a frame of reference and an orientation.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, then what was your impression by frame 225, as you viewed it most recently this morning, with respect to a possible reaction on that frame made from the original Zapruder film?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my feeling that at frames 225, 226 and 227 you are having a reaction. You have a split second there, and at 225 the reaction is barely discernible, more discernible on the film and the slides than the reproduction you have here but it has to be considered in the light of the motion picture you see as he starts this reaction, and the reaction is by frame in either the slides or pictures--is clearly apparent in 226, and barely apparent in 225.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was frame 249 selected as a situs for calculations on the possible construction that President Kennedy was struck in the back at the first point unadjusted at which he emerged from the tree, to wit: frame 207, with an additional calculation of 42 frames giving the approximately two and a quarter seconds for the firing of a second shot to determine through this one means whether there was time for the rifleman to have operated the bolt, assuming he made a shot at 207, and to have made another shot at the earliest possible time at 249.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the selection of frame 249, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, going back just a moment, was frame 231 selected as a basis for analysis as the first frame after 225 because Governor Connally expressed the opinion when he viewed the frames that he thought he was hit by or at frame 231.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
157
Page 158
Mr. SPECTER. And was frame 235 selected as a basis of analysis because that was one point at which a number of the viewers, including staff and agents of the FBI and Secret Service thought that might be the last frame at which Governor Connally had turned enough to the right to still take a shot and have the bullet pass through his body from the sixth floor window at the angle described in the medical reports and by his doctors.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct on the basis of an undeflected path. That is the frame that the doctors selected as the frame beyond which he could not have received this shot and have it travel in the path that it reportedly traveled.
Mr. SPECTER. Was frame 240 selected for analysis as being the absolutely last time, based on the observations of those whom you have described as seeing the films, that the Governor could have conceivably taken a shot from the sixth floor window and have it pass through the body of the Governor in the way described in the medical reports and by the Governor's doctors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the analysis, made on the ability of the Governor to take the shot at each of the positions, based on the position he had at that particular frame in accordance with the amount of turn to the right which he had made at that particular time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there a still photograph known as AP photograph, which was taken at the time of the assassination or a view seconds thereafter, studied by you and others in connection with the analysis that you have been describing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the simulated automobile placed in the same position that the Presidential automobile was in when the photograph was made by the AP photographer, as closely as it could be positioned at the time of the reenactment?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is attached to the photographs of that AP shot and the reenactment picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 900.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe what Photographs appear then on Commission Exhibit No. 900?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Commission Exhibit No. 900, the top photograph is a photograph purportedly made by an AP photographer shortly after one of the shots. It depicts the side of the Governor's head, the left side of the Governor's head, his ear is visible, he has turned considerably. It depicts the President's hand touching his lapels, and a portion of the President's face.
Secret Service agents on the followup car are seen also. The Texas School Book Building in the background.
The reenactment photograph was made after positioning the car by looking at the photograph, based on the position of the car as related to the lane line in the street, as related to the position of the building, the column of the building and so on to reestablish the location.
We also reestablish in reenactment the position of the agent taking Governor Connally's position in the car used in the reenactment and the position of President Kennedy to closely approximate the actual photograph made by the AP, Associated Press. This was then studied, the car in this position was then studied, from the Zapruder position, and was determined to be frame 255.
Mr. SPECTER. Was an exhibit prepared then on frame 255?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 255?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 901.
Mr. SPECTER. Does that have the same layout of Photographs and measurements as on frames 225, 222 and those which preceded them.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has. It has the Zapruder photographs, the matching reenactment photograph, and the photograph through the rifle scope along with the measurements and the angles.
Mr. SPECTER. On the AP Photograph shown on Commission Exhibit No. 900, what reaction, if any, do you observe by the Secret Service agents on the followup car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Secret Service agents on the right-hand side of the
158
Page 159
followup car are looking back and to their right. The one to the front on the left-hand side of the car is looking generally toward the President.
The one in back of him on the left fender is looking slightly to his right.
Representative FORD. What is the distance on frame 255 between the President and the rifle?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the rifle in the window is 218 feet. This is frame 255, which is well past the signboard, well past 249 which is the last frame we considered.
Mr. McCLOY. Well past the first evidence of reaction?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. On the part of the President to a shot.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well past, and past the point in the film where Governor Connally states he has been hit.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that simulated car placed in any other position to duplicate still a subsequent frame?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the frame No. 313, which is the frame that records the shot to the President's head, was recorded as frame 313 and was reestablished during reenactment.
Mr. SPECTER. What Commission number has been affixed to frame 313?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 902.
Mr. SPECTER. Is this exhibit organized in a somewhat different fashion from the prior frame exhibits?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you start with the photograph in the upper left-hand corner and describe for the Commissioners, please, each photograph or picture which appears thereon and what it represents?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I might state first that all of the other photographs were reestablished on the basis of the Zapruder film using reference points in the background of the pictures.
As is apparent here from the photograph of the Zapruder frame 313 there are no reference points. There is just a grassy plot. So there is no reference point on which we can reestablish the position of the car in the roadway.
For this reason it was necessary to use the Nix film of the head shot and the Muchmore film of the head shot to establish this position in the road.
The right-hand photograph represents frame 24 from the Nix film, and is the frame that depicts the shot to the head. We used Mr. Nix's camera and a print of this picture and stood in the previously determined position of Mr. Nix when he took his photographs, and had them roll the car down to a position so that the President's head was directly under the point where Mr. Zapruder is standing on the projection.
Mr. SPECTER. You are describing the photograph on which side----
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the----
Mr. SPECTER. Of the viewer.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the upper left-hand side.
Mr. McCLOY. I think you said right.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper left-hand photograph is the photograph from the taken from the frame 24 of the Nix film.
The photograph on the right, upper right, is the photograph taken at the re-enactment from the position where Mr. Nix was standing. We then proceeded over to the point that we had established as the position of Mrs. Muchmore, and using frame 42, which is a frame in her film depicting the shot to the head, and using the steps and their relation to the President and the objects in the background in relation to the President as shown in this lower left-hand photograph, which is the Muchmore frame 42, we reestablished, we checked the position we had placed the car in, based on the Nix photographs, and found that it conformed and checked out as being in a closely accurate position.
This is the basis used for establishing the position of the car. After we had established that, through the Nix and Muchmore films, we then checked it against the Zapruder photograph, which is the second from the top on the left of Commission Exhibit No. 902, frame 313, which shows the explosion from the top of the President's head. Just to the right of that second
159
Page 160
picture down from the right, is the photograph made at the reenactment from Zapruder's position.
We know from studying the films that just two or three frames before frame 313 we can see a little bit of yellow along the curb, and this checks out because along this area of the photograph from the Zapruder position of the reenactment is a yellow strip.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say this area you are referring to the yellow area which appears on the left-hand curb immediately to the rear of the simulated car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, and this, therefore, checks out this as being a fairly accurate position for the car in frame 313.
This photograph then, the third down on the left, is a photograph through the telescope of the rifle of the car positioned in frame 313.
Mr. McCLOY. Would you read off those dimensions from that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The dimensions from the surveyor on frame 313 of the distance from the wound mark on the President's stand-in to station C is 230.8 feet.
Distance to the rifle in the window is 265.3 feet. The angle to rifle in window is 15°21' and this is based on the horizontal.
Distance to the overpass is 260.6 feet, the angle to the overpass is 1°28'.
Mr. SPECTER. What would the angle be considering the adjustment on the angle of the street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be less 3° or 12°21', approximately.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say approximately is that because the adjustment is somewhat greater than 3°?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. How much is it exactly, if you know?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 3.9. It is almost 4.
Mr. SPECTER. Three degrees nine minutes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees nine minutes, I am sorry.
Mr. DULLES. Would you have to make a similar adjustment to the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because the angle to the overpass is based on the horizontal. The overpass, you would have to add the 3°9'.
Mr. DULLES. From the overpass, is this an angle up or angle down?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an angle down.
Mr. DULLES. So it is an angle down in both cases?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say that you are reducing the angle of 15°21' by to an angle of 12°12', is that as the shot passes through the body of the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is at that point.
Mr. SPECTER. How was the speed of the camera ascertained, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore; their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film in all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with a large sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and conditions as described by the people who used the cameras. We ran through several tests of film, and then after the film was developed it was studied under magnification, and frames were counted for a period of 2 to 3 seconds or for the full running time, and averages were taken.
Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to more or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras are approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into consideration and were averaged.
The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second.
The Nix and Muchmore cameras were both found around 18.5 frames per second.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a
160
Page 161
specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313.
This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds.
This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run.
Mr. DULLES. Over the entire run between what points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Between frame 161 and 313.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; but where, could you place that on that chart, for example?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And describe the points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 161 which is the frame where they have just gone under the tree, to frame 313 which is the shot to the head. So that it is that distance there which is 136.1 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. In referring to those points, will you specify what exhibit number you are referring to there?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is----
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if we could mark those points on that exhibit?
Mr. SPECTER. Of course, Mr. Dulles.
That is Commission Exhibit No. 883, is it not, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you take the first point Mr. Dulles has referred to and mark it as point X. I think we already have some letter designations in the early part of the alphabet.
Mr. McCLOY. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The first point?
Mr. SPECTER. This frame 161.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film.
Mr. DULLES. It is only to get the speed and distance here.
Mr. McCLOY. It has no relation to any shots.
Mr. DULLES. No relation to shots. Speed and distance.
Mr. SPECTER. It is the first frame we have where the marksman has his last clear shot of the back of the President's neck before it passes under the tree without adjustment. Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. What letter designations did you want?
Mr. SPECTER. Mark 161, frame 161, with the letter designation X, if you will, please.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And 313?
Mr. SPECTER. With the letter designation Y.
Mr. McCLOY. The record ought to show the two points are the point which you merely calculated the speed at which the car is going, isn't that right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Between those two points the car went at an average speed of 11.2 miles an hour?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Between point X and Y on Exhibit No. 883 the speed of the car was determined to be an average speed of 11.2 miles per hour.
Mr. DULLES. How long did the car take to go that distance, do you know, translated into time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 8.3 seconds.
Mr. DULLES. 8.3 seconds.
161
Page 162
Mr. SPECTER. What motion pictures, if any, were taken during the reenactment?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. During the reenactment the black-and-white photographs were made from Zapruder's position with a Speedgraphic camera and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they were established with the car just stationary in those locations.
After establishing all those points and making these film records of it, we then had the car proceed along that Elm Street route at approximately 11 miles per hour, and filmed it with Mr. Zapruder's camera loaded with color film from Mr. Zapruder's position and simultaneously photographed it with Mr. Nix's camera from Mr. Nix's position, and Mrs. Muchmore's camera from Mrs. Muchmore's position, and this was done twice.
(Off the record.)
Mr. SPECTER. The last question was about what movies and stills you took?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We haven't discussed them all yet.
Mr. SPECTER. Were any other movies taken or photographs taken in addition to those which you heretofore described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; after positioning the car in the street at the specific locations and making the movies with the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore cameras with the car running at 11 miles an hour on the route, I then went to the sixth-floor window and mounted the camera on the rifle, and photographs were made with black and white film motion pictures of the car in the fixed positions from frame 161 through frame positions 313. The car was stopped at each position. The individuals and the car were positioned by Mr. Gauthier on the street using the Zapruder pictures to reposition the individuals in the car, and motion pictures were made of the car sitting in those various positions. After this the car was driven at 11 miles an hour along the route and photographs were made through the rifle scope with a 16-mm. motion picture camera following the car as a target, as the car drove down the assassination route.
Following this, there were three runs made on black and white film. Then color film was loaded in the camera and it was again photographed on color film, 16 mm. with the car traveling at 11 miles an hour and the scope of the rifle following the car as the target.
This completed all the photographs that were made at the assassination site.
Mr. SPECTER. Was a subsequent photograph taken in the garage which you previously identified as the railway express garage?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat, even though you have heretofore mentioned them, the angles between the spot on the back of President Kennedy's neck which was marked with a white chalk mark and the muzzle of the rifle when the car was positioned at frame 210?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the rifle in the window was 21°34'.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the comparable angle at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 20 11'.
Mr. SPECTER. So what would be the average angle then between those two points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The average angle, allowing for the 309, street grade results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of 17°43'30''.
Mr. SPECTER. And that is the average angle from the muzzle to President Kennedy as he sat in the car or President Kennedy's stand-in as he sat in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. To the wound entrance.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the average angle of 17 43'30'' measured from the muzzle to the President's body as the President would be seated in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is out on the street in those frame positions, yes. It is measured to the point of the wound on the back of the President.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph.
162
Page 163
Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at an angle of 17°43'30''.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He did.
Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from the signboard.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a couple of questions?
Am I correct in assuming that you have made these determinations about the degree of the angle of the trajectory of the bullet at the time the President was struck, locating the position of the President in the car on the one hand, and the location of the rifle at the time the shots were fired?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the wound, you mean the angle of the wound?
Senator COOPER. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle----
Senator COOPER You had to establish the position of the President at the time the bullet struck him and the position of the rifle to make a determination about the degree of the angle of the direction?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The positions in the car, their positions in the car, were based on the Zapruder film.
Senator COOPER And you were able to determine what you think very accurately the position of the President in the car by the films that you have examined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Senator COOPER. Then the factor then, which is not determinable exactly, then is the location of the rifle, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. Upon what did you determine the location of the rifle upon what factors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rifle was positioned in the sixth floor window of the Book Building where the cartridges were found, and was determined from information furnished by representatives of the Commission.
Senator COOPER. Did you have information about the location of certain boxes that were seen--were found--at the window after the shooting occurred?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Yes; we had photographs of the boxes and we were advised, of the approximate position in the window and how far down the window was, the fact that some observers noted the rifle sticking out the window.
163
Page 164
Senator COOPER. I want to ask you--you did have information from the testimony of witnesses who said they saw the rifle protruding from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had this information furnished to us by the Commission.
Senator COOPER. And those facts, those locations were made known to you, and upon that evidence did you locate the rifle, in making these calculations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the location of the rifle in all of our calculations.
Senator COOPER. Just one other question. Assuming that there might have been some variation in the location of the rifle, length of the window, the breadth of the window, or that the rifle you used was held higher than the rifle might have been, would it have made how much variation would it have made, in your judgement, in these calculations you made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't believe that any movement of the rifle in that specific window would alter our calculations to any appreciable degree if you stay within that window, because our reenactment and our repositioning of the bodies in the car based on the photographs is subject to some variation, too, so we have variations throughout.
And the variations from the position of the rifle at that particular window, I feel would be negligible.
Senator COOPER. At every point where you made it, hypothetically, at least, made the determination that at a particular point the President was struck by a bullet, at that point the car and the President could be seen from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Even under the tree you still could see the car and the President through the tree.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did the surveyors calculate the angle and distance from each position where the simulated car was stopped from the President to the triple underpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER And are those figures reproduced in terms of distance to overpass, and angle to overpass on every one of the exhibits which also depict distance to window, referring to the sixth floor window, and angle to rifle in window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they do. They are on all the exhibits.
Mr. SPECTER. Now; is there any point on the overpass where the angle to the President's car or the angle to the President's stand-in seated in the simulated car, would permit a shot to be fired and to create the wound in the President's neck, which has an angle of decline of approximately 17°, based on the information furnished to you by the medical evidence, which we have asked you to assume, where that wound could be inflicted on the President's neck without regard to the point of entry?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; none of the angles from the overpass are anywhere near 17°. They range from frame 161 at a minus 7', from horizontal, to frame 313 which is 1°28'. None of them are even close to 17°.
Senator COOPER. From the exhibit that has been introduced, showing the position of the car and the President at the time of the first shot--what was the distance from that point to the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The approximate location of the first shot----
Senator COOPER. Frame what?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, the exact frame has not been established, but it would be in the range from frames 207 to 225. At frame 207, the distance to the handrail on a line of sight vision to the wound on the President is 350.9 feet. At frame 225 the line of sight distance from the handrail of the overpass to the wound on the President is 334 feet.
Senator. COOPER. What is the distance at those points to the window in the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 207 line of sight distance from the wound to the window is 174.9 feet. This distance to the overpass from there is 350.9.
On frame 225, line of sight to the window is 190.8 feet as opposed to the distance to the handrail on the overpass of 334.0 feet.
Senator COOPER. Did you yourself stand at the handrail of the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Did I?
164
Page 165
Senator COOPER. Yes.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean, Mr. Shaneyfelt, by line of sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Straight line distance.
Representative FORD. Is that what is calculated by the surveyor?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct; by Mr. West.
Mr. SPECTER. Were there members of the testing teams that did go to the handrail at the triple underpass to make observations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were.
Mr. SPECTER. Who were they?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am not real sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, those conclude my questions for Mr. Shaneyfelt. If it please the Commission, I would like to call Mr. Frazier at this time.
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaneyfelt.
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L SHANEYFELT RESUMED
(Present were Mr. McCloy, Mr. Dulles, and Representative Ford.)
Mr. SPECTER. May the record now show that the Commission has now reassembled on
the first floor of the VFW Building where a motion picture projector and slide
projector and screen have been set up for viewing of the films. Mr. Shaneyfelt,
what are you going to show us first of all?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first film will be of the color motion picture made through
the rifle scope as the car drove down the assassination route at approximately
11 miles an hour. It wi11 give the view the rifleman had as he aimed the rifle
from the sixth floor window of the Book Building.
(Film)
Mr. DULLES. Is that going 11 miles per hour?
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film will be the black and white photographs of the car in
the fixed still positions in each of the frame numbers described in previous
testimony.
In addition the final portion of the film is a run through of the car at 11
miles an hour on three separate runs filmed as the rifleman would have seen the
car looking through the rifle.
On the first run of the car going down the assassination route I have stained
frames in the vicinity of frame 222 which is after the first clear shot after
the tree, I have stained the frame at the location of shot 313, which is the
second pink flash you will see.
I found, in examining the film, that this is a shorter span of time than in the
actual film. It is a span on the reenactment of about three and a half seconds
between 222 and 313.
The second frame stained is 313 but since it is running at a faster speed I have
also stained a spot that represents 5 seconds which is what the time lapse was
between frame 222 and frame 313 in the actual assassination films. That will be
after the car driving scene.
(Film)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the last clear shot and this is an adjusted last clear
shot before going under the tree. This is the shot approximately 185. This is
frame 186 which is the adjusted shots which would account for a 10-inch
variance.
Shot of frame 207, and the adjusted frame which was 210. This is frame 222 and
you can see the tree is still in the background.
This is 225 now. 231. At this point Governor Connally states he has been hit by
now. This is 235. 240--249--255--and the shot to the head which is 313.
Mr. SPECTER. What is this? Describe this, Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the run at 11 miles an hour containing the pink stain.
This is another run at 11 miles an hour. It will give you some idea
176
Page 177
of the difficulty of tracking a car with a heavy camera mounted on the rifle.
Mr. McCLOY. You have to sight that with a camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Sighting through a camera.
(Film)
Mr. REDLICH. Just as a final thing, Mr. McCloy, would you like to see the
Zapruder film?
Mr. McCLOY. I think we will take the original Zapruder again, I don't know
whether we have anything that is more significant in the black and whites, I am
talking about the particular movies of the frames, we have not seen those.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. I think we have seen all we need to see with regard to that. What
have you got left?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The original Zapruder film.
Mr. McCLOY. We will see that.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have the duplication of the Zapruder film reenactment. The
first portion of the reel is the still shots and the last portion is the run
through at 11 miles an hour.
Mr. SPECTER. I think you would find that worth while to see.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Then we have Nix and Muchmore of the same run.
Mr. McCLOY. Let's do those, too.
Representative FORD. First is the original Zapruder.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Original Zapruder. This is not the original. This is the first
copy.
(Film)
Mr. SPECTER. Will you state for the record what film we just saw?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film we just viewed is a copy made directly from the
original Zapruder film of the actual assassination.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you now show us the film which was taken at the
reconstruction from the Zapruder position?
(Film)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. These films we made in Dallas have been developed and left
intact and have not been edited in any way so there are a lot of blank spaces
where we run the leader off and turn the film. This is position 161. This
side-to-side jiggle is a camera malfunction.
Mr. McCLOY. This is 16 mm.?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; 8 mm.
Representative FORD. Is this from his camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; taken with his camera. Frame 222, frame 225. This is frame
231.
Representative FORD. He has a delayed reaction compared to what the President
did.
Mr. SPECTER. What frame is this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 313, the head shot.
Mr. McCLOY. The head shot.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the position which is not duplicated on the Zapruder
film. This is running the film out to reload it.
During that run at 11 miles an hour we made no effort to duplicate the body
position because it would have been most difficult to know just when to turn.
The only other films we have are the ones we shot with the Nix and Muchmore
cameras of this same run from their positions.
Mr. McCLOY. Did Nix, Muchmore get a second shot of the head shot?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mrs. Muchmore got the head shot and Mr. Nix got the head shot.
Mr. McCLOY. They both got it.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have both those films.
Mr. McCLOY. We might take a look at it while we are here. I don't think I have
ever seen those. Those are 88 mm, too.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
(Film.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film is the film that was taken by Mr. Orville Nix of the
assassination. This is along Houston street going toward Elm. There
177
Page 178
was the head shot. We will roll it back and run it at slow motion. The head shot
shows just a very faint pink.
Mr. McCLOY. Very soon after this sequence begins. Just as the President is
directly under the white abutment in the background. I will try to give you a
clue about when it is going to happen, there.
The next film is the film that was exposed in Mr. Nix's camera standing in the
position determined to be his camera position at the reenactment in Dallas, with
the car traveling at approximately 11 miles an hour along Elm street.
These films were compared with each other and found to be consistent in the size
of the car in the area of the picture and verified the position as being that of
Mr. Nix.
(Film)
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now shown us, Mr. Shaneyfelt, all of the movies that we
saw, we took in Dallas?
Mr. McCLOY. Mrs. Muchmore.
Mr. SPECTER. Mrs. Muchmore.
(Film)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the motorcade coming down Main and turning into Houston
street.
Mr. McCLOY. She didn't know she took that.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Have we now seen all the films from Dallas? That concludes the
films.
Mr. McCloy, for the record, I would like to have the films marked with
Commission Exhibit No. 904 identifying the Zapruder copy. That is the copy of
the original Zapruder film.
May I say here, parenthetically, that we do not intend to reproduce all of this
in the published record of the Commission since we have extracted the key
numbers on Exhibit 885 on the album which shows the frames of the Zapruder film
after the President's automobile turns left off of Houston onto Elm, but for the
permanent archives these films should be made a part of the permanent record.
I would like to have a copy of the original Nix film marked as Commission
Exhibit No. 905. I would like to have the copy of the original Muchmore film
marked as Commission Exhibit No. 906. I would like to have all of the movies
which we took at Dallas marked in a group as Commission Exhibit No. 907.
Mr. McCLOY. That is all the movies that were taken on May 24 in Dallas by the
test team, so to speak.
Mr. SPECTER. Right, Commissioner McCloy. They are marked as Commission Exhibit
No. 907, and I would like to move formally for the admission into evidence of
Commission Exhibits Nos. 904 through 907 at this time.
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibits Nos. 904, 905, 906, and 907 were marked for identification,
and received in evidence.)
(Whereupon, at 7:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT
The testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt was taken .at 3:40 p.m., on June 12, 1964,
at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
(The oath was administered by the reporter.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state your full name, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have testified before the Commission in this proceeding
before?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will not rehearse your qualifications again, since you have
already been accepted as an expert in the field in which you are going to be
questioned today.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a photograph marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1,
consisting of a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle, and I ask you
whether you prepared that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a photograph of an existing Commission exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; this is a copy of the small photograph that is a part of
Commission Exhibit No. 133.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be 133-A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't recall whether it is A or B.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you photographs of Commission Exhibits Nos. 133-A and
133-B and ask if this serves to refresh your recollection as to whether
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph of 133-A or 133-B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the Commission
Exhibit No. 133-A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the cover of Life magazine, issue
of February 21, 1964, which I have labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2, and I ask
you if this is a photograph which you have previously examined in connection
with earlier testimony given by you to the Commission?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you page 80 of the same issue of Life, which is labeled
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 3, and I ask you the same question, that is, whether this
is the photograph you have previously discussed in connection with earlier
testimony?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, I am using duplicate originals rather than
the actual exhibits, because the actual exhibits are now being printed up by the
Government Printing Office.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the front page of the Detroit Free Press, issue of
February 17, 1964, Containing a picture similar to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, and
the other pictures thus far referred to---and I am labeling this Detroit Free
Press page Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 and ask you whether you have examined the
picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and a rifle appearing on that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare this picture with 133-A or Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
1, your reproduction of 133-A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I found that the reproduction of the photograph of Oswald
holding the gun on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 has insufficient detail to warrant
positive identification as being the same photograph as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
1.
However, I did find that the photograph in the newspaper, Exhibit No. 4, is
consistent in all respects with the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1, except
for variations in retouching that are a normal part of the process of making
halftone reproductions from photographs for newspapers. I further found that
410
Page 411
there was nothing in these photographs to indicate that they are other than the
same photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say that the only variations appear to be
variations in retouching, that would be based on the conclusion that they were
the same photograph, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe those variations which are apparently due to
retouching, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. There is an area to the right of Oswald's head and
shoulder, to my left as I look at the photograph, that has been airbrushed or
otherwise altered, to intensify the outline of the shoulder, which would be
Oswald's shoulder.
In addition there is retouching around the stock of the rifle, and along the
other portions of the rifle where it crosses Oswald's body, that has been added
to intensify the detail in that portion of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "around the stock," could you specify as to whether
you mean the top, bottom, end, or all three or any two of those boundaries?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 there is retouching on both the top
and bottom and butt of the stock, and also a highlight running along the top of
the gun from the bolt forward toward the muzzle.
There is an additional highlight along the bottom of the gun Just forward of the
trigger assembly between the trigger assembly and the hand.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, there is a highlight on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 running
near the top of the barrel or receiver, is that correct--terminating at Oswald's
left hand?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the relation between the highlight at the top of the
barrel or receiver in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 and the highlight just referred
to in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In Exhibit No. 1, that highlight along the bolt of the gun is in
two parts, and the highlight in the photograph or the reproduction of the
photograph, Exhibit No. 4, is a continuous highlight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it your opinion that the highlight in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4
is based upon the highlight in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. But it differs, at least, in that it makes a continuous highlight
where none appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, is that your testimony?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, a telescopic sight is apparent
on the rifle, and no such sight is apparent in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4. Do you
have any opinion as to the reason for the lack of a sight appearing on
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that the sight does not appear in the reproduction of
the photograph on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, because it was not retouched to
intensify the detail of the sight, and, therefore was lost in the engraving
process. I do not believe that there was any retouching over the sight in order
to purposely obliterate it from the reproduction in Exhibit No. 4.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is there generally a loss of detail in reproduction of
illustrations appearing in newspapers, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is. This is apparent in other areas of this
photograph when compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, in areas of Oswald's
shirt, where wrinkling appears in Exhibit No. 1, and is lost in the
reproduction. Also, the wrinkles in the dark areas of the trousers are not
reproduced in the halftone process, but this detail is lost by the process.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is this halftone process which you mention?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the halftone process by which a continuous tone
photograph, such as Exhibit No. 1, is photographed through a screen so that it
can be broken up into a dot pattern of black dots on a white background and
411
Page 412
white dots on a black background to give the appearance of continuous tone in
the printed newspaper reproduction. And this is the only means by which a
continuous-tone photograph can be reproduced.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is it called a halftone process?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't really know the answer but I would assume that it is
because it gives you the tones in between black and white, or the halftones.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, a loss of detail is inherent in this process, is it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true, particularly in regard to newspaper reproductions,
where a relatively coarse screen is used in making the halftone. In a magazine
publication, where a higher quality of printing is used, and a better quality of
paper is used, it is possible to use a finer screen and thereby retain a greater
amount of the detail.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, referring once more to the highlight running along the top
of the weapon, and terminating at Oswald's left hand in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
4; when you compare this exhibit with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, does it appear
that that highlight actually runs along the top of the weapon?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In the reproduction of the photograph on Exhibit No. 4, the
impression is given that the highlight is along the top of the rifle, because
you see no additional detail above that highlight along the top of the gun.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you compare that with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, where a
similar highlight appears, does that highlight actually denote the top of the
weapon, or is any detail above the highlight apparent in Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No.1?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, the highlight does not denote the
top of the weapon. There is detail present that shows other areas of the gun,
the breech, above the highlight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would you say then that detail of the weapon itself, that
is, the upper part of the weapon, had been lost along with detail representing
the telescopic sight?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Bringing your attention back to Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3,
which are the Life photographs, how did these photographs compare with
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The primary difference is in the retouching. In the area above
and behind Oswald's right shoulder, the background has been retouched out on
Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press. In the Life magazine reproduction,
Exhibit No. 2, the background has been left in, and the retouching has been
added to the shirt area around the right shoulder to enhance the detail along in
that area.
The Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2, also has retouching around the
scope of the rifle in order that it will not blend into the dark shirt that
Oswald . was wearing and thus be lost in the reproduction process; this has not
been done in Exhibit No. 4. The retouching along the top of the rifle stock is
generally similar, in that it is in a straight line from the butt of the stock
to the bolt. However, Exhibit No. 4 has a different type of retouching along the
end or butt of the stock and the bottom of the stock or the lower edge of the
stock between the butt and the trigger guard. Highlights along the top and
bottom of the breech area are different in Exhibit No. 4 than in Exhibit No. 2.
There is a dark shadow between the legs of Oswald that is about halfway between
the knee and the crotch that has been left in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 4,
but has been retouched out of the Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2.
These are the primary variations in the retouching on the two exhibits.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the highlight running at or near the top of the receiver or
barrel in the bolt area show a continuous or an intermittent form in Cornmission
Exhibit No. 2?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 2 shows a break in the highlight along
the bolt, and is reproduced very close to the original photograph, which is
Exhibit No. 1.
In fact, this area was probably not retouched, or this highlight was probably
not retouched, for the Life magazine reproduction.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you also mentioned that the retouching along the stock
412
Page 413
was different when Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2 is compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 4. Could you go into a little bit of detail on that difference?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I mentioned that the highlight along the top from the butt
to the bolt is generally similar in that it is in a straight line. Although the
rifle itself is actually curved along that area, they both have been retouched
in a relatively straight line along the top edge of the stock. There has been a
white or light line added along the butt of the stock where it crosses Oswald's
leg in Exhibit No. 4 and this has not been done in Exhibit No. 2. In addition, a
white outline has been drawn in along the bottom edge of the stock as it runs
from the butt to the trigger guard in Exhibit No. 4. This has not been done in
Exhibit No. 2.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, when retouching is effected, is it performed
on a negative or on a print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Retouching for newspaper reproduction is almost always done on
the print.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what about magazine reproductions?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would also be true of magazine reproductions.
Mr. EISENBERG. And would that explain how Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 4 could
differ from each other, even though they were apparently both taken from the
same print, originally from the same print, of which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is
a photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that would explain the difference.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is--could you go into detail on that? Could you elaborate
that answer? By what process would the result of a reproduction, of the same
print differ, as reproduced in two different media or two different magazines or
newspapers?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, the primary variation would be in the retouching that has
been added. Different publications and different retouch artists would handle a
photograph differently, and add different retouching to them. Therefore, these
would be the main variations which you would have between two different
reproductions. In addition there can also be differences in the quality of the
engraving, as there are differences in quality of many things. A newspaper
reproduction is made with a coarser screen and gives less detail than a magazine
reproduction that uses a finer screen and, therefore, reproduces more detail.
These are some of the basic things that would affect these reproductions and
make variations in the reproductions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you page 80 of Newsweek magazine,
issue of March 2, 1964, also containing a photograph like those we have been
examining, and this is marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, and I ask you whether
you have examined that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions, please?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I found that the photograph reproduced in the Newsweek magazine,
issue of March 2, 1964, which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, is
the same in all general characteristics as the photograph that has been marked
as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and I found no differences to suggest that it
is other than the same photograph----
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Except for variations in retouching.
Mr. EISENBERG. I take it that your testimony concerning Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos.
4 and 5 is that due to some loss of detail it is impossible to say that these
photographs are identical to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1---or rather Exhibit No.
133-A, on which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. I is based--in the same way you can say
that a fingerprint is identical to a given fingerprint impression; is that
correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I was not able to positively identify them,
because of this loss of detail.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your opinion as to the probability that they are
identical, bearing in mind that it is impossible to make an absolute unqualified
determination of identity?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They may very well be identical since I found no significant
differences other than the retouching.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there much doubt in your mind?
413
Page 414
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very little.
Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from the factors which have been mentioned so far as
apparently due to retouching, and those factors which you have not yet discussed
but will, was there any difference between the reproductions and the original,
between the apparent reproductions and the original? That is, was lighting the
same, position, and so forth?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I found them to be the same in all of these general
characteristics as to lighting and position of hands and position of body, their
relation to the background. I found no differences whatsoever.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that for the photograph to be a different photograph, I take
it, you would have had to have Oswald line up exactly in the same position, with
his elbows and torso in precisely the same relative position, with the rifle at
precisely the same relative height and in precisely the same relative position
as it had been in previously, with the lighting casting the exact same shadows,
insofar as shadows are visible, and so forth, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you found no discrepancies in those items I have just
mentioned?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.
To make the record complete, is there any other possibility, no matter how
remote?
Mr. SHANEYFELT, Yes; even though it would be extremely remote, it is conceivable
that a person could actually make a drawing or painting of a picture exactly
like this, that when reproduced in a newspaper or publication with its loss of
detail would resemble Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, in the same manner that this
picture or this reproduction resembles Exhibit No. 133-A.
Mr. EISENBERG. "This reproduction" being which, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Either Exhibit No. 4, or Exhibit No. 5, Exhibit No. 2, any of
the magazine or newspaper reproductions that we have discussed.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are not talking about Commission Exhibit No. 133-A itself,
which you testified to earlier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No, no.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you See any evidence of this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I do not, and I think it is in the realm of unreasonable
doubt and it is highly improbable.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, could you describe the
apparent retouching in that exhibit?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is airbrushing in the background area that shows
beside the right shoulder of Oswald, where the tree that shows in Exhibit No. 1
has been airbrushed out to a darkened area. There have been highlights added to
the rifle, a straight highlight along the top of the stock, running from the
butt of the stock to the bolt, a bright highlight along the butt of the stock.
There has been rather elaborate retouching around the bolt area or breech area
of the rifle. The highlight that appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 along the
bolt of the gun, which appears as a broken line or two segments of a line or
highlight, appears in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5 as a broken line very
much like the actual highlight in the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1.
There has been a highlight added parallel to that, along the bottom of or just
below that area in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5, which does not appear in
Exhibit No. 1.
The top of the rifle has been emphasized with a strong highlight, and the
highlight in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 5 along the top of the rifle does
not conform to the actual top of the rifle as it can be seen in Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 1.
There are some other highlights added above that, that are rather unexplainable
but may be highlights relative to the lower portion of the scope.
Also a highlight has been added along the top of the barrel between Oswald's
left hand and where the barrel extends past his left shoulder.
There has been some retouching added around the pistol on the right hip of
Oswald, and around the holster. These are the primary points that have been
retouched.
414
Page 415
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, does this photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5,
more closely resemble the Detroit Free Press photograph, which is Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 4, or the Life photographs, Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It corresponds to the reproduction in the Detroit Free Press,
Exhibit No. 4, and not as well to the reproduction on Exhibit No. 2, which is
the Life magazine. In fact, the reproductions on Exhibits Nos. 4 and No. 5 both
have two white specks along the right leg between the knee and the right foot,
centrally located in that area one above the other, that do not appear in the
original photograph, which is Commission Exhibit 133-A, and do not appear in the
Life magazine reproduction on either Exhibit No. 2 or 3. This would indicate to
me that these two photographs may have originated from the same basic source or
basic print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in fact, the credit under Shaneyfelt No. 5 says, "Copyright
1964, Detroit Free Press," is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. But is the picture identical in all respects to the Detroit Free
Press picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; the retouching, particularly around the breech of the rifle
in Exhibit No. 5, which is the Newsweek reproduction, is different than the
retouching on the reproduction in Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the reproduction around the breech, that is, just below
Oswald's left hand, correspond to anything you have ever seen on a rifle, Mr.
Shaneyfelt--that is, the four or five roughly parallel lines?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it doesn't correspond to anything that I recall having seen
on a rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. What do you think the genesis of all those lines would be?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that they are possibly the artist's interpretation of
how the rifle may have looked in that area, since the photograph being retouched
was indistinct in that area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that would be likely to have been done by a person
not familiar with rifles?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is a possibility, but I wouldn't be able to state that with
any degree of certainty. That is one possibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. I also see that Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 has an arrow pointing to
the revolver, which is not present in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5 differs from Exhibit
No. 4, although it seems to be substantially similar, and in fact Newsweek
credits its photo to the Detroit Free Press, which is .the Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 4 picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I would attribute these differences to the differences in
retouching. Since it would be normal procedure in publications of this type for
each publication to do its own retouching for its own reproductions, they would
normally receive the picture in an unretouched condition from whatever source is
available, such as the Associated Press, or, as in Exhibit No. 3, the credit to
the Detroit Free Press, and after receiving the unretouched photograph, would
then add the retouching that they desired to have on the photo before making the
halftone reproduction.
Mr. EISENBERG. The area to the right of Oswald's shoulder and head, that is, to
the left of the shoulder and head as we look at the picture, appears to be
retouched or airbrushed out in the same way in both pictures. Would that be your
conclusion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; with one exception, that while the airbrushing is generally
similar, it appears in the Detroit Free Press, which is Exhibit No. 4, as a
light area against a black shirt, while in Newsweek, Exhibit No. 5, it appears
as a black area against a rather dark shirt, with a light highlight added along
the shoulder to make the area stand out against the background.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it your conclusion, then, that two separate retouchings were
done to accomplish that effect, one retouching by the Newsweek people and one
retouching by the Detroit Free Press people?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have no foundation on which to base a positive statement in
that regard, but this is suggested by the variations that are present.
415
Page 416
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the presence of that same feature as a retouch in both
photographs might be coincidental, or at least might not have been done by the
same person?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And in your mind that similarity of feature does not preclude
Free possibility that a completely unretouched photo was submitted by the
Detroit Free Press to Newsweek?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you page 30 of the New York Times,
issue of February 19, 1964, which again contains a photograph similar to those
you have been testifying as to---and which page I have marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 6---and I ask you whether you have examined that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what is your conclusion conceding that photograph, Mr.
Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I found this to be generally similar in all visible
characteristics to the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133--A, and
found no differences to suggest that it is other than the same photograph as
Exhibit No. 133--A. However, the lack of detail in the halftone reproduction on
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 6 precludes a positive identification with Commission
Exhibit No. 133--A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you see any retouching in this photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. In the photograph reproduced on Exhibit No. 6 this is retouched
along the right shoulder and to the right side of the face of Oswald. In this
instance, that has been put in in a solid medium gray, to make it appear as the
extension of the building or the fence that appears in the background of the
original photograph.
There is retouching around the rifle stock--in fact, the stock itself seems to
have been lightened all along the lower portion near the butt; a highlight along
the top has been retouched along the top from the butt to the breech; some
retouching along the butt of the stock, and also along the bottom edge of the
stock, running upward toward the trigger.
The highlight that appears in Exhibit No. 1 along the bolt as a two-section
highlight or a broken highlight appears in this same general area on the gun in
the reproduction on Exhibit No. 6 as a solid highlight and one continuous line.
There has been a highlight added along the bottom of the gun just forward of the
trigger guard and just below Oswald's left hand. Also a highlight has been added
along the top of the gun above Oswald's left hand to show the gun as apart from
the dark shirt, so that the gun and shirt do not blend into one continuous tone
at that point. There appears to be some retouching of Oswald's shadow, in that
it has been toned down to a medium gray shadow so that it will not blend into
the lower portion of his legs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which of the reproductions which you have so far examined does
this most resemble, Mr. Shaneyfelt: the Detroit Free Press, the Life, or the
Newsweek reproduction?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This corresponds to both the Detroit Free Press and the Newsweek
reproductions of the photograph, in that it contains the two white dots along
the right leg, centrally located between the ankle and the knee as they appear
in those two reproductions, and, therefore, may be derived from the same basic
print, since this characteristic does not appear in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A
or in the Life magazine reproductions on Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the retouching in the New York Times photograph, Mr.
Shaneyfelt, how does that compare with the retouching in the Detroit Free Press
and Newsweek photographs?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The retouching is different from any of the other Exhibits Nos.
4 and 5.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you conclude, therefore, that the New York Times, like
Newsweek, may have received from its source an unretouched photograph which it
proceeded to retouch?
416
Page 417
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that again the similarity in retouching to the upper right of
Oswald's shoulder and head might be coincidental?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; actually, there is considerable difference in the
retouching in that area on the New York Times photograph as compared to the
Newsweek and Detroit Free Press exhibits. The New York Times has attempted to
make it appear as a wall, whereas the other two have merely airbrushed out the
line, and it looks like foliage.
Mr. EISENBERG. The stock in all three of these photographs, that is, Detroit
Free Press, Newsweek, and New York Times, has also been retouched in a similar
manner, that is, so that the top of the stock appears straight, whereas actually
the top of the stock is curved--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. What do you think accounts for the coincidence of the retouching
in these two areas--that is, the top of the stock and the area to the upper
right of Oswald's shoulder--given the differences you have noted in the details
of retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I would attribute that to a lack of detail in the photographs
that they had, and a lack of understanding of the formation of a normal rifle
stock on the part of the retoucher.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the front page of the New York
Journal-American, issue of February 18, 1964, which again contains a photograph
similar to those you have been discussing, and which I have labeled Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 7, and ask you whether you have examined that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my conclusion that this photograph is the same in all
visible characteristics as the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133-A,
and I found no differences that' would suggest that it is other than the same
photograph. However, because of the lack of detail in the reproduction on
Exhibit No. 7, it is not possible to positively identify it as the same
photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. IS retouching apparent in this photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that in detail?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there has been retouching along the right shoulder of
Oswald, and to some degrade around the head, in order to have the head and
shoulder not blend into the background. This appears to have been done by
increasing the highlight or lightening the highlight along the shoulder, rather
than darkening the background.
There is a highlight added along the top of the rifle stock that runs quite
straight toward the bolt, but it is not as strong a highlight as in the other
reproductions we have discussed. There is a highlight along the top of the rifle
between Oswald's left hand and the point where the rifle passes his left
shoulder. There is a suggestion of some retouching around the rifle scope, which
is almost lost in the detail or almost lost against the black shirt, but it is
barely visible. There is a dark shadow that appears in Commission Exhibit No.
133-A that has been retouched out of Exhibit No. 7 reproduction, that shadow
being about halfway between the knee and the crotch of the trousers between the
legs. Those are the primary points of retouching.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which of the various photographs which you have examined does
this Journal-American photograph most resemble, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Journal-American photograph reproduction on Exhibit No. 7 is
different from the Detroit Free Press, Exhibit No. 4, Newsweek, Exhibit No. 5,
and New York Times, Exhibit No. 6, in that the white spots along the right leg
between the ankle and the knee do not appear in the reproduction in the
Journal-American. It very closely corresponds to the reproduction on the front
of the Life magazine, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2. In fact, the retouching
appears to be very nearly the same. The lack of detail in the Newspaper
reproduction on Exhibit No. 7 precludes positively saying that it is identical,
but it is my feeling that it is probably identical.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you point out some of the similarities in retouching?
417
Page 418
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the retouching along the touching around the right shoulder
and around the head, the retouching around the top of the rifle above the left
hand, the elimination of the shadow between the legs just below the breech of
the trousers are the same in both reproductions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any notable difference between those reproductions; the
Life and Journal-American reproductions?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; no notable difference in the retouching.
Mr EISENBERG. Do you have any opinion as to the source of the Journal- American
photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is not possible to positively state, but I note in
examining the Journal-American reproduction, which is Exhibit-No. 7, that the
face recognized as area in particular has a design in the light shadow areas
which I being typical of a halftone reproduction made from another halftone
reproduction. And because of the presence of this characteristic in the shadow
area of the face, and the manner in which the photograph is cropped or trimmed,
I am of the opinion that it is highly possible that the reproduction in the
Journal-American, Exhibit No. 7, was made from a Life magazine cover, issue of
February 21, 1964, containing the reproduction of the photograph of Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on your statement that the cropping is a
factor in leading to this conclusion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; on Exhibit No. 2, which is the Life magazine cover, if a
straight line is drawn vertically past the right edge of the Life sign on the
front of the magazine, so that the sign is blocked out, and that straight line
is continued through a shadow area comparable to the shadow in the reproduction
of Exhibit No. 7, the Cropping along that edge of the photograph then becomes
identical to the cropping on the Journal-American photograph. This would suggest
that the picture was purposely cropped in that manner to eliminate the Life
magazine printing in the upper left-hand corner of the magazine cover.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the Life magazine picture, and also the Journal-American
picture, show cropping as against the original, that is, Exhibit No. 133-A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. The Life magazine photograph does not show all of the
photograph that appears on Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, the photograph having
been cropped down closer to the head, cutting out some of the overhead area.
There has also been considerable cropping on both the right and left margins,
when you compare the Life magazine and Journal-American reproductions with
Exhibit No. 133-A.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other feature on the Journal-American photograph
which leads you to conclude that it was taken from the Life photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in the lower right-hand corner of the Life magazine cover,
Exhibit No. 2, there is a strip set in, containing the printing "February 21,
1964, 25 cents." If the Journal-American did, in fact, reproduce this picture
from a Life cover, it would have been necessary for them to retouch out this
strip of printing in the lower right-hand corner of the Life magazine cover, and
I find on examination of the reproduction on the Journal-American that there is
retouching in this area. The background of the grass is inconsistent, in that
'it has been darkened around that area, and there is also darkening along the
foot and leg, and the shadow area has been altered in between the two feet in a
manner to strongly suggest that this strip has been retouched out in order to
make the reproduction on the Journal-American, Exhibit No. 7.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, do you have anything to add to your testimony?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, thank you very much then. That will be all.
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT
The testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt was taken at 10:45 a.m., on September 1,
1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Norman Redlich,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr. REDLICH. The purpose of today's deposition is to take the testimony of
Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, you have previously testified in connection with the Commission
proceedings on April 23, 1964, and June 12, 1964, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. You still consider yourself under oath?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.
Mr. REDLICH. You also appeared on one other occasion; is that correct, Mr.
Shaneyfelt ?
686
Page 687
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. And that was the date when you testified in connection with the
reenactment that was conducted in Dallas?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. During your previous testimony, Mr. Shaneyfelt, you testified
concerning the retouching which, according to your testimony, had been performed
on the photograph which has heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No.
133-A; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were so marked and
introduced. )
Mr. REDLICH. I hand you now an exchange of correspondence between the Commission
and Life magazine, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 8, 9,
10, 11, and 12, together with a photograph furnished to the Commission by Life
magazine which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, and I asked you
to review this correspondence.
For the record, Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you read this correspondence?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. REDLICH. This correspondence will show that the Commission advised Life
magazine of your prior testimony, and requested of Life magazine the original
photograph upon which the retouching was performed. Does Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
13 purport to be that original photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.
Mr. REDLICH. And Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13 was forwarded to you by the
Commission for examination; was it not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. The Commission asked you to examine that photograph in order to
describe in greater detail the actual retouching which was performed on that
photograph preparatory to publication; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is right.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 was marked and introduced. )
Mr. REDLICH. I now hand you another exhibit which is designated as Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 14, and ask you to describe how it was made, and what it purports to
demonstrate?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 is a chart that I prepared to
illustrate the retouching that I found in my examination of the Life magazine
photograph which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13. This chart consists of three
different photographs. Photograph A is a normal print of Commission Exhibit No.
133-A. Photographs B and C are photographs of the Life magazine picture, which
is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, made using special lighting technique in order to
portray the retouching that has been added to the Life magazine photograph,
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13.
Mr. REDLICH. On each of these three photographs there appear a series of numbers
starting with No. 1, and running consecutively through No. 11; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Can you describe the significance of these numbers?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The numbers with red arrows were placed on the photographs to
point to specific areas of retouching, and relate them to these same areas of
the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.
Mr. REDLICH. And as I understand it, using No. 1 as an example, the arrow next
to No. 1 in photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, points to the stock of
the rifle as it appeared in the picture which has heretofore been designated as
Exhibit No. 133-A.
The arrow next to No. 1 in photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 points to
the same spot on the stock of the rifle and points to a specific indication of
retouching which you will subsequently describe?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. And the arrow next to No. 1 in photograph No. C of Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 14 points to the same spot on the rifle; namely, the stock, and is
placed here in order to indicate in more specific detail the type and manner of
retouching which was done at this particular location?
687
Page 688
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Starting with No. I and going through No. 11, would you describe
the points on the picture and the type of retouching which was performed ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Point No. 1 on all photographs, A, B, and C, points to the
stock of the rifle, particularly the top area of the stock running from butt of
the rifle to the breech.
On photograph A this No. 1 area is rather indistinct but shows that the rifle
stock runs in a straight line from the butt up about two-thirds of the way to
the breech, where it curves down around a highlight that is clearly visible on
photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14. It curves around that highlight and
then recurves up to the breech.
In this same general area of No. 1 of photograph B, there is a dark area which,
is an area of retouching that is on the photograph which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 13, that runs from the butt of the rifle all the way to the breech without
curve or recurve around the highlight.
The highlight is still present on this photograph. However, the retouching line
runs straight past and is a straight line of retouching and does not follow the
actual configuration of the rifle stock in that area.
Mr. REDLICH. Just so the record is completely clear on this, Mr. Shaneyfelt, the
retouching marks which. appear in pictures B and C of Shaneyfelt No. 14, are the
retouching marks which appear on the photograph furnished to the Commission by
Life magazine and which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct The retouching does not appear as prominent in
the Life magazine photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 13, as it does in
the photographs B and C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, because photographs B and
C were made with special lighting to bring out this retouching, but they are
nevertheless, the points of retouching are nevertheless, there on the Life
magazine photograph.
Mr. REDLICH. And photographs B and C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 actually made
from the photograph which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Will you continue?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Photograph C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 shows at point 1,
which is the area of the upper edge of the stock of the rifle, this straight
line retouching going directly from the butt to the breech without a recurve,
and not in conformity with the actual contour of the stock of the rifle in that
area.
Points No. 2 in all photographs A, B, and C, point to the telescopic sight of
the rifle. In photograph B retouching is shown around this point No. 2 where
retouching has been added to enhance the detail around the rifle scope. This, is
also shown clearly as retouching at point 2 in photograph C.
Point No. 3 in photographs A, B, and C, in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, the area
along the top of the rifle beyond the breech just above Oswald's left hand.
There is a retouching line that runs from Oswald's hand to the where the gun
protrudes past his shoulder. This is clear in photographs B and at point No. 3.
Photograph A at point 3 shows how the photograph appears in that area on
Commission Exhibit No. 133-A
Point No. 4 refers to the retouching along the lower edge of the right Oswald,
and that area No. 4 of photographs B and C clearly show this retouching along
the edge of the elbow and a large spot just below the elbow where a shadow
between two fence posts has been removed in order to show the contour of the
elbow in better detail.
Point No. 5 refers to the shoulder area of the photographs A, B, and C in
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14. The photograph A, point 5, shows the shoulder it is
in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and point 5 in photographs B and shows the
retouching along Oswald's right shoulder.
Point No. 6 in photographs A, B, and C refers to the right side of neck and chin
area, and point 6 in photographs B and C clearly shows the retouching along the
right side of Oswald's neck, and around his chin and slight retouching into,
slightly into, his cheeks.
688
Page 689
Point No. 7 in photographs A, B, and C, shows the area of the left side of
Oswald's head where retouching has been added to the Life magazine photograph,
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13----
Mr. REDLICH. May I interrupt you there? You said where retouching has been added
to the Life photograph. Did you mean that or did you mean that the Life
photograph as published contained this retouching?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I mean that the Life photograph as published contains the
retouching. That the retouching has been added prior to publication.
Point No. 7 refers to the retouching along the left side of Oswald's head in the
hair area, and is clearly visible as retouching in the photographs B and C at
point No. 7.
Point No. 8 refers to an area of background to the right of Oswald's head, to
the left of his head as the viewer looks at the picture. This is an area that
has been airbrushed in order to lighten the background so that the detail of the
photograph in that area will be better.
Point No. 9 in photographs A, B, and C of Shaneyfelt EXhibit No. 14, shows an
area directly below the rifle butt to the side of Oswald's right thigh where
retouching has been added to decrease the darkness of the shadow between two
fence posts in that area.
This is evident in area 9 of photographs B and C. It is more clearly shown in
9-C.
Point No. 10 in the three photographs on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 shows the
retouching between the thighs of Oswald. Photograph A shows quite a dark area
between the thighs, and this has been eliminated by retouching as shown in 10-B
and 10-C, and the retouching clearly shows in 10-C.
Likewise, there is a dark shadow along the side of Oswald's left knee that has
been eliminated by retouching or softened by retouching, and this retouching
shows in Exhibits B and C at point 11.
This represents the primary or outstanding areas of retouching that I found from
an examination of the Life magazine photograph, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
13.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, when you discussed this photograph in your prior
testimony, you expressed your opinion to the effect that the retouching which
was done preparatory to the publication of the photograph on the cover of Life
magazine was normal and customary. On the basis of your detailed examination of
the retouching made from the photograph as submitted to the Commission by Life
magazine, would you now care to state your opinion as to whether this is
customary and normal retouching in connection with the publication of a
photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. It is my opinion, based on my examination of the
photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, that all of the retouching that I found
on this photograph I would consider to be normal, routine retouching that is a
normal part of the reproduction process.
Mr. REDLICH. In your prior testimony, you stated that on the basis of your
examination of the photograph which had been published in Life magazine, it was
your opinion that this photograph published in Life magazine was the same
photograph which has heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A,
with the retouching that you have described.
Now, today, on the basis of your detailed examination of this retouching, is it
still your opinion that the photograph which appeared on the cover of Life
magazine is a retouched photograph of the photograph which has heretofore been
designated as Commission Exibit No. 133-A ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16 were marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an exchange of correspondence
between the Commission and Newsweek, Inc., the publishers of Newsweek magazine,
which is marked Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16, and ask you if you have had
an opportunity to review this exchange of correspondence ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that in prior testimony appearing on page. 414
of volume 7 of the hearings of the Commission, you testified concerning the
689
Page 690
retouching which had been performed on this photograph prior to its publication
in Newsweek magazine.
I may add that during the course of that prior testimony the page from Newsweek
containing a reproduction of that photograph was introduced into evidence as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5.
Having reviewed the correspondence between the Commission and Newsweek, Inc., I
ask you whether you have anything to add to or any testimony which you would
like to correct having compared the Newsweek correspondence and your prior
testimony?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I have nothing to add or nothing to correct. I find the
correspondence from Newsweek to be consistent with my prior testimony.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 17, 18, and 19 were marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you a letter from the New York Times
addressed to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
17, and also hand you a photograph furnished by the New York Times which has
been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 18, and some printed material
designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 19, also furnished by the New York Times,
which is a caption and other descriptive material concerning this photograph as
used by the New York Times when the photograph was published.
I also wish to point out for the record that the reproduction of the New York
Times photograph has previously been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 6 and
was discussed by you on pages 416 and 417 of volume 7 of the hearings of this
Commission.
Have you had an opportunity to review this letter from the New York Times to Mr.
Rankin?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. REDLICH. Do you find that the letter from the New York Times is consistent
with the testimony you have previously given concerning the retouching which was
performed by the New York Times preparatory to the publication of this
photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.
Mr. REDLICH. Is there anything that you would like to add to or correct in your
previous testimony in connection with this photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I have nothing to add or correct. I find the correspondence
and photograph to be entirely consistent with my previous testimony.
Mr. REDLICH. And through all of your examination of the retouching that was
performed on the photograph which has been designated as Commission Exhibit No.
133-A, you are still of the opinion that all of the pictures which have been
published and which you have identified, were copies of Commission Exhibit No.
133-A, with the retouching performed as you have heretofore described?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, the record of the testimony before this Commission
will show that in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A Lee Harvey Oswald , appears to be
holding two newspapers.
The Commission asked the FBI, did it not, to examine Commission Exhibit No.
133-A in order to determine the exact issues of the publications which appear in
the right hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, is that
correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is right.
Mr. REDLICH. Did you perform the examination of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A in
connection with this request of the Commission?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
(Exhibits 20, 21 and 22 were marked and introduced. )
Mr. REDLICH. At this time, I would like to introduce into the record a copy of
the Militant, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20, and a copy
of the Worker, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 21, a copy of
a letter dated June 29, 1964 from J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, to Mr.
J. Lee Rankin, which is a discussion of the results of your investigation in
connection with these two publications; and Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22.
I ask you to describe at this time by making reference to the exhibits which I
690
Page 691
have heretofore designated, the results of your investigation concerning the
question of the specific issues of the two publications held by Lee Harvey
Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22 is a chart that I made better to
illustrate the results of my examination, and it consists of three photographs,
lettered A, B, and C. The center photograph, being photograph A, is an
enlargement of the newspapers being held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No.
133-A. By an examination of this enlarged photograph, I find it is possible to
see the headlines and certain portions of the two papers being held, one of them
being the Militant, and one of them the Worker.
I obtained copies of both of these papers for an extended period of time, and
went through them and found that the Militant for Monday, March 11, 1963, which
is volume 27, No. 10, and has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20, conforms
to the copy of the Militant being held by Oswald in picture A of Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 22.
Picture C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22 is a photograph of the headlines of that
issue of that paper. In examining this material I found that the Militant
portion, printed on the upper right hand portion of the page, is in the same
location as in the photograph A of Oswald holding the papers, as it is in the
copy of the Militant which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20.
In addition, the general configuration of the headlines in the center column
which read "Miss.," abbreviation for Mississippi, "Racists Shoot Down a Rights
Worker," those headlines are not readable in the photograph of the newspaper
being held by Oswald, but the general configuration of the type is the same.
There is a photograph of Bertram Powers reproduced in the second column near the
top of the Militant for Monday, March 11, 1963, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
20. The top of this photograph is visible in the same location and has the same
characteristics in the newspaper being held by Oswald in photograph A of
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22.
Mr. REDLICH. Before passing to the other publication, did you find that in your
examination of the prior issues of the Militant, that there was considerable
variation in the typography of the publication?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I found the name block for the Militant did not always
appear in the upper right-hand corner. It was sometimes in the left. Sometimes
the headlines ran across the top of the name block and there was great variety
in the typography of the headlines of the papers.
Mr. REDLICH. Do you recall the period of time of the issues that you examined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately 1 year.
Mr. REDLICH. One year prior to what date?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Prior to November.
Mr. REDLICH. Would you say it was a period----
Mr. SHANEYFELT. End of November.
Mr. REDLICH. Approximately November 1962 to November 1963?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; through November 1963.
Mr. REDLICH. And it is your opinion that based upon an examination of those
issues and these photographs that the issue which appears in Commission Exhibit
No. 133-A is the issue of March 11, 1963?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct
In the examination of the other newspaper held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit
No. 133-A, I reviewed issues of the Worker for approximately 1 year from
November issues of 1962 through all of the November issues for 1963, and found
that the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker, which is volume 28, No. 124,
matches the newspaper being held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.
Again, the enlarged photograph of this newspaper in photograph A of Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 22, shows some of the type of the headlines and the block of the
title "The Worker."
B photograph of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22 shows this same area of the headline
of the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker. The headline of that newspaper,
which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22, is "War Hogs Fight At
TFX Plane Profit Trough."
In the photograph A of Oswald holding the paper on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22,
you can clearly see the Worker and you can clearly see the "At TFX" which
691
Page 692
is a part of the headline, and the bottom of the "W" of the word "War," and
based on these characteristics, it is my opinion that one of the newspapers
being held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A is the March 24, 1963,
issue of the Worker which is the same issue as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 21.
Mr. REDLICH. Referring now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, to the letter which has been
designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22, this letter indicates the mailing dates
and the approximate dates when these publications were received in Dallas.
As I understand it, you did not take part in the investigation which led to that
aspect of the letter which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. That investigation was done by agents in our
Dallas and other field offices.
Mr. REDLICH. I would like to read into the record at this time the following
paragraph from the letter which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit. No.
22:
"It has been determined that the March 24, 1963 issue of The Worker, was mailed
on March 21, 1963 by second-class mail. It was also determined that the March
11, 1963 issue of 'The Militant' was mailed on March 7, 1963 by second class
mail. Representatives of the U.S. Post Office in New York City have advised that
the above newspapers transmitted by second class mail would take from six to
seven days to arrive in Dallas, Texas, under ordinary delivery conditions."
The record will show that during the course of her testimony, Mrs. Marina Oswald
identified Commission Exhibit No. 2 as a photograph which she believed to have
been taken by her husband in connection with his attack on Maj. Gen. Edwin A.
Walker, which occurred on April 10, 1963.
The record will also show that investigation has established that Commission
Exhibit No. 2 is a photograph of an alley running behind the house of General
Walker through which cars are able to drive into the parking lot of a church
adjacent to General Walker's house.
It has also been established in prior investigation that the driveway running
off this alley to the left, as one looks at the photograph, is the driveway of
General Walker's house.
Investigation has also established the approximate date on which this photograph
was taken by reference to the construction work being performed on the large
building appearing in the background of this photograph.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, the Commission asked the FBI to examine this photograph for the
additional purpose of determining, if possible, the camera which used to take
the photograph. Did you perform this investigation for the FBI ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23 was marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. I introduce into the record at this time an exhibit designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, consisting of two photographs, and I ask you to
describe the photographs and the results of your investigation undertaken
pursuant to the Commission's request.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23 consists of two photographs, A and B.
Photograph A is an enlargement of Commission Exhibit No. 2 which is the
photograph of the alley in back of the Walker residence.
Photograph B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23 is an enlargement of a negative which
has previously been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 752 that I personally
exposed in the Duo Flex camera obtained from Oswald's possessions which has
previously been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 750.
This examination was based on the shadowgraph of the picture area of the camera
exposed on to the negative. This shadowgraph shows the imperfections and nicks,
etc., along the edges of the picture area of the camera that are individual and
distinctive to that particular camera, and would not be duplicated in any other
camera.
Mr. REDLICH. Before you proceed to the specific points of reference, Mr.
Shaneyfelt, in your prior testimony you advised the Commission, that mission
Exhibit No. 133-B, which is a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle,
but in a slightly different pose from Commission Exhibit No. 133-A; that
692
Page 693
Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was taken by the camera which has been designated
as Commission Exhibit No. 750.
You made that identification based on an examination of the negative from which
Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was produced. At that time you indicated that you
could not make such an identification of the source of Commission Exhibit No.
133-A because the negative had not been recovered.
I would like to ask you two questions: First, to the best of your knowledge has
there been any recovery made of the negative from which Commission Exhibit No.
133-A was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. REDLICH. The second question is, why are you able to make an identification
of the origin of Commission Exhibit No. 2 which is not a negative but a print,
whereas you are unable to make an identification of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A
which is also a print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because the identification of the origin of the photograph or
negative is based on the reproduction of the picture area of the camera or the
opening in the back of the camera where the negative is exposed.
This appears as a shadowgraph on the negative, and is the basis for the
identification. If a print is made from the negative that shows this
shadowgraph, then the print can be used as a basis for the identification.
In the case of Commission Exhibit No. 2, which is a print of the alley in the
back of the Walker residence, this shadowgraph appears around three of the edges
of this photograph and, therefore, it has been used for such a comparison
Commission Exhibit No. 133-A has been printed with a white border, and the
shadowgraph portion of the negative has been blocked. out and does not appear on
Commission Exhibit No. 133-A. Therefore, it was not possible to associate it
with any specific camera.
Mr. REDLICH. Will you proceed now to indicate the points of reference which
enabled you to make the identification concerning Commission Exhibit No. 2?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, in photograph B, point No. 1 is near the lower
left-hand corner of the picture, and shows a depression in the black edge and a
little point sticking out from the black edge into the white area of the
picture.
This is caused by an irregularity in the camera area where the film lies across
the back portion of the camera. This characteristic, which is No. 1 on
photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, appears in that same area which has
been labeled No. 1 on photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
It appears as a shallow depression and a little black point coming into the
white area. Farther along the right-hand side of the picture centrally located
between the top and the bottom, are points 2 and 3 in photographs A and B on
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23. These refer to two small notches in the black area
where the white of the picture runs into the black line causing the appearance
of two notches, one, the lower one, about twice the width of the upper one. This
same characteristic is present in both photographs A and B.
Point No. 4 is an irregularity or a curve in the line on the right edge of the
photograph in both A and B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Point No. 5 is a long shallow depression in the black edge, of the photographs A
and B.
This point is located centrally on the right-hand border, and has the same
appearance in both of the photographs on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Point No. 6 is a little black point that comes out into the white area of the
picture, and this, I found, in the lower right-hand corner of the photograph of
the alley in back of the Walker house, which is photograph A on Exhibit No. 23,
and is also present as point No. 6 in the photograph that I made from the camera
which is photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Based on these characteristics, it is my opinion that the photograph, which is
Commission Exhibit No. 2, is a print of a negative that was exposed in the Duo
Flex camera which is Commission Exhibit No. 750.
Mr. REDLICH. Is the scientific method which you have used to make this
identification sufficiently precise so that you are able to state that this
negative was exposed in Commission Exhibit No, 750 to the exclusion of all other
cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
693
Page 694
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, Commission Exhibit No. 150 is a shirt which has
been described in testimony as the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald at the time
of his arrest on November 22, 1963.
The Commission has forwarded to the FBI two photographs which have been
heretofore designated as Gerald L. Hill, Exhibit A, and Gerald L. Hill, Exhibit
B, which have been identified by the photographer as having been taken under the
marquee of the Texas Theater as Oswald was being removed from the theater on
November 22.
Gerald L. Hill Exhibit A has been heretofore identified as having been taken at
a point of time very close to the time that Gerald L. Hill Exhibit B was taken.
Th Commission also forwarded to the FBI a photograph which has heretofore been
designated as Yarborough Exhibit A which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post
issue of December 14, 1963, page 26. .
For purposes of identification, the photograph appearing in Yarborough Exhibit A
has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 1797, since Yarborough Exhibit A
consists of the entire Saturday Evening Post article.
The Commission asked the Bureau to examine the three photographs, Commission
Exhibit No. 1797, Gerald L. Hill Exhibit A, Gerald L. Hill Exhibit B, in order
to determine whether the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald in these photographs
was in fact the same shirt which has heretofore been designated as Commission
Exhibit No. 150.
Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt? Did you perform the examination in connection
with this request by the Commission ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. In connection with that examination, the FBI furnished to the
Commission an additional photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. Would you please
describe that photograph in relation to any of the other photographs that we
have furnished to the Bureau?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. REDLICH. I would like to add that the photograph which the Bureau furnished
to the Commission has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 1796.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 1796 was furnished to the FBI by the
photographer who took the picture that has been designated as Commission Exhibit
No. 1797. The photographer stated that the photograph, Commission Exhibit No.
1796, was taken seconds before the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No.
1797.
Mr. REDLICH. On the basis of the photographs in your possession, which you
examined, would you please describe the nature of your investigation and the
conclusions which you reached ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I compared the shirt which is Commission Exhibit No. 150
with the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796, and
Commission Exhibit No. 1797.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 was marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. And in connection with that comparison, you prepared a chart which
you have here today and which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24,
is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 contains four photographs lettered A, B, C, and D.
Photograph A on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 is an enlargement of the shirt being
worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796.
Photograph B is a photograph of the actual shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150,
being worn by an employee of me FBI laboratory. The photograph was made with the
shirt in the same approximate position as the shirt being worn by Oswald in
Commission Exhibit No. 1796.
Photograph C is an enlargement of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission
Exhibit No. 1797.
And photograph D is a photograph made in the FBI laboratory of Commission
Exhibit No. 150 being worn by a laboratory employee, and the photograph was made
to show the shirt in the approximate position and contour of the shirt being
worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1797.
The comparison of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission's Exhibits Nos.
1796 and 1797, were made with the shirt itself, and it was found that
694
Page 695
photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, shows at points that have been
designated on this photograph A as 1, 2, 3, and 4 little bits of foreign
deposits that are adhering to the shirt. These little specks of foreign material
are present on the shirt now, and are shown in the photograph in the same
relative positions or locations at points numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 in photograph
B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24.
In addition, it was found that in photograph A, points 5 and 6, that two of the
buttons are missing. The second button down from the collar and the third button
down from the collar are missing from the shirt in photograph A of Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 24. These buttons are also missing from the shirt and the torn
condition of the area where the button has been pulled away or removed has the
same configuration in both photographs A and B at points 5 and 6.
Point 7 indicates that the button on the shirt being worn by Oswald in the
photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, is the same type and color and
configuration as the button in the photograph B at point 7.
Points 8 and 9 refer to areas of the shirt in photographs A and B, 8 being at
the tip of the collar on the right side of the wearer, and 9 being the corner of
the left pocket nearest to the buttons. These two points indicate the similarity
in pattern at those specific locations and show that the pattern of the fabric
in both shirts at those points is identical. Two shirts cut from the same fabric
would not logically have an exact duplication of the pattern at cut or sewn
edges of this type.
On photographs C and D on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 points 10, 11, and 12 again
refer to the similarity in pattern along the edges of the shirt and would relate
to the manner in which the material was cut from the original fabric.
Point 11, for instance, is two white lines of the same length in both
photographs, and in the same location from the edge of the shirt. All of these
points are of the same general type to show that the fabric design in a specific
area close to an edge is identical.
Points 13 and 14 in photographs C and D of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 refer again
to the torn areas where the buttons have been pulled from the shirt and show
that they are similar in all their visible characteristics. Based on these
points it is my opinion that the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission
Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, is the same shirt as Commission Exhibit No. 150.
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that Commission Exhibit No. 150 has a hole
approximately 1 inch by 2 inches in the right elbow. Is this hole visible in any
of these photographs, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it is not.
Mr. REDLICH. Referring to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, photograph D, does the
right elbow of the shirt in this photograph appear to show a mark which might be
a portion of that hole?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.
Mr. REDLICH. In your opinion, is it a portion of that hole?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is, because this is a photograph that I made of this
shirt and I know it to be the same shirt.
Mr. REDLICH. But why then does it not appear on photograph C which is the
photograph of the shirt as it is being worn by Oswald?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It doesn't show it in that photograph because the individual
standing beside Oswald is blocking off that portion of the elbow and in fact has
his thumb over Oswald's arm, you can see the thumb on the right arm where the
officer is holding Oswaid's arm.
Mr. REDLICH. The absence of the hole in the photographs designated as Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 24 A and C and Commission Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, does not in
any way effect your identification of the shirt as being the same shirt which is
Commission Exhibit No. 150?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
Mr. REDLICH. During the course of its investigation, the Commission received a
series of slides taken by a Mr. Willis. These slides show various pictures of
the motorcade and have, in a deposition of Mr. Willis, been identified by him as
having been taken on November 22, 1963. Have you examined these slides, Mr.
Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYRFELT. Yes; I have.
695
731-231 O--64--vol. XV----45
Page 696
Mr. REDLICH. And of these slides, does any one appear to be a slide taken at the
time of the actual shooting?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in the vicinity of that period of time.
Mr. REDLICH. That slide has been processed by your laboratory and appears, does
it not, in an exhibit which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 was marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to identify that slide in terms of the number which it
has been given in the Willis sequence of slides ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. This is the slide that Mr. Willis designated as No. 5.
Mr. REDLICH. The Commission asked you to examine this slide with reference to
its background and with reference to other photographs which you have examined
of the motorcade at the time of the assassination, in order to determine the
relationship of this slide to the shots which were fired at that time. Did you
personally conduct this examination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. In connection with that you prepared the photograph and the diagram
which have been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to describe for us now the results of your
investigation?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 is an enlarged
color print made from the No. 5 slide of the Willis slides.
The photograph B is a copy of the plat map of the assassination area which was
prepared for the Commission and has previously been designated as Commission
Exhibit No. 382.
Point No. 1 in photograph A shows Mr. Zapruder in his position----
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that the reference to Mr. Zapruder is to Mr.
Abraham Zapruder, who is an amateur photographer, who took the photographs which
were used as the basis for the reenactment which was performed in Dallas by
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Secret Service, and attorneys
for this Commission; is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Point 1 of photograph A shows Mr. Zapruder in his position from which he took
his 8-millimeter motion picture film of the assassination. Point 1 in the plat
map shows again the point indicating Mr. Zapruder's position as related to other
portions of the area.
Point No. 2 is the President riding in the Presidential limousine, which is on
photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.
Point No. 3 is the Stemmons Freeway sign that is on the north side of Elm Street
in the general area of the assassination. This is also designated as point 3 on
the map which is photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.
In order to relate the photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 to the specific
frames in the Zapruder motion picture film, I first determined from
correspondence, that Mr. Willis was standing along the south curb of Elm Street,
approximately opposite the Texas School Book Depository Building.
By looking at the photograph A, I find that from the camera angle of Mr. Willis
a line drawn from Mr. Willis to Mr. Zapruder would go just to the right of the
Stemmons Freeway sign which is point 3 in photograph A.
I drew a line from Mr. Zapruder's position with lavendar pencil just past the
freeway sign which is position 3 on photograph B over to the general area of the
side of Elm Street where Mr. Willis is reported to have taken his pictures.
Mr. REDLICH. And that line appears as the top line in Chart B of the Shaney-felt
Exhibit No. 25; does it not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I then noted in the photograph A of Shaney-felt
Exhibit No. 25, that a line from the eye of the cameraman, to the President,
would pass the Stemmons Freeway sign somewhat farther away from the sign than
the line to Mr. Zapruder, approximately three to four times greater distance.
I drew a line from an area about that far from the sign to the area where Mr.
Willis was reported to be standing and find that that line passes through
696
Page 697
a point designated on the map as frame 210 which relates to the frame No. 210 of
the Zapruder assassination films.
I then drew a green line from Mr. Zapruder's position to President Kennedy, at
frame 210, and find that that green line passes directly through the Stemmons
Freeway sign which is position 3 in photographs A and B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 25.
Based on this, it is my opinion that photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25
was taken in the vicinity of the time that frame 210 of the Zapruder picture was
taken. This is not an accurate determination because the exact location of Mr.
Willis is unknown. This would allow for some variation, but the time of the
photograph A, as related to the Zapruder picture, would be generally during the
period that the President was behind the signboard in the Zapruder films, which
covers a range from around frame 205 to frame 225.
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that prior investigation has revealed that
President Kennedy emerges from the sign at frame 225, and that he starts going
behind the sign at approximately frame 205.
Prior investigation has also revealed that when viewed from the southeast corner
window of the sixth floor, the President emerges from the oak tree at
approximately frame 210.
Mr. Willis has stated, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that he took this photograph almost the
instant that the President was hit by a shot which sounded to Mr. Willis as if
it was the first shot that he heard.
On the basis of your examination of the Zapruder films, and your examination of
the Willis photograph, would it be a correct statement that this photograph, the
one appearing in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25, was taken at approximately the same
time as the shot which struck President Kennedy at the rear of the base of the
neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that would be a correct statement, to the best of our
knowledge at this time.
Mr. REDLICH. Returning for just a moment to Mr. Willis location, would it not
have been possible for you to fix his exact location by reference to two
different fixed points in the background at different points in this picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it would be possible having Mr. Willis' camera, to fix his
location with some degree of accuracy by using it at the specific location in
Dallas, and relating various objects in the photograph to their location as they
appear in photograph A of Exhibit No. 25.
Mr. REDLICH. You are reasonably satisfied, however, that the technique that you
have used to fix his location is a reasonably accurate one upon which you can
base the conclusions which you have stated today ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes. I feel that the exact establishing of the position of
Mr. Willis would not add a great deal of additional accuracy to my present
conclusions.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, during the course of the Commission's investigation
we have had occasion to request the Bureau to investigate whether any bullets or
fragments of bullets struck any of the street or curbing or other area around
Dealey Plaza.
In connection with this investigation, the Commission asked the Bureau to
investigate a photograph taken by Mr. James Underwood, a newsman for KRLD-TV in
Dallas, and a photograph taken by Mr. Tom Dillard, a photographer for the Dallas
Morning News. In connection with this request the Commission received a
communication from the FBI dated July 17, 1964, which is now designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26.
(The document referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26 and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. Would you briefly summarize the results of that investigation as of
that time, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. The Commission requested that we conduct an investigation
relative to reports that there was a mark or a nick on the south curb of Main
Street in the assassination area, and that we attempt to locate it and make
whatever tests could be made to determine whether or not a bullet could have
struck the curb at that point. The investigation was initiated by
697
Page 698
requesting our Dallas office to contact the photographers, James Underwood of
KRLD-TV in Dallas, and Mr. Tom Dillard, a photographer for the Dallas Morning
News, and to use the photographs previously made by these two photographers to
attempt to locate this mark or nick on the curb on the south side of Main
Street. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26 is a report of the results of that initial
search which resulted in failure to find the exact location of this mark or nick
on the curb along the south side of Main Street at the assassination site.
Mr. REDLICH. Following this letter, you yourself went down to Dallas in order to
pursue this matter further, is that correct ?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
(The document referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27 and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. I introduce into the record at this time Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27,
which is a letter from Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin summarizing the results of
this investigation.
Mr. REDLICH. I also introduce into the record Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, and 33.
With reference to these exhibits, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I ask you to summarize at this
time the results of your investigation into the existence of a mark on the curb,
and if such a mark was found to exist, its location with reference to other
photographs of which you have knowledge.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Using photographs made by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Dillard in November 1963, either
the 22d or 23d, of this mark on the curb, I went to Dallas and was successful in
locating a mark. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 contains the photographs used to
locate the mark on the curbing on the south side of Main Street at the
assassination site.
Photograph No. 1 of this exhibit is the photograph of the mark made by Mr.
Underwood, the red arrow indicating the mark on the curb.
Photograph No. 2 is the photograph made by Mr. Dillard of the mark on the curb,
and the red arrow again designates the mark.
Photograph No. 3 of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 is a photograph that was made by
Mr. Underwood by placing his camera on the mark and pointing it toward the Texas
School Book Depository Building, and he stated he did this so that the resulting
photograph could be used to relocate this mark on the curb should it ever be
necessary.
Mr. REDLICH. I gather that without that photograph taken by Mr. Underwood it
would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have located this
mark, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would have been more difficult. Mr. Dillard's photograph
actually contained some background that was of value, and we would have found it
without this, but this made it much easier. Photograph No. 3, which was made by
Mr. Underwood, allowed us to go immediately within a foot to a foot and a half
of, the actual mark.
Mr. REDLICH. Continue.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The photograph which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
28, is the photograph that I made after having located the mark, this in effect
duplicates the photograph made by Mr. Underwood, which is photograph 3 of
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 and, as can readily be seen in comparing these two
photographs, the relationship of the lightpole to the buildings on either side
of it on the right side of the photograph, the relationship of the sign to the
concrete abutment in the back of it to the right edge of it, the relationship of
the lightposts between the cameraman and the Texas School Book Depository
building, and their relationship to the building in back of them, show that they
are entirely consistent, and that the mark that was located is, in fact, the
mark that was photographed by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Dillard.
Photograph No. 30, or Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 30, is a photograph approximately
duplicating the photograph made by Mr. Dillard which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
29, Photograph No. 2. I, with a pencil, made a circle around the mark on the
curb, and this pencil mark shows in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 30.
698
Page 699
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 31 is a photograph taken from in front of the school book
depository building looking down toward the Triple Underpass, showing in the
center area of the picture two men in white shirts standing along the south curb
of Main Street at the point where the mark on the curb was found.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32 is a photograph made from under the Triple Underpass
looking past the point where the mark on the curb was located towards the Texas
School Book Depository Building, which relates this area to the rest of the
assassination site.
There is a marker that has been set up on the curb with an arrow pointing down,
that is directly over the area where the mark is located on the south curb of
Main Street.
The photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, is a photograph made from the
location of Mr. Abraham Zapruder who made motion pictures of the assassination
on November 22, and this photograph was made having a man who can be seen
standing in the center of the picture, placed in the center of Elm Street, along
a straight line between the mark on the curb and the assassination window in the
Texas School Book Depository Building, the sixth floor.
The man is standing in that direct straight line between the assassination
window and the mark on the curb, and the photograph then shows where the
President in the Presidential limousine, would have been on Elm Street as
related to the Zapruder films if a bullet going from the sixth floor window to
the mark on the curb went directly over the President's head.
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to tell us the frame in Zapruder's sequence which
would correspond to the position of the man standing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 33?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; this would correspond to frame No. 410 in the Zapruder
films. Of course, this, as stated, is based on the assumption that a bullet
going from the window to the mark on the curbing went directly over the
President's head. It would have occurred at approximately frame 410.
In relating this to other previously determined facts regarding the Zapruder
films, this would be 97 frames after the frame 313, which is the frame of the
Zapruder films that shows the shot that struck the President in the head. At
18.3 frames per second, this 97 frames would represent a lapse of time of 5.3
seconds between the shot to the President's head at frame 313, and any shot that
would have occurred at frame 410, if such did occur.
Mr. REDLICH. Now, with further reference to the relationship of this location to
the Zapruder films, the Commission previously requested that the Bureau, advise
us as to when Special Agent Hill of the Secret Service reached the Presidential
car. Can you tell us now the results of that investigation?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I examined the Zapruder film and determined that Agent Hill
first places his hand on the Presidential car at frame 343. This is
approximately 1.6 seconds after the President is hit in the head at frame 313.
Special Agent Hill placed one foot on the bumper of the car at frame 368, which
is approximately 3 seconds after frame 313. Agent Hill had both feet on the car
at frame 381, which is approximately 3.7 seconds after frame 313.
Mr. REDLICH. Going back now to frame 410 on the Zapruder film, which is the
frame that would correspond to the location of a man appearing on Elm Street in
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, can you tell us the location of Special Agent Hill
and Mrs. Kennedy at frame 410?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. At frame 410 in the Zapruder films, Mrs. Kennedy has returned to
the seat beside the President after having climbed out on the back deck or the
trunk lid, and Secret Service Agent Hill is in the process of climbing from the
bumper into the back seat of the car and is about midway from the back bumper to
the President, crawling across the trunk lid.
Mr. REDLICH. Is it correct to say, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that at frame 410 the
principal target on the back of the Presidential limousine would have been
Special Agent Hill and not any of the other occupants of the rear seat of the
car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do not have an opinion on that, except my recollection of the
frame, as I recall it, the Connallys are down in the car, and the President is
down in the car to a point where he may not be visible from the sixth floor
699
Page 700
window. Mrs. Kennedy would still be visible, and Agent Hill; Mrs. Kennedy and
Agent Hill, as I recall, are the only ones readily visible or that are visible.
Mr. REDLICH. Turning now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, to the curb mark itself; you have
brought with you today the actual piece of curbing which contains the mark
referred to in your testimony; is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. That piece of curbing has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
34.
(The article referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.)
Mr. REDLICH. Were you present at the time this curbing was removed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was removed under my supervision.
Mr. REDLICH. Can you then describe the subsequent investigation that was
conducted in connection with this curbing?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the section of curbing, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.34 was cut
out from the curbing along the south side of Main Street in the assassination
area. The mark on the curb having been located 23 feet, 4 inches from the
abutment of the triple underpass. It was cut out under my supervision, and I
personally returned it to the FBI laboratory. In the FBI labratory it was
examined for the presence of any foreign material.
Mr. REDLICH. For the record, the results of this investigation have been
summarized in a communication from Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin, dated August
12, 1964, and designated now as the Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27; is that correct,
Mr. Shaneyfelt?
The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing in
the laboratory resulted in the finding of foreign metal smears adhering, to the
curbing section within the area of the mark. These metal smears were
spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony.
No copper was found.
The lead could have originated from the lead core of a mutilated metal-jacketed
bullet such as the type of bullet loaded into the 6.5-millimeter Carcano
cartridges, or from some other source having the same composition.
The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing
section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as
the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher.
The damage to the curbing would have been much more extensive if a rifle bullet
had struck the curbing without first having struck some other object. Therefore,
this mark could not have been made by the first impact of a high velocity rifle
bullet.
Mr. REDLICH. Based on your examination of the mark on the curb, can you tell us
whether the mark which we have been referring to is a nick on the curb, that is,
has a piece of the curb been chipped away, or is it instead a simple marking of
lead?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is not a chip. There is no indication of any of the
curbing having been removed, but rather it is a deposit of lead on the surface
of the curbing that has given the appearance of a mark.
It was also established from a microscopic study of the curbing that the lead
object that struck the curbing that caused the mark, was moving in a general
direction away from the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. REDLICH. In connection with this investigation into the microscopic
characteristics of the mark, a photograph was prepared which is designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35. Will you describe that photograph?
(The photograph referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35.)
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 is a color photograph that I made
of the mark on the curbing, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. This is
magnified about five times, and shows only the marked area. There is a red area
in the lower left corner marked A which designates the point of initial impact,
and the lead deposit is then sprayed out in a fanlike direction from that arrow.
Mr. REDLICH. Does point A in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 refer to or correspond to
the portion of the marking which is visible in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34?
700
Page 701
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It refers to the lower right-hand portion of that mark on
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. It is this area here, and this area here
[indicating].
Mr. REDLICH. Was Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 the photograph on the basis of which
the direction of the bullet fragment was determined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; the direction was determined from an actual examination of
the curbing itself rather than from the photograph. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35,
was made primarily to show this lead deposit more clearly than Exhibit 34 shows
it.
Mr. REDLICH. I realize, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that the next question may be out of
your area of specialization, and you may not be able to answer it. But are you
able to tell us whether, if there had been copper deposits indicating a fully
jacketed bullet, whether in the intervening period of time between the
assassination and the time the curbstone was examined these copper deposits
might have been removed by rain or erosion or any other natural causes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my understanding that there is no more reason for the
copper to be removed than the lead to be removed, and it is my observation of
the mark itself, the lead deposits, that the effect of time on it was to add a
layer of dirt and film over it which covered it--more an adding on of dirt and
other matter which covered it rather than a wearing away.
So, based on this, although it is not possible to state whether or not copper
was there initially and eroded away or washed away or wore away, it seems
logical that copper would have no more reason to become worn away than lead.
Mr. REDLICH. Previous investigation, Mr. Shaneyfelt, as well as the results of
the reenactment in Dallas, have led, as you know, to a tentative conclusion that
if three shots were fired during the assassination sequence, that one of these
three shots missed the occupants of the car.
Assuming that tentative conclusion to be a definite finding of fact for purposes
of this question, are you able to tell us whether in your opinion, the location,
the presence, of the lead marking on the curb, which has been designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34, provides any basis for determining which of the three
shots fired by the assassin missed the Presidential limousine?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Based on the assumptions as stated, it is my opinion that the
examination of the mark on the curb has furnished only limited further
information in this regard because it is not possible to establish whether or
not this mark on the curb could have been made from a fragment of the shot that
hit the President in the head or a fragment of another shot that missed. The
very fact that it can be considered as one of the possibilities suggests a
possibility of a third shot that missed.
Mr. REDLICH. How far from the President's position at frame 313 was the mark on
the curb?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't have that figure here at the present time. To the best
of my recollection, it was approximately 260 feet from where the President would
have been at frame 313 to the mark on the south side of Main Street which has
been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.
Mr. REDLICH. I would like to designate at this time a number, Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 36, which we will apply to a communication which I asked you to furnish to
the Commission giving us the exact distance between the President's location at
frame 313 and the mark on the curb, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. All right.
(The article referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 36 for
identification.)
Mr. REDLICH. Have you completed your answer to my question with regard to
whether this information offers any basis upon which one can conclude which of
the three shots missed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I believe I have. I have very little opinion regarding
that.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt. prior to our deposition you and I discussed the
matters concerning which you were going to testify, and during the course of
this deposition there were a few conversations which were not transcribed, is
that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
701
Page 702
Mr. REDLICH. Is all of your testimony which has been transcribed completely
consistent with any information which you have provided in the off-the-record
conversations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. REDLICH. Is there any relevant material which you provided in any
off-the-record conversations which has not been covered in the course of our
record deposition?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.
Mr. REDLICH. Is there anything concerning the matters to which you testified
that you would like to add at the present time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I believe not,
Mr. REDLICH. A copy of this deposition will be available for your review.