The Project Gutenberg EBook of Warren Commission (4 of 26): Hearings Vol.
IV (of 15), by The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: Warren Commission (4 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15)

Author: The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy

Release Date: October 19, 2013 [EBook #44004]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WARREN COMMISSION - HEARINGS V4 ***




Produced by Curtis Weyant, Charlene Taylor, Charlie Howard,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net. Images generously provided by
www.history-matters.com.






Cover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.

INVESTIGATION OF
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

HEARINGS
Before the President's Commission
on the Assassination
of President Kennedy

Pursuant To Executive Order 11130, an Executive order creating a Commission to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination and S.J. Res. 137, 88th Congress, a concurrent resolution conferring upon the Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpenas

Volume
IV

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1964

For sale in complete sets by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402


iii

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY

Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman

Biographical information on the Commissioners and the staff can be found in the Commission's Report.

A Mr. Willens also acted as liaison between the Commission and the Department of Justice.


v

Preface

The testimony of the following witnesses is contained in volume IV: Sebastian F. Latona, a fingerprint expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department; Paul Morgan Stombaugh, a hair and fiber expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; James C. Cadigan, a questioned document examiner with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drs. Robert Roeder Shaw and Charles Francis Gregory, who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital; Governor and Mrs. John Bowden Connally, Jr.; Jesse Edward Curry, chief, Dallas Police Department; Capt. J. W. Fritz and Lts. T. L. Baker and J. C. Day of the Dallas Police Department, who participated in the investigation of the assassination; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a photography expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Robert Inman Bouck, special agent in charge of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service; Robert Carswell, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; Winston G. Lawson, a Secret Service agent who worked on advance preparations for the President's trip to Dallas; Alwyn Cole, a questioned document examiner with the Treasury Department; and John W. Fain, John Lester Quigley, and James Patrick Hosty, Jr., agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who interviewed Oswald, or people connected with him, at various times during the period between Oswald's return from Russia in 1962 and the assassination.


vii

Contents

  Page
Preface v
Testimony of--
Sebastian F. Latona 1
Arthur Mandella, accompanied by Joseph A. Mooney 48
Paul Morgan Stombaugh 56
James C. Cadigan 89
Robert Roeder Shaw 101
Charles Francis Gregory 117
Gov. John Bowden Connally, Jr 129
Mrs. John Bowden Connally, Jr 146
Jesse Edward Curry 150
J. W. Fritz 202, 248
T. L. Baker 248
J. C. Day 249
Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt 279
Robert Inman Bouck 294, 300
Robert Carswell 299
Winston G. Lawson, accompanied by Fred B. Smith 317
Alwyn Cole 358
John W. Fain 403
John Lester Quigley 431
James Patrick Hosty, Jr 440

COMMISSION EXHIBITS INTRODUCED

Exhibit No.: Page
142 15
364 93
626 3
627 6
628 6
629 6
630 7
631 7
632 7
633 8
633-A 8
634 10
634-A 12
635 16
636 17
637 23
638 25
639 25
640 25
641 31
642 32
643 33
644 34
645 34
646 36
647 37
648 37
649 38
650 40
651 40
652 41
653 42
654 42
655 45
656 45
657 46
657-A 46
657-B 46
657-C 46
658 46
659 46
659-A 46
659-B 46
660 46
661 46
662 55
663 57
664 60
665 61
666 62
667 62
668 63
669 63
670 64
671 68
672 64
viii673 74
674 85
675 86
676 86
677 90
678 95
679 115
680 115
681 108
682 108
683 115
684 115
685 115
686 115
687 115
688 115
689 115
690 119
691 119
692 123
693 123
694 125
695 125
696 125
697 131
698 131
699 142
700 142
701 159
702 202
703 202
704 173
705 184
706 202
707 202
708 202
709 194
710 194
711 194
712 241
713 241
714 241
715 273
716 273
717 273
718 273
719 273
720 273
721 273
722 273
723 273
724 273
725 273
726 273
727 273
728 273
729 273
730 273
731 273
732 273
733 273
734 273
735 273
736 273
737 277
738 277
739 277
740 277
741 277
742 277
743 277
744 277
745 277
746 280
747 281
748 281
749 283
750 284
751 285
752 285
753 286
754 290
755 294
760 317
761 317
762 300
763 317
764 317
765 317
766 317
767 320
768 320
769 320
770 323
771 349
772 349
773 360
774 360
775 360
776 360
777 360
778 360
779 360
780 361
781 361
782-A 361
782-B 361
782-C 361
783 361
784-A 365
784-B 365
784-C 365
785 365
786 367
787 368
788 373
789 374
790 375
791 377
792 377
793 379
794 379
795 380
796 381
797 381
798 382
799 384
800 384
801 384
802 385
803 386
804 386
805 387
806 389
807 389
808 389
809 390
810 390
811 391
812 391
813 394
814 395
815 395
816 396
817 397
818 398
819 398
820 399
820-A 401
821 409
822 413
823 419
824 429
826 439
827 439
828 440
829 445
830 458
831 469
832 469

1

Hearings Before the President's Commission
on the
Assassination of President Kennedy

Thursday, April 2, 1964
TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA AND ARTHUR MANDELLA

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 2, 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; and Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.


TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA

The Chairman. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Latona, the purpose of today's hearing is to take your testimony and that of Arthur Mandella. Mr. Mandella is a fingerprint expert from the New York City Police Department. We are asking both of you to give technical information to the Commission.

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Latona. I do.

The Chairman. You may be seated. Mr. Eisenberg will conduct the examination.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you state your full name and give us your position?

Mr. Latona. My full name is Sebastian Francis Latona. I am the supervisor of the latent fingerprint section of the identification division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your education, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. I attended Columbia University School of Law, where I received degrees of LL.B., LL.M., M.P.L.

Mr. Eisenberg. And could you briefly outline your qualifications as a fingerprint expert?

Mr. Latona. Well, I have been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a little more than 32 years. I started in the identification division as a student fingerprint classifier, and since that time I have worked myself up into where I am now supervisor of the latent fingerprint section.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you approximate the number of fingerprint examinations you have made?

Mr. Latona. Frankly, no. There have been so many in that time that I would not be able to give even a good guess.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would the figure run in the thousands or hundreds?

Mr. Latona. So far as comparisons are concerned, in the millions.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you testified in court?

2 Mr. Latona. I have testified in Federal courts, State courts, commissioners' hearings, military courts, and at deportation proceedings.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this witness be accepted as an expert.

The Chairman. The witness is qualified.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you briefly outline for us the theory of fingerprint identification?

Mr. Latona. The principle of fingerprint identification is based on the fact primarily that the ridge formations that appear on the hands and on the soles of the feet actually are created approximately 2 to 3 months before birth, on the unborn child, and they remain constant in the same position in which they are formed until the person is dead and the body is consumed by decomposition.

Secondly, the fact that no two people, or no two fingers of the same person, have the same arrangement of these ridge formations, either on the fingers, the palms, or the soles and toes of the feet. Plus the fact that during the lifetime of a person this ridge formation does not change, it remains constant—from the time it is formed until actual destruction, either caused by voluntary or involuntary means, or upon the death of the body and decomposition.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do you have any personal experience indicating the uniqueness of fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I do. My experience is based primarily upon the work which I have actually done in connection with my work with the FBI. I have had the experience of working on one case in particular in which millions of comparisons were actually and literally made with a small portion of a fingerprint which was left on a piece of evidence in connection with this particular case, which was a kidnapping case.

This fragmentary latent print which we developed consisted of approximately seven to eight points. Most fingerprints will have in them an average roughly of from 85 to about 125.

This fragmentary latent print was compared with literally millions of single impressions for the purpose of trying to effect an identification. And we were unable, over a lengthy period while we were making these millions of comparisons, not able to identify these few fragmentary points.

The important thing is simply this; that on the basis of that fragmentary print, it was not possible to determine even the type of pattern that the impression was. Accordingly, we had to compare it with all types of fingerprint patterns, of which there are really four basic types—the arch, tented arch, loop, and whorl. And we are still making comparisons in that case, and we have not been able to identify these few points.

Now, that means simply this—that the theory that we are going on an assumption that people do not have the same fingerprints—and we find it not necessary to compare, say for example, a loop pattern with a whorl pattern, and as there is a possibility that, it is contended by some of these so-called authorities, that maybe the points that you find in a loop may be found in the same arrangement in a whorl—is not true. I think that that case, a practical case we have actually worked on, disproves that theory so strongly in my mind that I am convinced that no two people can possibly have the same fingerprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, you had a print with seven points, and these same seven points appeared in none of the millions——

Mr. Latona. Of the millions that we actually compared over a period—well, since 1937. You may recall the case. It was the Matson kidnapping case out in Tacoma, Wash. That is one of only three major kidnapping cases the FBI has not yet solved.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are palmprints as unique as fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. Yes; palmprints are. They are not as useful for purposes of setting up a file in order to conduct searches, for the simple reason that there are not as many variations of patterns occurring with any frequency in the palms as occur on the tips of the fingers. That is primarily why the fingertips are used—because you have 10 digits, and there is a possibility of finding3 variations of the four basic pattern types which can be additionally subdivided by utilizing certain focal points which occur in those particular patterns, which enable us to actually subdivide our files into millions of groups. Accordingly, when you make a search in the fingerprint file, it can be reduced actually to a matter of minutes, whereas to attempt to set up a palmprint file to the extent of the size of the fingerprint file we have in the FBI would be a practical impossibility, much less a waste of time.

The Chairman. Approximately how many fingerprints do you have these days?

Mr. Latona. At the present time, we have the fingerprints of more than 77 million people, and they are subdivided in this fashion: we have two main files; we have the criminal files and we have what are referred to as civil files.

As the names imply, in the criminal files are the fingerprints of criminals, people who have had a prior criminal record or whose fingerprints have been received in connection with an investigation or interrogation for the commission of a crime. In that file we have approximately 15 million sets of fingerprint cards, representing approximately 15 million people.

In our civil files, in which are filed the fingerprints of the various types of applicants, service personnel and the like, we have fingerprints of approximately 62 million people.

Mr. Eisenberg. Returning to palmprints, then, as I understand your testimony, they are not as good as fingerprints for purposes of classification, but they are equally good for purposes of identification?

Mr. Latona. For purposes of identification, I feel that the identifications effected are just as absolute as are those of fingerprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are experts unanimous in this opinion, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. As far as I know, yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand to you an object which I will describe for the record as being apparently a brown, homemade-type of paper bag, and which I will also describe for the record as having been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building near the window, the easternmost window, on the south face of that floor.

I ask you whether you are familiar with this paper bag?

Mr. Latona. Yes, I am. This is a piece of brown wrapping paper that we have referred to as a brown paper bag, which was referred to me for purposes of processing for latent prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you examined that for latent prints?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 626?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 626 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?

Mr. Latona. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. And when did you conduct your examination?

Mr. Latona. I conducted my examination on that same day.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you had received it, could you tell whether any previous examination had been conducted on it?

Mr. Latona. When I received this exhibit, 626, the brown wrapper, it had been treated with black dusting powder, black fingerprint powder. There was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there at that particular time.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were you informed whether any fingerprints had been developed by means of the fingerprint powder?

Mr. Latona. No; I determined that by simply examining the wrapper at that particular time.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you briefly describe the powder process?

Mr. Latona. The powdering process is merely the utilizing of a fingerprint powder which is applied to any particular surface for purposes of developing any latent prints which may be on such a surface.

4 Now, we use powder in the FBI only on objects which have a hard, smooth, nonabsorbent finish, such as glass, tile, various types of highly polished metals, and the like.

In the FBI we do not use powder on paper, cardboard, unfinished wood, or various types of cloth. The reason is that the materials are absorbent. Accordingly, when any finger which has on it perspiration or sweat comes in contact with an absorbent material, the print starts to become absorbed into the surface. Accordingly, when an effort is made to develop latent prints by the use of a powder, if the surface is dry, the powder will not adhere.

On the other hand, where the surface is a hard and smooth object, with a nonabsorbent material, the perspiration or sweat which may have some oil in it at that time may remain there as moisture. Accordingly, when the dry powder is brushed across it, the moisture in the print will retain the powder giving an outline of the impression itself.

These powders come in various colors. We utilize a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a white print on a dark or black background.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?

Mr. Latona. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun—it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.

The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible. And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.

That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.

The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you briefly explain the action of the silver nitrate?

Mr. Latona. Silver nitrate solution in itself is colorless, and it reacts with the sodium chloride, which is ordinary salt which is found in the perspiration or sweat which is exuded by the sweat pores.

This material covers the fingers. When it touches a surface such as an absorbent material, like paper, it leaves an outline on the paper.

When this salt material, which is left by the fingers on the paper, is immersed in the silver nitrate solution, there is a combining, an immediate combining of—the elements themselves will break down, and they recombine into silver chloride and sodium nitrate. We know that silver is sensitive to light. So that material, after it has been treated with the silver nitrate solution, is placed under a strong light. We utilize a carbon arc lamp, which has considerable ultraviolet light in it. And it will immediately start to discolor the specimen. Wherever there is any salt material, it will discolor it, much more so than the rest of the object, and show exactly where the latent prints have been developed. It is simply a reaction of the silver nitrate with the sodium chloride.

That is all it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you frequently find that the silver nitrate develops a print in a paper object which the iodine fuming cannot develop?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I would say that is true, considerably so. We have more success with silver nitrate than we do with the iodine fumes.

The reason we use both is because of the fact that this material which is exuded by the fingers may fall into one of two main types—protein material and salt material. The iodine fumes will develop protein material. Silver nitrate will develop the salt material.

5 The reason we use both is because we do not know what was in the subject's fingers or hands or feet. Accordingly, to insure complete coverage, we use both methods. And we use them in that sequence. The iodine first, then the silver nitrate. The iodine is used first because the iodine simply causes a temporary physical change. It will discolor, and then the fumes, upon being left in the open air, will disappear, and then the color will dissolve. Silver nitrate, on the other hand, causes a chemical change and it will permanently affect the change. So if we were to use the silver nitrate process first, then we could not use the iodine fumes. On occasion we have developed fingerprints and palmprints with iodine fumes which failed to develop with the silver nitrate and vice versa.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?

Mr. Latona. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect. And the light portions of the bag are where we did not process the bag at that time, because additional examinations were to be made, and we did not wish the object to lose its identity as to what it may have been used for. Certain chemical tests were to be made after we finished with it. And we felt that the small section that was left in itself would not interfere with the general overall examination of the bag itself.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, the small section of light brown corresponds to the color which the bag had when you received it?

Mr. Latona. That is the natural color of the wrapper at the time we received it.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the remaining color is caused by the silver nitrate process?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does paper normally turn this dark brown color when treated by silver nitrate?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it does. It will get darker, too, as time goes on and it is affected by light.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, does the silver nitrate process permanently fix the print into the paper?

Mr. Latona. Permanent in the sense that the print by itself will not disappear. Now, it can be removed, or the stains could be removed chemically, by the placing of the object into a 2 percent solution of mercuric nitrate, which will remove the stains and in addition will remove the prints. But the prints by themselves, if nothing is done to it, will simply continue to grow darker and eventually the whole specimen will lose its complete identity.

The Chairman. May I ask a question here?

So I understand from that that this particular document that you are looking at, or this bag, will continue to get darker as time goes on?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it will.

The Chairman. From this date?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Returning to the prints themselves, you stated I believe that you found a palmprint and a fingerprint on this paper bag?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find any other prints?

Mr. Latona. No; no other prints that we term of value in the sense that I felt that they could be identified or that a conclusion could be reached that they were not identical with the fingerprints or palmprints of some other person.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attempt to identify the palmprint and fingerprint?

Mr. Latona. The ones that I developed; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were you able to identify these prints?

Mr. Latona. I—the ones I developed, I did identify.

Mr. Eisenberg. Whose prints did you find them to be?

Mr. Latona. They were identified as a fingerprint and a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

6 Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, what known sample of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints, finger and palm, did you use in making this identification?

Mr. Latona. The known samples I used were the ones forwarded by our office at Dallas, the Dallas office.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have those with you?

Mr. Latona. I do.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, you have handed me three cards, one of which appears to be a standard fingerprint card, and the other two of which appear to be prints of the palms of an individual. All these cards are marked "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Are these the cards which you received from your Dallas office which you just described as being the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. They are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted into evidence as 627, 628, and 629. I would like the standard fingerprint card, 10-print card, admitted as 627.

The Chairman. It will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 627 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like the card which is—which appears to be the left palm admitted as 628.

The Chairman. It will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 628 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like the card which is the right palm admitted as 629.

The Chairman. That may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 629 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Latona. May I ask a question, please? Would it be possible to accept copies instead of the originals?

The Chairman. They are identical?

Mr. Latona. These are true and faithful reproductions of the originals which Mr. Eisenberg has.

The Chairman. The originals, then, may be withdrawn, and the copies substituted for them.

Mr. Eisenberg. Shall I mark those 627, 628, and 629 in the same manner as the originals?

The Chairman. Exactly.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do you know how the known samples we have just marked 627, 628, and 629 were obtained?

Mr. Latona. How they were obtained?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes. Can you tell the process used in obtaining them?

Mr. Latona. You mean in recording the impressions?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir.

Mr. Latona. Fingerprints are recorded by the use of a printer's ink, heavy black ink, which is first placed on a smooth surface, such as glass or metal, and it is rolled out in a smooth, even film. Then the subject's fingers are brought in contact with the plate by a rolling process, rolling the finger from one complete side to the other complete side, in order to coat the finger with an even film of this heavy ink. Then the finger is brought in contact with a standard fingerprint card and the finger again is rolled from one complete side to the opposite side in order to record in complete detail all of the ridge formation which occurs on the tip of the finger, or the first joint, which is under the nail.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you received a second submission of known prints?

Mr. Latona. Yes; we did.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you receive those?

Mr. Latona. Those were received in the identification division on November 29, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did this include two palms, or was this simply——

Mr. Latona. No; it did not. It was simply a fingerprint card.

7 Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know why the second submission was made?

Mr. Latona. The second submission was made, I believe, in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been killed, and it has the notation on the back that he was shot and killed 11-24-63 while being transferred in custody.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you examine that second submission?

Mr. Latona. Yes, I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is it in all respects identical to the first?

Mr. Latona. The fingerprints appearing on this card are exactly the same as those that appear on the card which you have previously referred to as Commission Exhibit 627.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do you have a copy of the second submission?

Mr. Latona. No; I do not.

Mr. Eisenberg. I wonder whether you could supply one to us at a later date.

Mr. Latona. Yes; I could. If you feel it necessary, you can take this one.

Mr. Eisenberg. Well, it is up to you. We will accept a copy.

The Chairman. If you wish, you may substitute a copy for it later.

Mr. Latona. All right.

The Chairman. And then you may withdraw it.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I mark that as 630, with the understanding that it can be substituted for by a copy?

The Chairman. Yes.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 630 and received in evidence.)

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

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald was reproduced on the paper bag, Exhibit 626?

Mr. Latona. The portion of the palm which was identified was of the right palm, and it is a portion which is sometimes referred to as the heel. It would be the area which is near the wrist on the little-finger side. I have a photograph here which has a rough drawing on it showing the approximate area which was identified.

The Chairman. Which hand did you say?

Mr. Latona. The right hand.

Mr. Eisenberg. That little finger, is that sometimes called the ulnar side?

Mr. Latona. The ulnar side; yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is this a true photograph made by you?

Mr. Latona. This is a true photograph of one of the exhibits you have received.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is to say, the exhibit showing the right palmprint, which is marked 629?

Mr. Latona. That's correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted into evidence as 631?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 631 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have another photograph there?

Mr. Latona. I have here a photograph which is a slight enlargement of the latent palmprint developed on the bag. It has a red circle drawn around it showing the palmprint which was developed.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that a true photograph made by you?

Mr. Latona. This is. It is approximately a time-and-a-half enlargement of the palmprint which I developed on the paper bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 632?

The Chairman. It may be admitted by that number.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 632 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Having reference to the paper bag, Exhibit 626, Mr. Latona, could you show us where on that bag this portion of the palm, the ulnar portion of the palm, of Lee Harvey Oswald was found?

8 Mr. Latona. This little red arrow which I have placed on the paper bag shows the palmprint as it was developed on the wrapper.

The Chairman. Is it visible to the naked eye?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it is. I think you can see it with the use of this hand magnifier.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you mark that arrow "A"—the arrow you have just referred to on Exhibit 626, pointing to the portion of the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

The Chairman. What is the number of the exhibit that it is on?

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 626.

Mr. Latona. May I—I tell you, I am going to furnish you a copy of this, but I cannot make a copy unless I have it.

Mr. Eisenberg. We can lend it to you for that purpose.

The Chairman. You may have it to make the copy.

Mr. Latona. And I will send you the copy. Thank you.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, I believe you said you also found a fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald on this paper bag, 626.

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us what finger and what portion of the finger of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?

Mr. Latona. The fingerprint which was developed on the paper bag was identified as the right—as the left index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. I also have a slight enlargement of it, if you care to see it.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are showing us a true photograph of the actual fingerprint?

Mr. Latona. As it appeared on the bag, slightly enlarged.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 633, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 633 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. You are holding another photograph, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. I have here a photograph of the fingerprint card, of the one which I just took back, and it is actually a true reproduction of the front of the card. That was Exhibit 630. This one here is a true reproduction of the front of Exhibit 630.

Mr. Eisenberg. And have you circled on that, the photograph which you are holding, the left index finger?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Eisenberg. And would you show that to the Chief Justice? That is a true reproduction, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like that admitted as 633A.

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 633A and received in evidence.)

Mr. Latona. Could that take the place of this?

Mr. Eisenberg. I think our exhibits would be confused.

Mr. Latona. Very well.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, what portion of the left index finger was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. That is the area which is to the left, or rather to the right of the index finger.

Mr. Eisenberg. On which joint?

Mr. Latona. On the first joint, which is under the nail.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that known as the distal phalanx?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Eisenberg. So it is the right side of the distal phalanx of the left index finger?

Mr. Latona. That is correct. Now, that would be looking at an impression made by the finger. If you were to look at the finger, you would raise the finger up and it would be on the opposite side, which would be on the left side of the distal phalanx.

9 Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when we were talking before about the palmprint, and you said that it was on the right side—you said it was on the ulnar portion of the palm?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And that is looking at the palm itself?

Mr. Latona. Looking at the palm itself.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, I would rather——

Mr. Latona. That would still be the ulnar side when you look at the print.

Mr. Eisenberg. Why don't we use ulnar and radial then when we refer to portions of fingerprints, ulnar referring to the little-finger side, and radial to the thumb side? So referring to the left index fingerprint now, that would correspond to the ulnar side of the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

The Chairman. Congressman Ford, I'm going to leave now to attend a session of the Court. If you will preside in my absence, Mr. Dulles will be here in a few moments, and if you are obliged to leave for your work in the Congress, he will preside until I return.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room and the Chairman left the hearing room.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you show us where on the paper bag, Exhibit 626, this left index finger was developed by you?

Mr. Latona. The left index fingerprint was developed in the area which is indicated by this small red arrow.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you put a "B" on that arrow to which you are pointing? Mr. Latona, did you make comparison charts of the known and latent or the inked and latent palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald which you have been referring to as found on this paper bag, 626?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you——

Mr. Dulles. Shouldn't you change that question a little bit? I don't think you should say Lee Harvey Oswald at this point.

Mr. Eisenberg. He has identified the print as being that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Dulles. Excuse me.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you show us that chart and discuss with us some of the similar characteristics which you found in the inked and latent print which led you to the conclusion that they were identical?

Mr. Latona. Yes. I have here what are referred to as two charted enlargements. One of the enlargements, which is marked "Inked Left Index Fingerprint. Lee Harvey Oswald" is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the fingerprint which appears on Exhibit 633A. The other enlargement, which is marked "Latent Fingerprint on Brown Homemade Paper Container," is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the latent fingerprint which was developed on the brown wrapping paper indicated by the red arrow, "B."

Mr. Eisenberg. And that also corresponds to the photograph you gave us, which is now Exhibit 633?

Mr. Latona. That's correct.

Representative Ford. And the arrow, "B," is on Exhibit 626?

Mr. Latona. That's correct. Now, in making a comparison of prints to determine whether or not they were made by the same finger, an examination is made first of all of the latent print.

An examination is made to see if there are in the latent print any points or characteristics which are unique to the person making the determination. In other words, in looking at the latent print, for example, this point, which is marked "1," is a ridge. The black lines are what we term ridges. They were made by the ridge formations on the fingers. That is, when the finger came in contact with the brown paper bag, it left an outline in these black lines on the brown paper bag.

Now, in looking at the latent print in the enlargement you notice there is one black line that appears to go upward and stop at the point which has been indicated as point No. 1.

10 Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, may I interrupt you there for a second.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this chart, this comparison chart, as an exhibit.

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 634.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 634 and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Latona. Looking further we notice——

Mr. Dulles. Could I just ask a question about this? This is referring to Exhibit 634. I want to make sure what line we are talking about. You are talking about a black line that goes up as though two rivers came together there, and here is the point where this line stops.

Mr. Latona. That's correct.

Mr. Dulles. No. 1. This is the latent?

Mr. Latona. This is the imprint. This is the print on the bag.

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

Mr. Latona. The contrast here is not as good as it is here.

Mr. Dulles. This goes up here, and these two lines come in there, so there is the point where your black line stops?

Mr. Latona. Right at the end of the red line which is marked "1."

Mr. Dulles. Thank you.

Mr. Latona. Now, looking further we find this point that has been indicated as No. 3. And No. 3 is located——

Mr. Dulles. Why do you skip 2?

Mr. Latona. I am going to come to that.

Mr. Dulles. I see.

Mr. Latona. I am going to tie these three in. Point No. 3 is above and to the left one ridge removed from—one black line—there is No. 3. Now looking further, we can look over to the right, or rather to the left, and we notice that one ridge removed from No. 3 are two ridges that come together and give you a point which has been indicated as No. 2.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that what you might call a bifurcation?

Mr. Latona. That is referred to, generally speaking, as a bifurcation.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is No. 2?

Mr. Latona. And No. 1 is what is referred to as a ridge end.

Now, keeping those three points in mind, and the relationship they have to each other, if this print here, the inked print, were made by the same finger which left the print on the brown paper bag, we should be able to find those three points in the same approximate area, having the same relationship to each other.

Now, at this point we have not made a determination of any kind as to whether they are or are not identical. Examining the inked fingerprint, bearing in mind the general formation of this print that we see here, the latent print, we would examine the inked print and that would direct us to this approximate area here. And looking, we find sure enough there is point No. 1—or rather there is a point which appears to be the same as point No. 1 here. Bearing in mind how we located points Nos. 2 and 3, we would then check the inked print further and say to ourselves, "If this print were the same, there should be a point No. 2 in exactly the same relationship to No. 1 as there was in this latent print." We look over here—one, two, three, four—there is point No. 2.

Mr. Eisenberg. That point, or that count that you are making, is of ridges between the first and second point?

Mr. Latona. Between the points, that's right. Then we have over here one, two, three, four. And bearing in mind again how point No. 3 bears a relationship to point No. 2, we should find point No. 3 in the same relative position in the inked print that it occurs in the latent print. Counting over again—one—we find a point which could be considered No. 3.

Now, at this time we have coordinated three points. We have tied three points together. On that basis, by themselves, we would not give a definite determination. Accordingly, we would pursue a further examination to determine whether there are other characteristics which occur.

Mr. Dulles. How many times is that magnified?

Mr. Latona. This is magnified approximately 10 times.

11 Then we would pick up point No. 5. We notice point No. 5 is again one of those bifurcations which occurs above and slightly to the left of point No. 3. We also notice that it envelops point No. 1—as we go down further, slightly to the right of point No. 5, we notice that bifurcation envelops point No. 1. So we would look around for such a characteristic in the latent print.

If the same finger made those two prints, we have to find point 5. And looking over here we find such a formation, we look at it, and sure enough it envelops point No. 1—exactly the same relationship to each other appears in the latent print, and in the inked print. It has the same relationship to point No. 3 that occurs in the latent print as occurs in the inked print. Then we would pick up point No. 4—one, two, three, four.

Mr. Eisenberg. Again you are counting ridges?

Mr. Latona. Counting ridges again, from point No. 5—one, two, three, four. There is a so-called ridge end, which occurs above, above and almost slightly to the left of point No. 5, point No. 5 enveloping No. 1. Point No. 5.

Mr. Dulles. Is 5 a ridge-end?

Mr. Latona. Five is what we term a joining, forking, or bifurcation. These two come together at point 5. Over here, together at point 5.

Mr. Dulles. Is that where the two ridges come together there and encase it?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir. From point No. 5 we pick up point No. 7, which is another one of those so-called bifurcations. One, two, three, four.

Mr. Eisenberg. Again a ridge count?

Mr. Latona. Ridge counting from 5 to 6. That is in the latent print. We must find the same situation in the inked print. Counting from point No. 5 the ridges which intervene, one, two, three, and then we count four, the point itself. There is the bifurcation right here.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, in making these ridge counts, do you also pay attention to the so-called, let's say, geographical relation, the spatial relation of the two points?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely. Now, it does not always follow that the so-called geographical position will coincide exactly the same. That would be caused because of variations in the pressure used when the print was made. For example, when you make a print on a fingerprint card: when the inked print was made, the print was made for the specific purpose of recording all of the ridge details. When the print was left on the paper bag, it was an incidental impression. The person was not trying to leave a print. In fact, he probably did not even know he left one. So the pressure which is left, or the position of the finger when it made the print, will be a little different. Accordingly the geographical area of the points themselves will not always coincide. But they will be in the general position the same.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, without going into detail, there are some apparent dissimilarities on the two sides of that chart. Can you explain why there should be apparent dissimilarities?

Mr. Latona. The dissimilarities as such are caused by the type of material on which the print was left, because of the pressure, because of the amount of material which is on the finger when it left the print. They would not always be exactly the same. Here again there appears a material difference in the sense there is a difference in coloration. This is because of the fact that the contrast in the latent print is not as sharp as it is in the inked impression, which is a definite black on white, whereas here we have more or less a brown on a lighter brown.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, when you find an apparent dissimilarity between an inked and a latent print, how do you know that it is caused by absorption of the surface upon which the latent print is placed, or by failure of the finger to exude material, rather than by the fact that you have a different fingerprint?

Mr. Latona. That is simply by sheer experience.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you say, therefore, that the identification of a fingerprint is a task which calls for an expert interpretation, as opposed to a simple point-by-point laying-out which a layman could do?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely so; yes.

12 Mr. Eisenberg. How much training does it take before you can make an identification?

Mr. Latona. Well, I cannot tell you exactly how much in terms of time, insofar as what constitutes an expert. I can simply tell you what we require of our people before they would be considered experts.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, could you do that?

Mr. Latona. We require our people before they would be——

Mr. Dulles. This is the FBI?

Mr. Latona. Yes; this is the FBI. It would be 10 years of practical work in connection with the classifying and searching and verifying of regular fingerprint cards which bear all 10 prints. Those prints would be searched through our main fingerprint files. That means that that person would have to serve at least 10 years doing that. Of course, he would have to progress from the mere searching operation to the operation of being what we call unit supervisor, which would check—which would be actually the checking of the work of subordinates who do that work. He would be responsible for seeing that the fingerprints are properly searched, properly classified.

Mr. Eisenberg. And how long will he work in the latent fingerprint section?

Mr. Latona. He would have to take an adaptability test, which would take 3 or 4 days, to determine, first of all, do we feel he has the qualifications for the job. Then if he passed the adaptability test, he would receive a minimum of 1 year's personal training in the latent fingerprint section—which means that he would have to serve at least 11 years in fingerprint work constantly, day in and day out, 8 hours a day in fingerprint work, before we would consider him as a fingerprint expert for purposes of testifying in a court of law.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that when you show us this chart, this is actually, or I should say, is this actually a demonstration, rather than a chart from which we could make an identification?

Mr. Latona. That's right. The purpose is simply a hope on my part that by my explanation you may have some idea as to how a comparison is made, rather than for me to prove it to you through these charts, because unquestionably there are certain points that you will not see which to me are apparent.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona——

Mr. Dulles. May I ask a question? Is this ridge formation, sort of two ridges coming together, is that one of the most distinctive things you look for? I note on these charts, Exhibit 634, the various examples you have given us have been of one type so far.

Mr. Latona. Two.

Mr. Dulles. I did not get the two. I get the two ridges coming together with sort of the ending of a valley. You were saying there were two distinctive things. I have only caught so far one distinctive thing—that is the two ridges coming together in a kind of valley with no exit.

Mr. Latona. Two that come together, like a fork. And the other one was the one that just ends by itself—does not join.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which is an interrupted ridge?

Mr. Dulles. I do not get the distinction.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that an interrupted ridge you just described?

Mr. Latona. What we call an ending ridge.

Mr. Eisenberg. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Back on the record. Mr. Latona, could you prepare a diagram which would show some of the characteristics, in broad outline, which we have been discussing, and have those labeled, and could you submit that diagram to us at a future date?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I could.

Mr. Eisenberg. We will append it to your testimony, so that your testimony may be more easily followed in the record—with the permission of the Chairman.

Representative Ford. It will be prepared and submitted and included in the record.

(The item referred to was later supplied and was marked Commission Exhibit No. 634A.)

13 Mr. Latona. Well, if you could give me your indulgence, I could do it right here as fast as I did it on the board.

Representative Ford. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative Ford. Back on the record.

Mr. Dulles. These, I understand, are the particular distinguishing points, the points that you would look for to determine whether the latent print——

Mr. Latona. Not so much the looking for the points, as to finding points having a relationship to each other. It is the relation that is the important thing, not the point itself. In other words, all of us would have to a certain extent these points.

Mr. Dulles. They have to be in the same relation to each other.

Mr. Latona. That is correct. For example, on the illustration I have here——

Mr. Eisenberg. This is an illustration on the blackboard.

Mr. Latona. The mere fact that this is an ending ridge and bifurcation and another ending ridge and a dot in themselves mean nothing. This is a type of pattern which is referred to as a loop, which is very common. These comprise approximately 65 percent of pattern types. It has four ridge counts, for example. You can find hundreds of thousands and millions of four-count loops. But you would not find but one loop having an arrangement of these characteristics in the relation that they have. For example, the enclosure is related to this ending ridge. This ending ridge is related by one ridge removed from the dot. This bifurcation is next to the so-called core which is formed by a rod, the ending ridge.

The points themselves are common. The most common type of points are the ending ridge and the bifurcation. Those are the two points we have covered so far.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, I see that you have marked nine characteristics on your chart. Are these all the characteristics which you were able to find——

Mr. Latona. On this particular chart; yes. They were the only ones that bore—actually, there is still one more characteristic—there could have been 10.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, is there any minimum number of points that has to be found in order to make an identification, in your opinion?

Mr. Latona. No; in my opinion, there are no number of points which are a requirement. Now, there is a general belief among lots of fingerprint people that a certain number of points are required. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption that they have taken, because of the fact that here in the United States a person that qualifies in court as an expert has the right merely to voice an opinion as to whether two prints were made by the same finger or not made. There are no requirements, there is no standard by which a person can say that a certain number of points are required—primarily because of the fact that there is such a wide variance in the experience of men who qualify as fingerprint experts.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, you said that not all experts are in agreement on this subject. Is there any substantial body of expert opinion that holds to a minimum number of points, let's say, 12?

Mr. Latona. In the United States, to my knowledge, I know of no group or body that subscribe to a particular number. Now, quite frequently some of these departments will maintain a standard for themselves, by virtue of the fact that they will say, "Before we will make an identification, we must find a minimum of 12 points of similarity."

I am quite certain that the reason for that is simply to avoid the possibility of making an erroneous identification. Now, why they have picked 12—I believe that that 12-point business originated because of a certain article which was written by a French fingerprint examiner by the name of Edmond Locard back in 1917, I think—there was a publication to the effect that in his opinion where there were 12 points of similarity, there was no chance of making an erroneous identification. If there were less than 12, he voiced the conclusion that the chances would increase as to finding duplicate prints.

Now, today we in the FBI do not subscribe to that theory at all. We simply say this: We have confidence in our experts to the extent that regardless of the number of points, if the expert who has been assigned to the case for purposes14 of making the examination gives an opinion, we will not question the number of points. We have testified—I personally have testified in court to as few as seven points of similarity.

Mr. Dulles. But you would not on two, would you?

Mr. Latona. No, sir; because I know that two points, even though they would not be duplicate points, could be arranged in such a fashion that it might possibly give me the impression that here are two points which appear to be the same even though they are are not.

Mr. Dulles. But it is somewhere between two and seven—somewhere in that range?

Mr. Latona. That is right. Where that is, I do not know. And I would not say whether I would testify to six, would I testify to five, would I refuse to testify to four.

Mr. Dulles. You say you would—or would you?

Mr. Latona. I don't know. That's a question I could not answer. I would have to see each case individually before I could render a conclusion.

Now, going outside of the United States, we have been approached—I mean the FBI—have been approached by other foreign experts in an attempt to set a worldwide standard of 16 characteristics, a minimum of 16, as opposed to 12, which is generally referred to by people in this country here. Now of course we would not subscribe to that at all. And I think——

Mr. Dulles. That would be 16 on the fingerprint of the same finger?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Dulles. Obviously, if you have two fingers that would alter the number—if you had three on one and two on the other, would you consider that five?

Mr. Latona. We would.

Now, whether the foreign experts would not, I don't know. In other words, if we were to go along with this European theory of 16 points, we would not testify to this being an identification. That is really what it would amount to. Yet to me, in my mind, there is no question that these prints here——

Mr. Eisenberg. Which is what exhibit?

Mr. Latona. The enlargements in Exhibit 634—are simply reproductions of the left index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Representative Ford. There is no doubt in your mind about that?

Mr. Latona. Absolutely none at all. The fact that there are only the nine points charted—and I feel this way, it is purely a matter of experience. They simply do not have the experience that we have in the FBI. The FBI has the world's largest practical fingerprint file. We receive on an average of 23,000 to 25,000 cards a day which are processed within a 3-day period.

Mr. Dulles. In a 3-day period?

Mr. Latona. In a 3-day period.

Mr. Dulles. And by processed do you mean they are filed according to certain characteristics?

Mr. Latona. They are. At first they are recorded as having been received from a particular agency, as to the number that we have received, as to the type of the card. Then they are checked to see if the impressions which are on the fingerprint card are complete and legible, that they are placed in their proper sequence, that is they are properly classified.

Then they are checked through our files to see if the person has or has not a prior criminal record. Then a reply is prepared and forwarded to the contributor. That is done in a 3-day period.

Mr. Dulles. How old is the art, roughly?

Mr. Latona. Insofar as this country is concerned, I would say back to 1903, when the first fingerprint file for purposes of classification and filing was set up in this country in New York.

Mr. Dulles. Did it start in France?

Mr. Latona. No. Really, I daresay the English were probably as early as any, or even down to South America—you have in Argentina the setting up of fingerprint files as early as 1891. For a long time we never recognized the fact that Argentina had a fingerprint file. I think it is primarily because all of the works on fingerprinting were written in Spanish, and it was just a question of finding somebody to take the time and effort to translate it into English.

15 The French are credited with the so-called Bertillon system, which is a measurement of the bone structure of the body. Alphone Bertillon was a French——

Mr. Dulles. Didn't Bertillon go into fingerprints later?

Mr. Latona. Very reluctantly. He was very reluctant to accept it. He was a sort of diehard. He felt that his method, the measurement of certain bones of the body, would not change after a person reached the adult stage. But we know that that is not true. There is a change—because of age, disease, dissipation. A person that was once 6'2" may, because of the fact he is getting older, hump down a little more and instead of being 6'2" he might be 5'11". Certain bone structures over the years make certain changes—plus the fact that his system was not a good system in that certain allowances had to be made because of the way that people were measured.

Sometimes one operator might measure the bones of the arm, for example, too tight, and another too loose. And they used the metric system of measurement, which in terms of their measuring might sometimes mean that the same person would not measure the same bone the same way twice.

We have the celebrated case here which we refer to as the Will West case, here in the United States, in which a man was sentenced to the penitentiary in Leavenworth. He was a colored man by the name of Will West. The operator there, going through the mechanics of taking the various measurements and his photograph, said, "I see you are back here again." The man said, "No, this is the first time I have been to Leavenworth." The operator was certain he had measured and photographed this man before. He went to check his records and he came up with a prior record which disclosed a Will West who had practically the same Bertillon measurements as the man currently being examined.

He said, "Isn't this you?" And he showed him a picture. He looked at the picture and recognized the picture as being one of himself. He said, "Yes, that is me, but I have never been here before."

They checked the records and found still there in the penitentiary was another Will West who looked almost exactly like a twin. But they were not even related. Their features were the same, their measurements were the same, but then their fingerprints were completely different.

If they made that error that one time, how many other times could the same error have been made? And accordingly, we here in the United States, around 1903—the Bertillon method was slowly put out of use. It became obsolete.

Bertillon, before he died, conceded that fingerprints was a good means of identification, and he very reluctantly conceded that the two systems, his method and fingerprints together, would be an absolute means of identification.

We completely did away with the Bertillon system. In fact, the FBI never used it. We started our fingerprint work years after all that had been resolved, back in 1924.

On July 1, 1924, that is actually when the FBI went into the fingerprint business.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you very much. I found that very interesting.

Representative Ford. Go ahead, Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing a comparison of the latent and known left-index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on the paper bag, Exhibit 626?

Mr. Latona. The left index finger. That is the one we just discussed.

Mr. Eisenberg. I'm sorry—the right palmprint.

Mr. Latona. Right.

Mr. Eisenberg. And before we go any further, I should state for the record that the exhibit we have been referring to as 626 was earlier introduced as 142, and it is 142.

Mr. Dulles. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Dulles. Back on the record.

Mr. Eisenberg. Also, before we get to the palmprint——

Mr. Dulles. Just a moment. It seems to me it would be well to have for the files of the Commission copies of the earlier fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald that were taken, and the time that they were taken.

16 Mr. Eisenberg. I agree, sir. Mr. Latona——

Mr. Latona. Do I understand you are asking——

Mr. Eisenberg. I will develop this on the record.

Mr. Latona, you had earlier submitted to us, and we had marked as an exhibit, copies of fingerprint cards and two palmprint cards which were made up by the Dallas police and forwarded to you, received by you from your Dallas office; is that correct?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, in addition, did the Federal Bureau of Investigation have in its files prints of Lee Harvey Oswald which it had received at some earlier date, prior to November 22?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir; I believe there is a Marine Corps print.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would these prints have been taken by the FBI?

Mr. Latona. No; they would not.

Mr. Eisenberg. They were taken by——

Mr. Latona. The regular service.

Mr. Eisenberg. And forwarded to the FBI?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you compare the 10-finger card which you received from the Dallas office of the FBI and compare it with the Marine fingerprint card?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were they identical?

Mr. Latona. They were the same.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were the palmprints taken by the Marines?

Mr. Latona. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you submit to us a copy of the 10-print card which you received from the Marine Corps?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I could.

Mr. Eisenberg. With the Chairman's permission, that will be appended as an exhibit to Mr. Latona's testimony.

Representative Ford. Do you wish to identify it by a number at this time?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes. If we could give it a number in advance of receiving it, I would like to give it Commission Exhibit No. 635.

(The item referred to was later supplied and was marked Commission Exhibit No. 635.)

Representative Ford. It will be admitted.

Mr. Dulles. Do you know whether any fingerprints were taken after Lee Harvey Oswald returned from the Soviet Union?

Mr. Latona. Those after he was arrested in connection with this particular offense.

Mr. Dulles. Apart from the fingerprints obtained in connection with the assassination.

Mr. Latona. I do not.

Mr. Dulles. Do you have a right to go to anybody and demand their fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Dulles. Under law?

Mr. Latona. No, sir; only persons taken into custody for Federal violations as such. Now, the FBI has actually no authority at all, except in cases of making an arrest.

Mr. Dulles. There is nothing done in connection with the census or anything of that kind?

Mr. Latona. No, sir. Some persons are ordered, by virtue of being aliens, to be fingerprinted—those that are domiciled here in the United States must register under the Alien Registration Act.

Mr. Dulles. And fingerprints then are taken of aliens in connection with their registration?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Dulles. Otherwise there is no general procedure for the taking of anybody that you may happen to want to take?

Mr. Latona. The Services, of course, require it. Applicants for certain positions are required by law. For example, all civil service, Federal civil service17 applicants must be fingerprinted. Locally, there are certain local cases. For example a man may in some localities, if he even applies for a chauffeur's license, has to be fingerprinted. If he desires a gun permit, he has to be fingerprinted. In some places, if he applies for certain jobs he must be fingerprinted.

Mr. Dulles. As I recall, I gave a fingerprint when I got my automobile license. Is that general throughout the United States?

Mr. Latona. What State was that?

Mr. Dulles. Here in the District. Didn't I give that?

Mr. Latona. No, sir. To my knowledge, there are none that require it—fingerprinting—for an automobile license. In California I believe it is voluntary—to place the finger, if you desire to, on your card.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you very much.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, Exhibit 630, which is one of the known 10-print cards submitted by the Dallas office, is marked "Refused to sign" in the box with the printed caption "Signature of person fingerprinted." Do you recall whether Lee Harvey Oswald signed the Marine Corps card?

Mr. Latona. Offhand, I do not.

Mr. Eisenberg. I think it would be interesting, for the record, to see if that is signed, and, of course, as we read the record and get the card, we will be able to note that information.

We were discussing whether you had made a chart of the known and latent right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on Exhibit 142, as I will refer to it from now on.

Mr. Latona. I believe I have already furnished you smaller photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; you have. Those have been marked into evidence.

Mr. Latona. This is the inked—the right inked palmprint, a photograph of the right inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. You say "this." Can you identify that exhibit? It is 631.

I am handing you Exhibit 632.

Mr. Latona. Exhibit 632 is approximately a time and a half enlargement of the latent palmprint which was developed on the brown wrapper.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Exhibit 142.

Mr. Latona. Exhibit 142—which is indicated by the red arrow A.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you prepare this chart, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Not personally, no. This was made under my personal direction and supervision.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is it an accurate reproduction of the known and latent prints which were earlier introduced into evidence?

Mr. Latona. It is. It is a true and faithful reproduction of these areas, enlarged to approximately eight times the originals.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this introduced into evidence as 636, Mr. Chairman?

Representative Ford. It will be introduced.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 636 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Dulles. May I ask whether this was discovered immediately after the assassination—at what time did you discover this particular palmprint?

Mr. Latona. It was on the 23d of November, the day after.

Mr. Eisenberg. Using this chart, 636, Mr. Latona, could you demonstrate to us some of the points which led you to the conclusion that the latent palmprint on 142 was the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. The procedure in making this comparison was exactly the same as the procedure followed in connection with making the prior examination of the fingerprint. Now, the area which shows in approximately an eight-time enlargement, and is marked "Latent Palmprint Developed on Brown Homemade Paper Container," which is Exhibit 636, is roughly outlined on Commission Exhibit 631 in red, which is a photograph of the inked right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This area below the little finger, or what we referred to as the ulnar portion of the palm—now, in making the examination or comparison, here again—first of all I would like to point out that there is a black line that goes right through—in an upward fashion—through the enlargement of the latent fingerprint. That line is caused by virtue of the fact that the palmprint which is developed is18 partially on a piece of tape as well as the wrapper itself. In other words, a part of the print is on a piece of tape and the other part is on the paper itself.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you show how the palm lay on the paper to produce that impression?

Mr. Latona. The palm lay in this fashion here.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Eisenberg. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Here again, in making the comparison, a check is made for the location of certain points.

Now, we notice here that the points appear to be much closer than they were in the fingerprint, and that is probably because of the pressure which was exercised, possibly in holding the object which was in this paper container.

Now, you notice this point No. 1 here, which we term the ending ridge. Point No. 2 is also an ending ridge. And you notice in between these points there is a ridge. Point No. 2 is to the left of point No. 1.

Then we find there is a point No. 3 which is a point which is similar in character to point No. 2 and is almost directly below, but there are two intervening ridges. Then there is a point No. 4 which is below point No. 3, and going in a direction opposite from point No. 3.

If we bear those four points in mind—and if the latent palmprint was made by the same palm that made the inked palmprint—then we should find these four points in that position over there.

Now, in order to first of all find the particular area where we would look to see if those points exist, we would bear in mind the general formation of the print itself. We notice the so-called looping formation in the inked print. We see that there is a looping formation here. Definitely it is not as pronounced in the latent print as it is in the inked print. But to the experienced eye, it is right here.

Accordingly, bearing in mind where these points would occur, we would generalize in the area to the extreme right of the enlargement, and find that there is a point which is somewhat similar to the point which appears in the inked impression, which momentarily we would say appears to be the same point as No. 1.

Now, bearing in mind how No. 2 is related to point No. 1, does such a point appear in the latent print? And making the check, exactly in the same fashion and relationship that occurred in the inked print, we find that there is such a point.

Does a third point appear in the same relationship to point No. 2 as it appears in the inked print?

Counting down one, two, and then the three point being the point itself. And in the same general flowing direction we count here, one, two, three—there it is.

Bearing in mind again that we found point No. 4 is what we refer to as a bifurcation going in the opposite direction from No. 3, which was directly below and to the left, do we find such a point here? Sure enough, there it is.

Now, an additional test would be this: At this point here we notice there is an abrupt ending of a ridge at this point here. It was not even charted. The fact is, it also occurs here. You see this point here, through which there is no line drawn, here it is right here——

Mr. Eisenberg. You are pointing above 4?

Mr. Latona. Directly above 4 to a ridge going—what we term flowing to the right. Now, at this point here, to a fingerprint examiner of any experience at all, he would start saying these prints were probably made by the same fellow. To satisfy himself, he would continue to point No. 5—one, two, three, four—there is point No. 5. Then there is No. 6, and there is No. 6 here, having exactly the same relationship to each other.

On the basis of those six points alone, I would venture the opinion that these palmprints were made by the same person. But for purposes of carrying it out further, here is point No. 7. Point No. 7 is obliterated to a certain degree19 to the inexperienced eye by virtue of the fact that it almost coincides with that line there. You probably do not see that.

And here is point No. 8, which is related to point No. 7 by the separation of those ridges in the same way. One, two, three, four—one, two, three, four. In its relationship to No. 9 here—just above and to the left, flowing in the same general direction. Here it is here.

Then your point No. 10, which is tied into point No. 11 in this fashion here, and 12 and 13. All of them have the same relationship insofar as the intervention of ridges is concerned, the same general area, plus the fact that they all flow in the same general direction.

Picking up No. 14, which is going upward, to point No. 15, which stands out rather easily—15 here. To throw in just one point extra—see this little point here, that ends here?

Mr. Eisenberg. That is to the upper right of 15?

Mr. Latona. To the right and upward of 15.

Mr. Dulles. So you really have 16 points there?

Mr. Latona. Actually, there are more than that in here, which I have not even bothered to chart. The opinion here, without any question at all, this latent print, which was developed on the brown bag marked "A"—142—was made by the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. And in my opinion, this identification is absolute. There is no question at all that only the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald made this print, or could have made it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are there any further questions on the prints appearing on this bag?

Representative Ford. Mr. Murray?

Mr. Murray. May I suggest this, Mr. Chairman? Since the print on the bag may become obliterated, and since members of the Commission have already seen it, it might be advisable to put on the record that they have seen it, because in time to come it may not be visible to anybody.

Representative Ford. Well, I for one would be willing to state that I have personally seen that fingerprint through a glass on the bag—both the finger and the palm.

Mr. Dulles. I would be glad to concur that I also have seen the fingerprint and the palmprint to which Congressman Ford refers.

Mr. Eisenberg. In that general connection, Mr. Latona, do you commonly make your fingerprint identifications on the basis of the object on which the latent print appears, or on the basis of a photograph of that object?

Mr. Latona. Normally it is made on the basis of photographs. We work more or less like an assembly-line basis, and we do not have the time or the opportunity to work from the originals, as was done in this case—this being quite an exceptional case. So the usual identification would be made—this was made on the basis of the bag itself, rather than to wait and get finished photographs from our photographic laboratory.

If I recall correctly, this was on a Saturday—the 23d?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; it was.

Mr. Latona. We did not have our full staff there. We were called in to handle this case specially. There were no photographers available at that time for that particular purpose. Frankly, under the circumstances it would not have made any difference whether they were available or not. This had a priority over everything we were working on and naturally we had to proceed as fast as we could, in a sense, to render conclusions and opinions at that time.

Accordingly, the original comparisons were made directly from the wrapper, rather than a photograph, which was prepared subsequently to this.

Representative Ford. The suggestion has been made, Mr. Murray, that perhaps you would like to look at that palmprint and the fingerprint on the wrapping, and you might make a statement the same as Mr. Dulles and I have made.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you point out to Mr. Murray, Mr. Latona, the two prints?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir. "A" is the fingerprint.

Mr. Dulles. And the witness certifies that these are true photographs of the fingerprint and the palmprint that you have exhibited?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir.

20 Mr. Murray. May I say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I definitely and clearly saw what appeared to me to be a palmprint in the part of Exhibit 142 which was designated with a "B," and less clearly, but nevertheless I did see, the fingerprint on the other portion of the bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona——

Mr. Latona. "B" is the finger, and "A" is the palm.

Mr. Murray. Yes; that's correct. And the palm "A"—there I definitely saw what appeared to be a palmprint, and more faintly I saw a fingerprint in the portion marked "B."

Mr. Dulles. And these are exhibits——

Mr. Eisenberg. This is Exhibit 142.

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

Mr. Dulles. Both the palmprint and the fingerprint are on Exhibit 142.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes—marked "A" and "B" respectively.

Mr. Latona, one further question on this subject. When you testify in court, do you frequently testify on the basis of the photographs rather than the original object?

Mr. Latona. If the originals are available, I would prefer that they be brought into court. If they are not, then photographs are used—plus the original negative of the latent prints which were photographed.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139 which, for the record, consists of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building, and which was identified yesterday as the rifle—and the day before yesterday—as the rifle which fired the fatal bullets, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I am.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you examine this weapon to test—did you examine this weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints on it?

Mr. Latona. I examined the weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent prints on the weapon.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you receive the weapon?

Mr. Latona. On the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. And when did you proceed to make your examination?

Mr. Latona. I proceeded to make my examination that same day that I received it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us what techniques you used?

Mr. Latona. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.

Mr. Eisenberg. The trigger-guard area?

Mr. Latona. The trigger-guard area.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon.

Mr. Latona. That's correct. There had been placed over that area a piece of cellophane material. My attention had been directed to it, to the effect that a prior examination had been made of that area, and that there were apparently certain latent prints available—visible under that area.

I first examine most prints to see——

Mr. Dulles. Who placed the cellophane material there, in your opinion?

Mr. Latona. Well, I was told—my information was simply that the Dallas Police Department had done so. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it, other than information that the Dallas Police had examined the weapon and they had found these visible marks on there, that they had developed the prints.

Now, by what means they did it, I do not know, but I would assume they used a gray powder.

Mr. Dulles. What was the purpose of putting the cellophane there?

21 Mr. Latona. To protect the prints while the rifle was intransit to the FBI.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?

Mr. Latona. Closest to the trigger area.

Mr. Eisenberg. On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?

Mr. Latona. Left side.

Mr. Eisenberg. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?

Mr. Latona. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.

Now, I did not stop there.

Mr. Eisenberg. Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those been developed by the powder method?

Mr. Latona. Yes; they had.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was that a gray powder?

Mr. Latona. I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them what little contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and sidelighting with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things discernible at all.

Representative Ford. As far as you are concerned.

Mr. Latona. That's right.

Mr. Dulles. Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?

Mr. Latona. No, sir; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper bag, which I received on the 23d—there had also been submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the photograph.

So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for me, an experienced photographer—I called him in. I received this material in the Justice Building. My office of operations is in the Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas Police Department.

Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom—we could not improve the condition of these latent prints.

So, accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there.

After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any significance or value—any prints of value—I would not know what the significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. I completely covered the rifle. I also had a firearms man——

Representative Boggs. What do you cover it with?

Mr. Latona. Gray fingerprint powder.

Representative Boggs. What is that powder?

Mr. Latona. It is usually a combination of chalk and mercury, or possibly white lead and a little bit of resin material to give it some weight.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you testified earlier that that adheres——

Mr. Latona. To the moisture that was left by the finger, the fingers or the hands, when it came in contact with the surface.

22 Representative Boggs. How long will that condition remain?

Mr. Latona. Going from one extreme to the other, it may remain for years; under other circumstances, it may not even last for 15 or 20 minutes.

Representative Boggs. Why the difference?

Mr. Latona. Because of the amount of material which was left and the condition of the material which was left. Basically, the material may be made up of protein material and salt and water—primarily water. If it is totally water, with very little salt or oily material, when the evaporation is effected, then it is complete—there will be nothing left.

Representative Boggs. You mean that it is gone?

Mr. Latona. Right. On the other hand, if there is an oily matter there, we know that latent prints will last literally for years on certain objects.

Representative Boggs. Well, just for purposes of information, if I make fingerprints there on the table, how long would they normally last?

Mr. Latona. I don't know.

Representative Boggs. Well, would there be any way to know?

Mr. Latona. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. It depends on temperature, on the amount of moisture involved?

What does it depend on?

Mr. Latona. First of all, I saw him touch it, but I am not even sure he left a print there.

Representative Boggs. Well, I can see it.

Mr. Latona. As to the quality of the print, there again it is simply a matter of what material you have in your hands that made that print, as to how long it will last, how long it will take for it to evaporate.

Actually, when it dries out, it may, in itself, leave a print with such clarity that it would not—even though it would not accept the powder, still by highlighting it, the way you did to see that the print was there, we could photograph it so it would come out just as clear as though it were black on white.

Representative Boggs. Does the material that one touches have any effect?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely. It depends on how hard or smooth the material is.

Representative Boggs. Now, does a weapon lend itself to retaining fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. This particular weapon here, first of all, in my opinion, the metal is very poorly finished. It is absorbent. Believe it or not, there is a certain amount of absorption into this metal itself. It is not finished in the sense that it is highly polished.

Representative Boggs. So this would be conducive to getting a good print, or would it?

Mr. Latona. It would not.

Representative Boggs. I see—because it would absorb the moisture.

Mr. Latona. That's right. Now, there are other guns—for example, Smith and Wesson, which have exceptionally nice finishes, the blue metal finishes are better surfaces for latent prints. Where you have a nickel-plated or silver-plated revolvers, where it is smooth—they are much more conducive to latent prints than some of these other things, say like the army type, the weapons used in wartime that are dull, to avoid reflection—things of that type—they are not as good.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder if you would like to look at the fingerprints we have gone over. They are quite apparent there with the glass.

Representative Boggs. I would like to look at them. That is all I want to ask right at the moment.

Mr. Dulles. I would like to ask a general question.

Mr. Latona (addressing Representative Boggs). This is one of the fingerprints developed on the brown wrapper. It is this print here.

Mr. Dulles. You can see these prints quite clearly, and the palmprint.

Representative Boggs. This is a photograph of that?

Mr. Latona. This is approximately a time and a half enlargement. This is the left index finger. Here is the palmprint that was developed.

Representative Ford. Mr. Boggs—each of us here, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Murray, and myself, have said on the record that we have seen the prints on the wrapping.23 We did this because, as Mr. Latona has indicated, such prints may disappear over a period of time. We thought it might be well for the record to indicate that we saw them. If you wish to do the same——

Representative Boggs. I would like to do the same, having just seen it.

Mr. Dulles. The witness has certified to the fact that these are true photographs of the prints that we have seen.

Representative Boggs. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?

Mr. Latona. No; I cannot certify to that.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you want to explain that?

Mr. Latona. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does that include the clip?

Mr. Latona. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?

Mr. Latona. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139 was that you could not produce an identifiable print?

Mr. Latona. That's correct.

Mr. Dulles. May I ask one question? Does the Secret Service do fingerprinting work, or do they turn it over to you—turn to you for all of that?

Mr. Latona. I think they do some of their own, and on occasion we will do some for them, too. Primarily I think they do their own. I am not too familiar with the Secret Service as to how elaborate their laboratory is.

Mr. Eisenberg. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?

Mr. Latona. This exhibit or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.

Mr. Eisenberg. And when did you receive this item?

Mr. Latona. I received this item November 29, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Before we go any further may I have this admitted into evidence?

Representative Ford. It will be. What is the number?

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be No. 637.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 637, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?

24 Mr. Latona. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a backing, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder——

Mr. Latona. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the impression actually is removed?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Representative Ford. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it is.

Representative Ford. In the fingerprinting business?

Mr. Latona. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?

Mr. Latona. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.

Mr. Eisenberg. And were you told anything about its origin?

Mr. Latona. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. Latona. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. Eisenberg. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?

Mr. Latona. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such—even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Mr. Dulles. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate——

Mr. Latona. Completely.

Mr. Dulles. The original print?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?

Mr. Latona. On the 29th of November.

25 Mr. Eisenberg. Seven days after the assassination.

And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?

Mr. Latona. As far as I know.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?

Mr. Latona. Yes. Here again I have a photograph that will show the approximate area involved, which is on the ulnar side of the lower portion of the palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. The ulnar——

Mr. Latona. Down near the base of the palm toward the wrist.

Mr. Eisenberg. This is the right palm?

Mr. Latona. The right palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. As it was in the case of the paper bag, Exhibit 142?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you display that photograph, please? This is a photograph which you took of the inked print which was furnished to you by the Dallas office?

Mr. Latona. I didn't personally prepare the photographs. They were prepared at my personal direction.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was it prepared under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it an accurate reproduction?

Mr. Latona. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 638?

Representative Ford. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 638, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Latona. I might point out that you have the original of this which has been previously admitted.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; but this photograph shows a red circle around the portion which you identified——

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. As being the latent found on the lift, is that right?

(Discussion off the record.)

(The reporter read the last question.)

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, now you are showing me another photograph which appears to be a photograph of the lift itself, Exhibit 637, but an enlargement thereof?

Mr. Latona. Slightly enlarged; yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. It was.

Mr. Eisenberg. And there is a red circle around this, on this photograph, that is around the print, the latent print?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted as 639?

Representative Ford. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 639, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing an enlarged portion of the inked and latent palmprint?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Illustrating some of the points which you used in making your identification?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was this chart prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. This was prepared under my direct supervision.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 640?

Representative Ford. It shall be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 640, and received in evidence.)

26 Mr. Eisenberg. What is the enlargement of this chart?

Mr. Latona. Approximately an eight-time enlargement of the latent print which appears on the lift, Commission Exhibit——

Mr. Eisenberg. 637?

Mr. Latona. 637. And the inked right palmprint enlargement is approximately eight times an enlargement of the Exhibit 638.

Mr. Eisenberg. The inked print?

Mr. Latona. Which is encircled in red, a portion of that area.

Mr. Eisenberg. I wonder whether you could put that up on this easel here so that we can all see it, and explain to us some of the points which led you to your conclusion.

Mr. Latona. Here again the approach insofar as making a comparison is concerned is exactly the same. That never changes. In making a comparison of fingerprints or palmprints, the mechanics are exactly the same.

First to look for what might be considered as points which are easy to see to the fingerprint man.

Representative Ford. May I ask first was the lift a good print for technical purposes?

Mr. Latona. Yes; to the extent that the identification was made. There is no question as to the identity.

Now, insofar as quality is concerned, I believe that is what you have in mind, we don't, in fingerprint circles, don't say that this is a good latent as compared to a bad latent. If it is valuable for purposes of identification, so far as we are concerned it is good.

Now, that may not appear to the inexperienced eye possibly as being as clear as some of those others which you have already seen, but for the purpose of identification the points are here. That is the main thing.

Now, in making the comparison here it is easy to see the inked print. There is very little question here. This print was made on purpose for purposes of recording the ridges. This was made more or less incidental or possibly accidental.

Mr. Dulles. How does the left one differ? I thought you told us before it was 10 times.

Mr. Latona. No; those were the others.

Mr. Dulles. That was the fingerprint that was 10 times?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. And the palm has always been eight times?

Mr. Latona. That is right, because of the fact to make it 10 times it would have been enlarged to the extent that maybe you wouldn't be able to see the significance as to what it purports to be.

If you enlarge a fingerprint too much, it loses its identity. I have seen them where they were enlarged so big that you couldn't tell what they were, and if somebody would tell you it is a fingerprint you would say, if you say so it is, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Now, in some other sciences, for example, like handwriting and things of that kind, you can enlarge them pretty good size, typewriting and things of that type, but a fingerprint because of the poorness in contrast plus the fact that in themselves these black marks have no particular significance, they might lose their identity, you won't reconcile a palmprint with a palmprint.

So, actually for purposes of making comparisons we never make a comparison from an enlargement. The best way to make a comparison, the more complete, is to make it from the actual size, utilizing a regular fingerprint glass which enlarges approximately four diameters.

We would never think of enlarging the prints for purposes of making our initial comparison. We make them on the basis of the actual size, just like you see it here, utilizing a fingerprint, which gives you a better picture.

Mr. Eisenberg. Fingerprint glass, you mean?

Mr. Latona. Fingerprint glass, because you get a much better view of the impression than you do where it is enlarged because in enlarging you have a tendency to distort the dissimilarities, to exaggerate what may be considered as dissimilarities.

Now, looking at these marks here again, which are very apparent here in the27 ink print, this No. 1 which is a black line which flows over to the right, then one ridge directly below it and off to the left is this point No. 2. Then by counting down 1, 2, 3, 4 we come to this portion, a short-ending ridge, which is similar to this short-ending ridge in the illustration drawn on the board, is No. 3.

Now, here again the fingerprintman simply mentally says to himself, "If these palmprints were made by the same palm I should be able to find three such points in approximately the same area of this palmprint as was found here."

The manner of isolating the area is by virtue of the fact that you see this looping formation, the looping formation is right in here, rather vague but it is there.

Looking in that approximate area, you notice faintly this black line that comes over to this area and stops at the point there. Now, is this point No. 1 the same as this point No. 1? If it is, then there should be a point No. 2 in the latent print which is in the same relative position as point No. 2 occurs in the ink print. By looking in such a position by this one ridge removed and to the left, there is this point No. 2.

Then looking down to point No. 3, we notice one, two, three, four, there is this so-called short-ending ridge which to me shows up very clearly here in the enlargement of the latent print.

Point No. 4 is this black line which is coming toward point No. 3, and right within the same area or line, there is point No. 4.

Point No. 5 is picked up in this position over here, which is another one of these short-ending ridges. It is removed by one ridge or rather to the left of point No. 6 as is seen here.

Then we pick up point No. 7, which is this point showing a cluster of ridge formation here.

Point No. 8 is tied in. You can tie in point No. 8 to point No. 4, point No. 5 to point No. 7, and that coincides with point No. 8 here. In that way we pick up point No. 9, showing the relationship of one, two, three and over here one, two, three, always the same formation, the same general area, the same relationship to each other. In that way we pick up point No. 10, point No. 11, and point No. 12, which have exactly the same formation.

Here is point No. 10 coming this way, point No. 11 going that way, these two ridges are in between. It checks perfectly. The same way with point No. 12 which is just below point No. 11, and having the same relationship to point No. 10, the same general areas, identically the same type of characteristics, and exactly the same relationship to each other.

On the basis of those points, the obvious conclusion to an experienced fingerprintman is simply that the same palm made both of these prints. Only one palm could have made it, and that palm is the one which is alleged to be of Lee Harvey Oswald, his right palm.

Representative Boggs. Is it true that every fingerprint of each individual on earth is different?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir; that is my sincere belief. I say that not only on earth but all those that have died before and all those to come. There will never be duplication.

Mr. Dulles. The same is true of palmprints, isn't it?

Mr. Latona. Absolutely; yes, sir; fingerprints and palmprints and footprints.

Representative Boggs. Can they be distorted, destroyed?

Mr. Latona. They can be destroyed in the sense that——

Representative Boggs. Cut your finger off, that is right?

Mr. Latona. Sure, you can cut your finger off. You can resort to what is known as—they can be transferred. You can slice off a pattern from one finger and place it on another but you will see the scar. They can have what is known as surgical planing.

Representative Boggs. That is what I was thinking about.

Mr. Latona. That can be done, too.

Representative Boggs. What happens then?

Mr. Latona. What happens is that you lose the ridge area and you will simply have a scar. There will be no more pattern. Now, the pattern is formed by what are known as dermal papilla, which is below the epidermis or outer layer of skin. As long as you only injure the outer surface the ridge formation will grow back28 exactly the same as it was before. If you get down to the dermal papilla, which lay like this——

Mr. Eisenberg. You are drawing an illustration on the board which shows short, broad, downward strokes.

Mr. Latona. If you destroy or injure these to the extent that there is actual bleeding, you will get a permanent scar.

Fingerprints can be destroyed or scarred in such a fashion that we would not be able to successfully classify them.

Mr. Dulles. Do criminals do that?

Mr. Latona. Yes; they do. We have had one case, probably the most successful was known as the so-called Roscoe Pitts case. This was a fugitive who in order to avoid identification went to an unscrupulous doctor who performed an operation and he did so by virtue of first cutting five slits on one side of his chest. Then he removed the pattern areas, what we call the pattern areas, which would consist of removal of the whole core area down to the delta area, sliced that off.

Representative Boggs. How much would that be?

Mr. Latona. He would literally have to draw blood. He would have to get down and just slice that off completely. He did that with five fingers. Then he taped the five fingers to the side of his chest and he kept them there for about 2 weeks. The same procedure was gone through with the other hand, and at the end of that time they were taken down and bound up individually. When they finally healed, all he has now is scar tissue for his pattern areas; but all we did in order to identify him was to drop down to the second joint. We made the identification from the second joint.

Now, at that particular time——

Representative Boggs. After all that business.

Mr. Latona. It didn't do him any good. Literally, the easiest person in our files to identify is Roscoe Pitts. He is the only one that has scar patterns like that. As soon as they see anything like that, everybody that knows anything about our files knows—Roscoe Pitts.

Representative Boggs. Develop, if you will, please, that point that no two human beings ever have similar prints. Why is that, in your opinion?

Mr. Latona. Well, earlier we went through a case which we have in the FBI, in which we literally have compared millions, millions of single prints with a fragmentary latent print which we developed on a demand note in a kidnapping case, one of our major kidnapping cases which occurred back in 1937, and we have compared this fragmentary print.

Now, ordinarily in fingerprints there are four basic pattern types. You have an arch, tented arch, a loop, and a whorl.

Now in making a comparison, naturally if you can tell the type of pattern you are going to restrict your comparison to the particular type.

In this instance we cannot tell what type of pattern this fragment that we developed is. We know that it is from a finger. And in attempting to identify the subject of this kidnapping case, we have compared it literally with millions of cards.

Now, existing in this fragmentary print there are only about seven to eight points that can be found, it is so fragmentary. We cannot determine the pattern. Accordingly then, when you compare it, you have to compare it with a person's 10 fingers regardless as to the pattern types. Bearing in mind that the average fingerprint has from 85 to 125 points—identifying characteristics—we have literally made millions of comparisons with only a portion of a finger, and we have failed to identify these 8 points in all types of patterns.

Isn't it sufficient to say then that people simply will not have the same fingerprints? Yet you have authorities, so-called authorities, who say that it is possible to find all 10 prints duplicated in 1 chance out of 1 followed by 60 zeros, if you can figure out what that figure is.

Representative Boggs. Who are these authorities?

Mr. Latona. They are really in my opinion mathematicians who on the basis of the so-called characteristic points have said 5 points times 125 times 125 times 125 to about the 10th power and wind up something like 1 followed by 60 zeros. They are mathematicians but they are not fingerprint people.

29 Mr. Dulles. What is your card system like? If this is too confidential I don't want to get anything in the record here that is too secret.

We can take it off the record.

Mr. Latona. Nothing is secret about our files.

Mr. Dulles. How many characteristics do you file on a card so that when you find these characteristics you can go to the right cabinet and the right filing drawer and then pull out the right card in time?

Mr. Latona. Literally they can break down into hundreds of thousands of groups.

Representative Boggs. How many do you have on file?

Mr. Latona. We have the fingerprints of 77 million people?

Representative Boggs. That includes all of those who were in the Army, Navy——

Mr. Latona. 15 million criminals and about 62.5 million what we call civil. I explained earlier that our files consist of two main files, it is criminal files and the civil files. In the civil files are the fingerprints of individuals, those prints that we have retained, who have been fingerprinted in connection with some civil affair like the services, for example, security, sensitive jobs, all types of applicants, alien registrations. Then we also will accept the fingerprints of just a private citizen who would like to have his prints on record for simply identification purposes.

They are in the category of 62.5 million. Criminal prints, 15 million.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative Ford. I have to leave, Mr. Dulles, will you take over as Chairman for the rest of the time that you can be here?

Mr. Dulles. I will do so.

Representative Boggs. May I ask a question which is not particularly pertinent to this particular witness, but how many prints on various things like these boxes and other paraphernalia that the Commission may now have in its possession have been identified as those of Oswald?

Mr. Latona. Six all told.

Representative Boggs. Six altogether?

Mr. Latona. Six.

Representative Boggs. That includes these?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Representative Boggs. How many, three?

Mr. Latona. Three so far.

Mr. Dulles (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). You have dealt with three so far?

Mr. Eisenberg. Three so far. We should modify this. We are only introducing this morning evidence associated with the crime, directly with the crime. Now, there were many papers submitted to the identification division. I believe you did identify——

Mr. Latona. Personal effects, wallet, pictures, papers, and things of that kind which in themselves bear Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him.

Representative Boggs. May I ask another question in this connection. A weapon of this type, in your examination do you find a lot of other prints on it as well? You do not?

Mr. Latona. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that——

Representative Boggs. Is what?

Mr. Latona. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.

Representative Boggs. Was this weapon picked up first by the police?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir.

Representative Boggs (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Did anyone touch it as far as you know?

Mr. Eisenberg. No, no. It was picked up by a police officer attached to the Dallas police force first.

Mr. Dulles. It came to you directly then from the Dallas police and not through the Secret Service?

30 Mr. Latona. No; the FBI turned it over to me, the Dallas office of the FBI flew it up here.

Representative Boggs. What I am trying to determine is, the average police officer when he would pick up a weapon of that kind would take steps to secure whatever prints might be on that and also prevent the addition of prints, is that right?

Mr. Latona. I would assume so.

Representative Boggs. I mean this is part of his training, isn't it?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir; especially if he is—yes; I would say so. That is almost elementary today. There are so many schools today going that an officer that doesn't give some thought to latent fingerprints, he hasn't been to school.

Representative Boggs. Of course not. But do you have that problem in your normal examination?

Mr. Latona. Well, a lot of times that all depends. Sometimes they don't realize the significance of a latent examination, and it is unavoidable that an object has been contaminated. And then a lot of times it is simply because of the circumstances. Sometimes possibly in an instance of this kind because of the crime itself which was involved, I dare say there must have been a lot of panic there at that time. That is just pure conjecture on my part. I don't know whether they were thinking in details as to the examination. I don't think they sat down and just figured very calmly what they were going to do.

Representative Boggs. Of course not.

Mr. Latona. I imagine everybody just poured into that room where they found the thing, somebody would say, "Was this the gun?" and he handed it to someone else and then he would look at it. Lord knows what went on down there.

By the time the gun got there—on the other hand, if the right officer was there he would have protected it from the beginning and that is unquestionably what happened here.

Mr. Dulles. I have to make a telephone call. I will be right back.

Mr. Eisenberg. I believe that the print showing in the lift was taken from an area which had been covered by the wooden stock so that it was protected even against——

Mr. Latona. Promiscuous handling, yes. If that were on the underside, if that was covered by the wood then very obviously those people there never did touch that.

Mr. Eisenberg. At any rate, we are going to find out exactly what they did.

Representative Boggs. Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, just to elaborate on some questions which Mr. Boggs was asking earlier, Mr. Latona, referring specifically to this weapon, do you believe that a determination could have been made as to the age of the print found on the weapon which you have identified as being Oswald's print, and a lift of which is Exhibit No. 637?

Mr. Latona. No; I don't.

Mr. Eisenberg. You don't?

Mr. Latona. No; I don't.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are experts unanimous in this opinion?

Mr. Latona. No; they are not. There are some experts who contend that they can determine from the way the print develops, and they will use the term "fresh."

Now, on the other hand, so far as the definition of "fresh," then it resolves itself into an hour, a day, a week, a month. What is "fresh" as aside from an "old" one? And my opinion simply is this. That on the basis of the print itself, on the basis of the print itself I cannot determine how old it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. At least specifically on this type, or in particular focusing on this type of weapon?

Mr. Latona. Particularly on that weapon.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 139?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. If there are no further questions on Exhibit 139, Commissioner Boggs, I will move on to another exhibit.

Mr. Latona, I hand you now a small cardboard carton which has written31 on it "Box A" in red pencil and has various other marks which I won't go into, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this box, this carton?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I am.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you examine this carton, Mr. Latona, to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints present?

Mr. Latona. I did not personally process this box, but I was present at the time that the box was, and I had occasion to examine that during the course of its being processed while it was being done.

Mr. Eisenberg. It was processed in your presence?

Mr. Latona. In my presence and under my direction.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like this admitted as a Commission exhibit with your permission.

Representative Boggs. It will be admitted.

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 641.

(The box referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 641, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, when you received this box which is now 641, did it bear any evidence that it had been dusted or otherwise tested for fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. No; it had not, just a plain cardboard box.

Mr. Eisenberg. So far as you could tell then it had not been?

Mr. Latona. That is right; it had not been processed.

Mr. Eisenberg. How was it processed in the FBI laboratory?

Mr. Latona. First by the iodine fume and subsequently by chemical means.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did the iodine fume develop any identifiable prints?

Mr. Latona. It did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did the chemical means?

Mr. Latona. The silver nitrate did develop a latent fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just one?

Mr. Latona. A latent fingerprint; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just one identifiable print?

Mr. Latona. One identifiable print; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you want to check your notes on that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. There was another print identified on that. There were two prints, one palmprint. There was developed on Box A, Exhibit No. 641, one palmprint and one fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were those the only identifiable prints, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. No; there were other fingerprints developed on this box.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you recall how many there were?

Mr. Latona. On Box A, in addition to these two prints there were developed eight fingerprints and three palmprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, a total of 13?

Mr. Latona. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Thirteen identifiable prints?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. Could I just get caught up. What is this box we have here?

Mr. Eisenberg. This is a box which was found near the window in the TSBD from which the assassin apparently fired, that is, the easternmost window or the south face of the TSBD. Yesterday, cartridge cases—and the day before—cartridge cases were discussed which were also found near that window. This box is labeled on there, I believe——

Mr. Latona. "A."

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; and I think it also says "top box": yes; it says "top box."

Mr. Dulles. This is the "Rolling Reader?"

Mr. Eisenberg. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. The Rolling Reader has played quite a role in our testimony.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; now, this particular box is labeled "top box," and I believe this particular box was on the top of the three boxes, two of which were Rolling Reader boxes, which were found near the window and which may have been used as a rest by the assassin for his rifle.

32 Mr. Dulles. As I recall, previous testimony indicates that the Rolling Reader box had been moved from its normal place——

Mr. Eisenberg. Apparently so.

Mr. Dulles. With the other Rolling Reader boxes, and put in a position near the window from which it was alleged the shot was fired.

Mr. Eisenberg. Apparently so, and, apart from the two boxes—the two Rolling Reader boxes which were found near the sixth floor window—the regular storage area for the Rolling Reader boxes was a distance away from the sixth floor window.

Mr. Dulles. Yes; I recall that testimony.

Mr. Eisenberg. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. Latona. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. And whose prints were they?

Mr. Latona. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the palm?

Mr. Latona. The palmprint was identified also as Harvey Lee Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. Again Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, again you used, did you, the known print which was marked into evidence earlier?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you used those in all your identifications, I believe?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, can you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald is reproduced on this box, this carton 641, as a latent print?

Mr. Latona. I have here a photograph of the palmprint which has an area indicated by a rough red circle showing the approximate area, which is the ulnar area of the left palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the area closest to the little finger?

Mr. Latona. On that side; yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. This is a true photograph which was prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. A true reproduction of the original, which you already have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 642, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Dulles. May I ask a question. Apparently the red mark on this exhibit on the palm is in a different place, isn't it, a slightly different place?

Mr. Latona. It is a different palm. This is the left palm.

Mr. Eisenberg (addressing Mr. Dulles). This is the left palm. The other two are right palms.

Mr. Dulles. Good, that straightens me out.

Mr. Eisenberg. Actually they were both on the ulnar side of the palm?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And they were both taken on what is commonly called the heel of the palm?

Mr. Dulles. This is a different hand. This is the left hand, and what we have had so far is the right hand on the palmprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir.

Mr. Latona. Previously we had two palmprints on the right hand. This third one is from the left.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this photograph be admitted as 642, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Dulles. This will be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 642, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do you have another photograph in your hand there?

Mr. Latona. Here I have another photograph, a slight enlargement time and a half, which is a latent palmprint found on the cardboard box marked "A," which is the Commission's Exhibit 641. This is indicated by a red arrow.

Mr. Eisenberg. Let's hold that just a second and get the photograph admitted.

33 Representative Boggs (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Where did these boxes come from?

Mr. Eisenberg. These boxes were located in front of the window from which the assassin apparently fired. There were three boxes stacked immediately in front of the window, of which this Exhibit No. 641 was the topmost box, and these were apparently used as a rest by the assassin for positioning his rifle.

As you can see, there are several other boxes in the room which will be introduced shortly.

Mr. Dulles. I may say that there was testimony, I don't recall whether you were here at the time, about some boxes called Rolling Reader, Hale. Do you recall the testimony on the Rolling Reader?

Representative Boggs. No.

Mr. Dulles. These boxes were moved from a place on the sixth floor room where a great many Rolling Reader boxes were placed, and they were put near the window, and a Rolling Reader—apparently these are cubes, and they are for small children and they roll them out on the floor and they learn how to read the letters of the alphabet and other things from these Rolling Readers.

These boxes, because of their nature—do you know what the blocks are made of?

Mr. Eisenberg. No; I don't.

Mr. Dulles. They weren't solid wood but they were light cubes and therefore presumably these boxes were moved because they were a good deal lighter and easier to handle than other boxes. Is that consistent with the testimony as you recall it?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.

Representative Boggs. Were they full when you got them?

Mr. Eisenberg. You will have to ask Mr. Latona.

Mr. Latona. They were empty. They had been opened and the books removed or the contents, whatever it was.

Mr. Dulles. The contents were apparently these cubes, as we were told, and small children use them and roll them on the floor and then they got the A's and the B's and the C's.

Representative Boggs. In the opening process, this would not have any effect on the fingerprints or the palmprints?

Mr. Latona. It could. I mean in the sense that somebody else's prints, the people opening them if they didn't take the time and effort to protect themselves, they could have left their prints there. I don't know how that was done.

Mr. Dulles. Do you recall whether the testimony shows whether the boxes were presumably filled when they were originally moved from their normal place in the Book Depository to the window?

Mr. Eisenberg. I think they were, although I haven't read the testimony.

Mr. Dulles. I am not sure there is testimony on that point but I think that is the general assumption.

Mr. Eisenberg. Based on reproduction photographs we have seen——

Mr. Latona. That is the understanding that we have, that this was the depository for new material. I think there was new material in these boxes. They were simply stored there.

Representative Boggs. They wouldn't have acted as a very good rest had they been empty.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Back on the record.

Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph of the latent palmprint admitted as 643?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 643, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you show us where on the box, the box 641, this latent palmprint appears?

Mr. Latona. The latent palmprint appears on box A, Commission's Exhibit 641. It has been indicated by a red arrow.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you mark that arrow with an "A"?

Mr. Latona. The red arrow is being marked "A."

34 Mr. Eisenberg. That points to the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald—identified by you as being Lee Harvey Oswald's, is that right?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Let the record show that Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs and Mr. Murray are looking at the actual print marked "A," or marked with an arrow next to which is written the letter "A."

Mr. Murray. I see what appears to be a print; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs?

Mr. Dulles. I also see what appears to be a print.

Representative Boggs. I see the same thing.

Mr. Dulles. And it is too big in my opinion to be a fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg (addressing Mr. Latona). Did you prepare a photograph also of the fingerprint which appears on this box——

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. 641, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is this a true photograph of that fingerprint?

Mr. Latona. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 644?

Mr. Dulles. This is a fingerprint now?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; which also appears on the box that Mr. Latona just testified as to, 641.

Mr. Dulles. Has he identified what fingerprint?

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you testify that this was the fingerprint——

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you identify this fingerprint as belonging to a given individual?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And that individual was?

Mr. Latona. Lee Harvey Oswald, and it is the right index fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. Dulles. The right index finger.

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 644.

Mr. Dulles. Admitted.

(The fingerprint referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 644, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. You also have a photograph of a 10-finger card showing that print encircled?

Mr. Latona. I do.

Mr. Eisenberg. It is a red circle, and you are handing that to me now?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 645?

Mr. Dulles. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 645, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. What portion of the finger of Lee Harvey Oswald does that print represent?

Mr. Latona. It represents what is referred to as the distal phalanx of the right index finger.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the phalanx or the tip furthest away from the wrist?

Mr. Latona. The palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. Or from the palm?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that a full or partial print of the distal phalanx?

Mr. Latona. That is a partial print.

Mr. Eisenberg. And does it take on the center, or the ulnar or the radial portion of the phalanx?

Mr. Latona. No, that takes actually the central portion of the print.

Mr. Eisenberg. The central portion?

Mr. Latona. The so-called pattern area is disclosed by the latent print.

Mr. Dulles. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

35 Mr. Eisenberg. Could you show us, Mr. Latona, on 641, where the fingerprint impression that you have just identified is?

Mr. Latona. That appears on one of the ends of the box indicated by a red arrow.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you mark that arrow, "B"?

Mr. Latona. Marked "B."

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Dulles, would you care to take a look at that?

Mr. Latona. Here you are going to see several clear prints but it is only one that we have identified, and that is the one directly under the arrow.

Mr. Dulles. I see four there, or five.

Mr. Latona. It is the little one here in the middle, right here.

Mr. Dulles. Is it this one here, right there?

Mr. Latona. No; the one next to it.

Mr. Dulles. That one there?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. What are all these other fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. They are all other fingerprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. There were a total of 13 identifiable prints on the box, did you say?

Mr. Latona. That is right. Those are not Oswald's prints.

Representative Boggs. Those may have been other people opening the box?

Mr. Dulles. The box was carried around probably.

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. When it was first put there and moved.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you put your finger on that box, Mr. Latona, in the way that the finger was placed?

Mr. Dulles. How do you think he was carrying that box?

Mr. Latona. I don't know.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is your finger now placed in the way the finger was placed to create the impression? It is pointing with the fingernail towards the arrow and in the same line as the arrow, with just the tip of the finger on the box.

Mr. Dulles. Everybody seems to have held that box.

Mr. Latona. It is a little one right there.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Murray, do you want to take a look?

Representative Boggs. You have not identified any of these others?

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Let the record show that Commissioners Dulles and Boggs and Mr. Murray are looking at that fingerprint, and have apparently satisfied themselves——

Mr. Murray. The portion shown to me appears to be part of a fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. They have satisfied themselves that the print is on the box.

Now, therefore, to recapitulate: You found on this carton 641 the left palmprint and the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. One other thing. Getting back to the palmprint, marked "A," could you show us how a hand would lie to produce that print?

Mr. Latona. In the position of the palm pointing towards the arrow.

Mr. Eisenberg. Pointing towards the arrow, that is, in the opposite direction that the arrow points?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. But in the same line as the arrow. Your hand is parallel with the line but covering that completely?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And although it covers it, I would say that the arrow would fall in the midline of the palm, is that right?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, did you prepare a chart showing some of the points which led you to the conclusion that the latent palmprint found on 641 was identical with the inked palmprint submitted to you by the Dallas police?

Mr. Latona. I had charts prepared; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. These were prepared under your supervision?

36 Mr. Latona. They were.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have that chart admitted as 646?

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 646, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification?

Mr. Latona. Approximately eight times.

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

Mr. Latona. Both sides; the inked palmprint and latent palmprint both the same.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that true of all of the charts that you have submitted and will be submitting this morning?

Mr. Latona. That is true.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you point out some of these points? I think in the interest of time it would be better if you took several of the points instead of all 13 points you have marked.

Mr. Latona. I believe you will find this will be a little bit more difficult to see in view of the fact that the ridge formations are cut up a little bit more. However——

Mr. Dulles. Would you put that over there. You have identified 13 points of similarity?

Mr. Latona. Yes; 13 have been drawn but there are quite a few others.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have marked 13 in other words, is that it, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Sir?

Mr. Eisenberg. You have marked 13?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. On this exhibit?

Mr. Latona. That is right. Here, for example, is an easy one to show up, this point No. 1 as compared to point No. 1 here, and its relationship to point No. 2, the relationship of point No. 2 to point No. 3.

Looking over here we find that there is a relationship between points Nos. 1 and 2, one, two, three, four, five, one, two, three, four, five.

Then there's a relationship of one ridge between point 1—or rather between point 2 and point 3, both points going in the same general direction.

Point No. 3 is below point No. 2. Also the point No. 2 is what is referred to as a short ending ridge. We look over here and we see that point No. 2 is a short ending ridge.

Point No. 3 is below that. Then we notice that there is another point which is one point removed—one ridge removed—from point No. 3 which we have not charted, which shows up very definitely in that position there. Then there is point No. 4, which is another piece of a ridge, point No. 4 here.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, when you testify in court do you generally discuss every marked point?

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just the more salient points?

Mr. Latona. Just to give a general idea as to how these comparisons are made, more or less for demonstration purposes, because the actual comparison is the same, the relationship is a determination of the relationship with the others, and just by an examination, that would be borne out if each and every point was gone into in detail.

Mr. Eisenberg. With you permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on to the next chart since we do have witnesses waiting who have to return to New York.

Mr. Dulles. Right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you prepare a chart, Mr. Latona, of the fingerprint——

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which was found on the carton 641?

Mr. Latona. Here is the chart, which is of the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. They were. The enlargement here is approximately 10 times both in the inked print and in the latent print.

37 Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 647?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 647, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you discuss again just a few of the more salient points, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Here, starting first of all with the apparent pattern type itself, it is readily discernible. You can see that these are what we term whorl-type prints. This point No. 1, for example, is a small ridge which terminates at this point which has been indicated by the figure No. 1.

It is related by being joined onto point No. 2, which is the end of the black line going upward. Then one ridge to the left, one ridge removed and to the left and a little bit above is point No. 3. Here the same thing occurs in the inked print.

Point No. 4 is related to point No. 3 by one ridge removed and is upward and one ridge to the left.

Mr. Dulles. And similarly you have identified up to 10 points of similarity?

Mr. Latona. These you can see rather easily that they appear.

Mr. Eisenberg. If there are no further questions on the carton 641 I will move on to another exhibit.

I now hand you a carton, somewhat larger in area than the 641 which we were just discussing, with various markings on it which I won't discuss, but which is marked Box "D" in red pencil at the upper left-hand corner of the bottom of the box.

Are you familiar with this carton, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Dulles. Has that been admitted?

Mr. Eisenberg. It has not so far been admitted.

Mr. Latona. This Box D, I received this along with Box A for purposes of examining for latent prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was that examined by you or under your supervision for that purpose?

Mr. Latona. Yes, it was.

Mr. Eisenberg. When was that received?

Mr. Latona. That was received on the 27th of November 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 648?

Mr. Dulles. What date?

Mr. Latona. 27th.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 5 days after the assassination?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 648?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted.

(The box referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 648, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Dulles. Can you identify it in some further way? I think there are some markings on here.

Mr. Eisenberg. There is "Box D." It is a little hard to read. It says "1 40 N TH&DO"——

Mr. Dulles. "New People and Progress."

Mr. Eisenberg. Apparently referring to the name of the textbook. This is not a Rolling Reader carton.

Mr. Dulles. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, when you received this box, could you tell whether it had been previously examined for latent fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. A portion of it had.

Mr. Eisenberg. And can you tell us what portion had been?

Mr. Latona. The bottom evidently, because a piece had been cut out.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are pointing to a place on the bottom of the box which is to the left of the point at which I have affixed the sticker "Commission Exhibit No. 648," immediately to the left of that point?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was that portion of the box given to you?

Mr. Latona. Yes, it was.

38 Mr. Eisenberg. With the box?

Mr. Latona. At the time we got the box.

Mr. Eisenberg. I think I have that.

I now hand you what appears to be a portion of a cardboard carton and a piece of tape with various writings, included among which is "From top of box Oswald apparently sat on to fire gun."

Do you recognize this piece of paper, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Yes, I do. This is a piece of paper that evidently had been cut from the box.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does that fit into the box?

Mr. Latona. It does.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 649?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted as 649.

(The piece of carton referred to was marked commission exhibit no. 649, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you find any identifiable prints on the cardboard carton 648?

Mr. Latona. Yes; in addition to this one which has been cut out and which had been covered by a piece of lifting tape, there were two fingerprints developed in addition to that one.

Mr. Eisenberg. Two Identifiable Fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Palmprints?

Mr. Latona. No; they were fingerprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. I mean were there any palmprints?

Mr. Latona. There were no palmprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. How did you process this box?

Mr. Latona. By the use of iodine fumes and silver nitrate solution.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find evidence of processing prior to your receipt apart from the exhibit which is now 649?

Mr. Latona. Yes; this particular area which has been cut out had been processed with powder.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was there powder on other areas of the box?

Mr. Latona. I don't believe there was.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you identify any of the prints on the carton 648 as belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. Latona. The two fingerprints which were developed on commission exhibit 648 by silver nitrate are not identified as anyone's, but the print which appears on the piece which was cut out has been identified.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 649?

Mr. Latona. Of exhibit 648—which is exhibit 649——

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Latona. Which came from exhibit 648 has been identified as a palmprint of Harvey Lee Oswald, the right palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Lee Harvey Oswald, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. That is right. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, can you tell how this was developed, this print on 649?

Mr. Latona. The appearance is it was developed with black powder.

Mr. Eisenberg. You testified before concerning the aging of fingerprints. Considering the material on which this print was developed, 649, do you think you could form an opinion, any opinion at all, concerning the freshness or staleness of this print?

Mr. Latona. Bearing in mind the fact that this is an absorbent material, and realizing, of course, that a print when it is left on a material of this type it starts to soak in. Now, the reason that we in the FBI do not use powder is because of the fact that in a short period of time the print will soak in so completely that there won't be any moisture left.

Accordingly when you brush powder across there won't be anything developed.

Under circumstances, bearing in mind that here the box was powdered, and a print was developed with powder, the conclusion is that this is comparatively a fresh print. Otherwise, it would not have developed.

39 We know, too, that we developed two other fingerprints on this by chemicals. How long a time had elapsed since the time this print was placed on there until the time that it would have soaked in so that the resulting examination would have been negative I don't know, but that could not have been too long.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.

Mr. Eisenberg. And not 3 days, either?

Mr. Latona. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you bring that any closer?

Mr. Latona. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.

Mr. Eisenberg. 3 days?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?

Mr. Latona. We have run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.

Mr. Eisenberg. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Latona. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. You would not care, you say, though——

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona. Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there—between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

Mr. Eisenberg. You identified that, I believe, as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. What portion of the right palm was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. It happens to be the center part of the palm close to the wrist.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you show how the palm must have lain on the 649, the part of the 648 carton, to produce that print?

Mr. Latona. It would have been placed on there in this fashion.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you are pointing so that your hand is parallel with the long axis of the box, and at right angles to the short axis?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And just the bottom of the palm rests on the box, isn't that correct?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, before going to this fingerprint or this palmprint rather, Mr. Latona, we have palmprints, a palmprint here on this 649, and a finger and a palm on 641, and those are the only identified prints on these two objects.

Is it possible that Lee Harvey Oswald could have touched these two cartons at other places without leaving identifiable prints?

Mr. Latona. He could have.

Mr. Eisenberg. And how would that come about?

Mr. Latona. Simply by the fact that he did not have any material on his finger at the time he touched the box.

40 Mr. Eisenberg. So that you can touch a carton at one point and leave a print, and at another point not, is that right?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely, that is true.

Mr. Eisenberg. And when you say he doesn't have any material, how would that come about? Will he have used his material up, or not produced material with the particular finger?

Mr. Latona. He could have used it up and failed to produce it fast enough to have left anything at the time he touched that.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it uncommon or common for you to find an object which a person has touched more than once but only left one identifiable print?

Mr. Latona. It is very common.

Mr. Eisenberg. It is common?

Mr. Latona. Especially in, for example, the reading of a letter, a long letter where the person would run his finger and index finger down the edges. You might find prints at the top and then you don't find any at the bottom.

Mr. Eisenberg. Of course. I am not asking you to draw an inference whether or not Oswald touched the box in more than one place, but I just want to explore whether he could have touched the box in more than one place——

Mr. Latona. Yes; he could.

Mr. Eisenberg. And not left a second imprint?

Mr. Latona. He very definitely could have and not left one.

Mr. Dulles. May I add for the record, Commission Exhibit 648 apparently contained books of Scott Foresman and Co., from Scott, Foresman & Co., "Building for Today, Pioneering for Tomorrow."

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you take a photograph of the lift, or the print rather, which we see in 649?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And this is an accurate photograph?

Mr. Latona. It is, it is a true reproduction of the print which appears on Commission Exhibit 649 and it is enlarged about a time and a half.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 650?

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 650, for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take a photograph of the known palmprint and make a red circle around it, as you had in previous cases?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. To show what portion of the palm of Oswald that was?

Mr. Latona. Showing a portion of the right palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted?

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted as 651.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 651, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. By the way, Mr. Latona, on 649 there seems to be a scotch tape or cellophane tape over the fingerprint, is that right?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, apparently there was no attempt at a lift being made here?

Mr. Latona. No. This evidently was a print which was developed directly on the paper itself. The employing of that adhesive material like scotch tape was to protect the print itself.

Had they tried to lift that up I am afraid they would have spoiled that because they would have lifted the fibers of the cardboard along with it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that why, you think, they didn't lift it?

Mr. Latona. Yes; very definitely.

Mr. Eisenberg. By the way, did the Dallas police take photographs of the lift which we had earlier, the lift which was apparently taken from Exhibit 139, or to put the question—actually I am not interested in whether they took photographs of the lift; do you know whether they took photographs of the print?

Mr. Latona. I don't know.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it normal to take a photograph of a print before it is lifted?

Mr. Latona. If it is fairly visible, yes.

41 Mr. Eisenberg. What is the purpose of the lift, as opposed to a photograph reproducing the print?

Mr. Latona. The purpose of the lift is simply to insure the probability of getting a good record of the print, because a lot of times when you photograph a print, you have to go through the process of having it developed and then printed and at the same time by lifting it you may, that would be an additional security that you are getting the best results.

Then you take your choice as to which result turns out the best.

Mr. Eisenberg. So these are alternative routes?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Lifting and photographing?

Mr. Latona. That is right. Well, primarily our recommendation in the FBI is simply every procedure to photograph and then lift. Then you choose the one which you feel gives you the best results in your final photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg. Returning to the palmprint on 649, taken from the carton 648, did you make up a chart showing some of the points——

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which led you to your conclusion that that print was the print of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. Yes, I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And was that prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. Prepared by me—under my supervision.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this chart admitted as 652?

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted as Exhibit 652.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 652, for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Again, without going into detail, Mr. Latona, could you show us some of the more salient points which led you to your conclusion that the print on 649 was the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. The easiest points visible here, right offhand, point No. 11 which is a black line that goes upward and its relationship to point No. 10. This is known as the short ending ridge as is seen here. Its relation to point No. 8. Point No. 11 is a black line going upward. Point No. 8 is a black line going downward and there are one, two, three, ridges which are between the two. Over here in the latent print you find No. 11 which is a black line going upward. It is a short line to the other end of the point No. 10, and three ridges intervene between that and point No. 8, which is going downward.

One ridge to the right and going in an upward direction is point No. 7—7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Mr. Dulles. And you identified 11 points of similarity?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. Between the inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald and this palmprint taken from this cardboard carton?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. What is this white line that goes up through each?

Mr. Latona. This is a crease in the center of the palm, a flexure crease of that area.

Mr. Dulles. The palm did not touch the carton at that point?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. And those two creases are in approximately the same location in the photograph and in the latent palmprint?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, I now hand you two further cartons, which are labeled Box B and Box C, the B box being a 10 Rolling Reader, and the C box being also a Scott, Foresman box with printing on the back, "The Three Pre-primers," apparently the name of the book contained in this box.

Mr. Dulles. Primers.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you examine Box B, which I have handed to you, to determine whether it had on it any identifiable latent fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. Yes, sir; I did.

42 Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like that box admitted as 653.

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 653 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?

Mr. Latona. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, identifiable prints?

Mr. Latona. Identifiable prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?

Mr. Latona. I did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?

Mr. Latona. Box C, yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 654?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.

(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?

Mr. Latona. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. Latona. I did not identify them.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?

Mr. Latona. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you receive cartons 653 and 654?

Mr. Latona. I received cartons 653 and 654 November 27.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, with the earlier cartons, Boxes A and D, which have received Commission exhibit numbers?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Had they been processed? Could you tell whether they had been processed for latent fingerprints?

Mr. Latona. I couldn't tell whether they had been or not.

Mr. Eisenberg. You could not tell?

Mr. Latona. Could not tell. They had the appearance of not having been processed.

Mr. Eisenberg. How did you process them in your laboratory, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Iodine fumes and chemicals.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did the prints react to the iodine fumes at all?

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just to the chemicals?

Mr. Latona. The silver nitrate prints which were developed.

Mr. Dulles. Do you mean that the prints were of such a caliber and character that you couldn't make anything out of them, or that you couldn't identify them with any known——

Mr. Latona. They are not identical with those that they have been compared with.

Mr. Dulles. But the prints themselves were perfectly good prints?

Mr. Latona. Oh, yes; the prints are good but they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. Eisenberg. At any subsequent time have you attempted to identify any of these prints on the boxes as belonging to any person other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And how did you proceed with this attempt?

Mr. Latona. An effort was made to locate the fingerprints of all people employed in that building in which these cartons were found, on the basis of the names and birth dates which were furnished, and we located the fingerprints of 16 of those people who work in that building.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Latona. And the fingerprints of those 16 employees were compared with all of the latent prints which were developed on these boxes. They do not belong to any of those 16 people.

43 Mr. Dulles. May I ask for my information here, Mr. Eisenberg, were all of these cartons, including the last two admitted in evidence, were they found in the general area of the sixth floor of the building from which it is believed the shot was fired?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; Mr. Chairman. I believe that the two boxes which were just admitted into evidence as 653 and 654 were two of the three boxes which were apparently used as a rest by the assassin. They were apparently either the two bottom boxes, or there might have been an arrangement such as that one was stacked on top of the other, and the box earlier admitted into evidence was some evidence of that.

Mr. Dulles. And in any event, does our evidence indicate that these boxes were moved from their normal position on the sixth floor to a new position near the window?

Mr. Eisenberg. Again I believe it does indicate that at least the 10 Rolling Reader carton was moved. There was some other movement of boxes that morning, and I think they are still in the process of tracing down all of the movements.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you.

Mr. Eisenberg. I have a letter, Mr. Latona, from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Rankin, the general counsel of our Commission, setting forth the names of the employees of the TSBD whose prints were compared in this recent attempt you mentioned. Would you recognize the names?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I would because I believe that report is based on my report.

Mr. Eisenberg. If I read the name could you verify whether these individuals were the ones whose prints you checked out against the latents?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Haddon Spurgeon Aiken?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Jack Charles Cason?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Warren Cason?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Jack Edwin Doughterty?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Charles Douglas Givens?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mary Madeline Hollis?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. James Earl Jarman?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Spaulden Earnest Jones?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Herbert L. Junker?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Billy Nolan Lovelady?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Joe R. Molina?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Edward Shields?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Joyce Maurine Stansberg?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Roy Sansom Truly?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Lloyd R. Viles?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Troy Eugene West?

Mr. Latona. Correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now as I understand it, these employees were not selected because any particular suspicion fell on them, but merely because of all the employees, those were the ones whose cards you knew you had in your files?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

44 Mr. Eisenberg. And it was just accidental——

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. That those employees were picked?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. There is no inference that there was any suspicion whatsoever attaching to any of these employees?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. We believe all these employees had access to the sixth floor of the building?

Mr. Eisenberg. We are still looking into that question. This is a recent effort on your part?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. Is that letter to be admitted as evidence or not?

Mr. Eisenberg. I think not——

Mr. Dulles. Right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Since I don't think the witness could identify the actual letter.

Mr. Dulles. It will be in the files, though?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; it is a Commission document in the files.

Mr. Latona, I believe that out of the total number of six prints you have identified today as being Lee Harvey Oswald's, four were palmprints, is that correct?

Mr. Latona. Three.

Mr. Eisenberg. Three?

Mr. Latona. Three, two rights and one left, three palms and three fingers.

Mr. Eisenberg. There was a palm on——

Mr. Latona. The bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. A palm on the weapon?

Mr. Latona. One on the gun and on this box.

Mr. Eisenberg. Four and two then?

Mr. Latona. Three.

Mr. Eisenberg. There was a palm on each box?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is two palms?

Mr. Latona. One off the gun.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is three palms, and the palm on the wrapping paper bag. Here is the wrapping paper bag.

Mr. Latona. One palm and one finger.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is four palms all together?

Mr. Latona. Four palms, okay.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that correct?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, is the proportion of recovered fingerprints here an unusual one in your estimation? That is, we usually hear about fingerprints rather than palmprints, whereas here we have four palm and two finger prints. Is there anything unusual in this?

Mr. Latona. Well, in that manner there is because—well no, I guess not. It is just as logical to assume that a person will leave a palmprint as a fingerprint. It depends upon primarily the way he handles it. Objects of this type being so large you can probably expect to get a palmprint.

Mr. Dulles. And what he is handling?

Mr. Latona. That is right. On the other hand, if the object is small there is probably no reason for the palm to touch it. For example, in a rearview mirror; ordinarily on a rearview mirror of these stolen cars we process you get mostly fingerprints.

On the other hand if you get back into the trunk, the chances of something of a large nature, a stolen wheel, or something of that type, you will get finger and palm prints. Cartons like this, where you have to use both hands to pick it up because of its weight, the probability is that you will get a palmprint as well as a fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would the same thing be true of a heavy rifle?

Mr. Latona. Sure, very definitely.

Mr. Eisenberg. And if the bag contained a heavy object inside?

45 Mr. Latona. That is right, it would take more than just the finger area of the hand to hold on to it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you prepare at my request a series of photographs for transmission by me to the New York City Police Department—photographs of finger and palm prints found on some of the evidence we have been looking at?

Mr. Latona. I furnished you photographs of all of the remaining unidentified latent prints from these cartons.

Mr. Eisenberg. And also did you furnish me a photograph—just of the remaining unidentified prints?

Mr. Latona. No; including the ones which I identified.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you also furnish me with a photograph of the two prints you identified—which parenthetically were the only two identifiable prints—on the brown wrapping paper bag?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which is Exhibit 142. And of the lift from the weapon 139?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you also furnished me with photographs of the finger and palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald——

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. As transmitted to you by the Dallas office of the FBI?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you identify these as the photographs you furnished to me?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you identified the envelope marked "two photos Box D"?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted as 655?

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 655 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Dulles. I think there ought to be some cross-identification inside the envelope. Because obviously if you take that envelope and put anything in it, we ought to have the others identified properly.

Mr. Eisenberg. There are two photographs within this. Let the record show there are two photographs within this envelope, marked "7" and "13," and I believe these are the only photographs so marked. Each photograph is marked with an individual number, so these are the only two photographs in the entire set marked "7" and "13."

Mr. Dulles. Excellent.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now I have an envelope marked "10 photos Box A." Have you identified these photographs Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have these photographs admitted as group 656?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be.

(Commission Exhibit No. 656 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Dulles. How many enclosures in that?

Mr. Eisenberg. There are 10 enclosures and numbered as follows: 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.

Mr. Dulles. There is no 33?

Mr. Eisenberg. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit——

Mr. Eisenberg. 656.

Mr. Dulles. That is 656 with the enclosures as noted and identified.

Mr. Eisenberg. I have here photographs—an envelope—labeled "Photographs, Fingerprints, and Palmprints, Lee Harvey Oswald." These are accurate reproductions?

Mr. Latona. They are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will later put subnumbers on these.

Mr. Dulles. Seven numbers with seven enclosures?

Mr. Eisenberg. No, sir; three enclosures.

Mr. Dulles. With three enclosures?

46 Mr. Eisenberg. And I will number the 10-print card—first may I have the envelope with the photographs admitted as 657?

Mr. Dulles. The envelope shall be admitted with——

Mr. Eisenberg. I will subnumber the cards with your permission at a later time.

Mr. Dulles. How many enclosures in it, three?

Mr. Eisenberg. Three. I will subnumber the 10-print card 657-A, the right palm 657-B, and left palm 657-C.

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 657-A, 657-B, and 657-C were marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. I have an envelope with photos marked "one photo of lift 'underside of gun barrel.'" Is this a photograph which you provided me?

Mr. Latona. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 658, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Dulles. 658 with how many enclosures?

Mr. Eisenberg. Just one.

Mr. Dulles. Just one enclosure.

(Commission Exhibit No. 658 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, an envelope marked "two photos brown bag (wrapping paper)."

This is the two photos, Mr. Latona, which you gave to me?

Mr. Latona. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 659, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted as 659 with one enclosure in the envelope. Is it one or two?

Mr. Eisenberg. There are two enclosures.

Mr. Dulles. With two in the envelope.

Mr. Eisenberg. One has printing on it and with your permission I will mark that "659-A," and the other has no printing and I will mark it "659-B."

Mr. Dulles. It will be so admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 659-A and 659-B were marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Now an envelope marked "eight photos Box B." This is, Mr. Latona, the photographs you provided me?

Mr. Latona. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as Exhibit 660, Mr. Chairman, collectively?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 660 with——

Mr. Eisenberg. With eight enclosures——

Mr. Dulles. Eight enclosures.

Mr. Eisenberg. Marked "15"—the next one has 17 scratched out and also 18 appearing on it—19 for the third enclosure, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Mr. Dulles. With the numbers as indicated in the record.

(Commission Exhibit No. 660 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. And finally an envelope of the same size, marked "three photos, Box C." Mr. Latona, these are the photos you gave me?

Mr. Latona. Yes; they are.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have these admitted as 661, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted as Exhibit 661, with how many enclosures?

Mr. Eisenberg. There are three enclosures.

Mr. Dulles. And the three enclosures; are they identified in any way?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir; they are subnumbered 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. Dulles. With the subnumbers 10, 11 and 12.

(Commission Exhibit No. 661 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Are all these photographs accurate reproductions of the prints appearing on the objects whose name is on the front of the envelope in which the photographs are stored?

Mr. Latona. They are.

Mr. Eisenberg. They were taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Latona. They were.

47 Mr. Eisenberg. Can you identify by number, Mr. Latona, the photographs of box A which contain prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Latona. I will have to do it in a negative fashion and tell you that it is not 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, or 35.

Mr. Eisenberg. Then it would be No. 25 which is in that sequence?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you mention 34?

Mr. Latona. I did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. So 34 would also be an identified print in that sequence?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you print anything on the back of these photographs, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. At the time I gave you the photographs I marked nothing on them.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that any printing here would have been put on subsequent to the time you prepared them?

Mr. Latona. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Referring specifically to a photograph I take at random, which is No. 35, is this your handwriting?

Mr. Latona. It is not.

Mr. Eisenberg. None of the printing appearing on the back of that photograph?

Mr. Latona. It is not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Let the record state that, as will be dealt with later, this printing was put on by Mr. Mandella of the New York Police Department. Now in the case of box D, of which there are two photographs, 7 and 13, could you state which was the photograph of Oswald's print?

Mr. Latona. Thirteen.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just to reiterate, in no case did you put writing on the back of these photographs?

Mr. Latona. I did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did anyone else in the FBI examine the objects which you have been discussing today——

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. To determine whether the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald appeared on them?

Mr. Latona. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was that person's name?

Mr. Latona. His name is Ronald G. Wittmus.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was his examination conducted independently of yours?

Mr. Latona. It was.

Mr. Eisenberg. Who conducted the examination first?

Mr. Latona. In the case of the wrapping paper, I did. In the case of the boxes I believe he did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the rifle?

Mr. Latona. I conducted the examination of the rifle.

Mr. Eisenberg. The lift from the rifle?

Mr. Latona. Yes; directly.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the——

Mr. Latona. Brown wrapping paper.

Mr. Eisenberg. In any case when you conducted your examination first did you tell Wittmus of your conclusions?

Mr. Latona. I did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. When Mr. Wittmus conducted his examination first did he tell you of his conclusions?

Mr. Latona. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were his conclusions the same as yours?

Mr. Latona. Ultimately, yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say, "ultimately"?

Mr. Latona. When the whole thing was completed.

Mr. Dulles. There was no difference of views between you at any stage?

Mr. Latona. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did anyone who examined these various objects—as to which48 you have testified—in the FBI laboratory come to a conclusion different from the one you did?

Mr. Latona. They did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were there any identifications of fingerprints as being Lee Harvey Oswald's in addition to the ones which you have given us?

Mr. Latona. There were a number of identifications effected with latent prints developed on personal effects.

Mr. Eisenberg. No, sir; on the material you have testified as to today.

Mr. Latona. No; there were no others.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were any prints found—were the three fragmentary prints found on the rifle, which were not sufficient for purposes of identification, in any way inconsistent with the prints of Oswald which you found?

Mr. Latona. Very definitely, no. I might point out that actually what was visible was consistent, in the sense that even though there were no ridge formations available for purposes of making a positive conclusion, the indications were that the pattern types were there, were consistent with the pattern types which were on the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Dulles. As far as you know the conclusions of the Texas police authorities who examined these objects, were your conclusions the same as theirs, or was there any differences between you on this subject?

Mr. Latona. Frankly, I don't know what there conclusion was.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. Dulles. Have you any questions, Mr. Murray?

Mr. Murray. I have not.

Mr. Dulles. I have no further questions. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Latona. You have been very helpful. I have learned a great deal myself.

Mr. Latona. Thank you very much.


TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR MANDELLA, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. JOSEPH A. MOONEY, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION

Mr. Dulles. Mr. Mandella, will you raise your right hand.

Do you swear that the testimony you give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Mandella. I do.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Mandella, could you give us your full name and position?

Mr. Mandella. Arthur Mandella. I am a detective on the New York Police Department and I work at the bureau of criminal identification in that department.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you briefly outline your qualifications as a fingerprint identification expert, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. In 1945 to 1948 I was a fingerprint technician in the U.S. Navy. My principal duties were the classification and filing of fingerprints, the developing and photographing of latent fingerprints found at crime scenes, the comparison of latent fingerprints with suspects, and the searching of fingerprint files in general.

From 1948 to 1953 I was employed by the U.S. Government as a criminal investigator. However, my principal duties were the lifting and developing and identification of latent fingerprints, also the preparation of fingerprint exhibits for court presentation. From 1955 to the present I have been employed by the New York Police Department and assigned to the bureau of criminal identification as a fingerprint technician and performing the same duties that I just outlined. During these past 17 years I have been examining not only fingerprints but palmprints and infant footprints as well.

I graduated from the following fingerprint schools: in 1945, the U.S. Naval Air Station; in 1948 I graduated from the Institute of Applied Sciences, which is a fingerprint school, fingerprint and identification school; in 1955 I graduated from the New York Police Fingerprint School at the police academy; and in49 1958 I attended an advanced latent fingerprint course conducted by the FBI at the New York Police Academy.

I am a fingerprint instructor for the New York Police Department Bureau of Criminal Identification and lecture at various hospitals relative to the proper techniques involved in footprinting the newborn.

I am a qualified fingerprint expert and have testified in New York State and Federal courts, including court-martials, relative to all phases of fingerprints, palmprints, and footprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you venture a guess as to how many identifications you have been called upon to make in the course of your work?

Mr. Mandella. General identifications, I suppose, it runs into many thousands. It is hard to pick a number. But it is certainly well into the thousands of examinations.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be permitted to testify as an expert witness on the subject of fingerprints?

Mr. Dulles. Yes; he may.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Mandella, did you at my request examine certain photographs of latent prints and compare them with photographs of inked or known prints to determine whether there were identities between the known and latent prints?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. I hand you Commission Exhibits 656, 658, 659, 655, 657, 661, and 660. Could you briefly look through these and determine whether these are the photographs which you examined? As you finish an item, could you take a look at the Commission number and verify that you looked at the photographs in that Commission envelope?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I have examined the photographs contained in Commission Exhibit No. 656.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder if you would just state the number, in each case, in each envelope?

Mr. Mandella. In Commission Exhibit 656 there are 10 photos, 10 photographs. And I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 658, which is one photograph. I also examined Commission Exhibit No. 659, which is two photographs. I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 655, which is two photographs. I have examined Commission Exhibit No. 661, which contains three photographs. I have examined Commission Exhibit No. 660, which contains eight photographs. I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 657, which contains three photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. 657 contains photographs of inked prints, is that correct?

Mr. Mandella. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. The standard 10-finger chart and a right and left palmprint?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which you have been informed by me and you see on the writing on these charts are the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Mandella. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have any other knowledge that these are the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Mandella. No; none whatsoever.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the remaining prints are photographs of what you would call latent prints?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; they are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you make markings on the backs of these prints, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; on quite a few of them I did. However, not all of them.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you made those markings on the basis of—in your own hand printing?

Mr. Mandella. My own hand printing, for certain observations I wanted recorded.

Mr. Dulles. What is the nature of the marking?

Mr. Eisenberg. Let's take a sample. I will pull one out at random from Commission Exhibit 660. The topmost card says "Box B," which corresponds to the label or the envelope 660—and that is No. 17.

50 Mr. Dulles. Will you show those to the witness and see if he identifies his own writing?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I have made these notations. Yes; I do recognize these.

Mr. Eisenberg. The next one says "Box B" and "Negative—same as box 'D' No. 7."

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have seen these as you flipped through to identify that these are the same photographs?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Let the record show that these photographs are photographs of latent prints taken by or under the supervision of Mr. Sebastian Latona, and he has just testified that these photographs were taken of objects which were identified earlier in Commission proceedings. Mr. Latona transmitted these photographs to me directly, and I in turn transmitted them to Mr. Mandella and Mr. Mooney, who is also present in this hearing room.

Mr. Mandella, do you know what total number of identifiable latent prints were contained in these exhibits that you just identified—exclusive of 657, which contained the inked or known finger and palm prints?

Mr. Mandella. No; but I have this outline here.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just approximately would you say how many identifiable prints there were?

Mr. Mandella. Thirty.

Mr. Eisenberg. Some 30 odd prints?

Mr. Mandella. Some 30.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you identify certain of those prints as being the finger or palm prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you tell us which of those prints you so identified?

Mr. Mandella. There was a photograph, a photograph of the underside of the gun barrel, Commission Exhibit No.——

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Commission Exhibit No. 658, and I will hand you that photograph now. You are referring to this photograph?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And can you read the writing on the back of that?

Mr. Mandella. "Right palm Oswald underside gun barrel."

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that in your handwriting?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; it is in my handwriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you determine what portion of the right palm that was, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; it is the right side of the right palm, this area right here.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the ulnar portion?

Mr. Mandella. Pardon?

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that sometimes called the ulnar portion?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; the ulnar side, or the small-bone side; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you make any other identifications?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you give the next one, please?

Mr. Mandella. The photo marked "brown bag wrapping paper" Exhibit No.——

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Exhibit 659, and that exhibit contains two photographs which I now hand you, which are marked 659-A and 659-B?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you identify the prints in those photographs?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; on photograph No. 1——

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you refer to the print on the back, 659-A or B?

Mr. Mandella. On 659-B, as I called it, photo 1, is the No. 7 finger which is the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. And do you have a note on the back of that picture?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I do.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you read us that?

Mr. Mandella. "Left index, Oswald brown bag wrapping paper."

Mr. Eisenberg. And that is in your handwriting?

51 Mr. Mandella. Yes; it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you say what portion of the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald that is?

Mr. Mandella. It is the bulb of the finger, a little to the right.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, by bulb you mean the central portion of the distal phalanx?

Mr. Mandella. The central portion to the right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Of the distal phalanx?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; the flesh joint; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And 659-A?

Mr. Mandella. Commission Exhibit No. 659, as I call it, photo No. 2, is a palmprint and I identified this as the right side of the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. The right side would again be the ulnar?

Mr. Mandella. It would be the ulnar side, yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. The little finger side?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. That also has writing on the back of it, does it?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; it does.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you read that to us?

Mr. Mandella. "Right palm, Oswald brown bag wrapping paper."

Mr. Eisenberg. And that is in your own handwriting?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was there any handwriting when you got any of these prints, by the way?

Mr. Mandella. No; there wasn't.

Mr. Eisenberg. All the prints were blank on the reverse side?

Mr. Mandella. They were blank on the reverse side. There was handwriting within the photographs but not——

Mr. Eisenberg. That is on the face of the photographs?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you proceed, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. Box A, photo No. 25.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Commission Exhibit 656, and I will hand you photo No. 25.

Mr. Mandella. What was that number, 656? Numbers 25 and 34.

Mr. Eisenberg. I now hand you Nos. 25 and 34. Could you identify No. 25 first Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. No. 25, Commission Exhibit No. 656, contains three identifiable fingerprints, one of which, located in the center in a whorl-type pattern, is the No. 2 finger or the right index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald. The fingerprints on the right and the left do not belong to Lee Harvey Oswald but the one in the center, the whorl-type pattern, is his No. 2 finger.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which is that now again, the right-hand index finger?

Mr. Mandella. The No. 2 finger, which is the right index finger, and again the first joint, the bulb of the finger.

Mr. Eisenberg. The bulb of the distal phalanx?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Of the right index finger?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. For clarity, where were these taken? What were these taken from?

Mr. Eisenberg. This was taken from box A——

Mr. Dulles. Box A?

Mr. Eisenberg. Which I believe is a 10 rolling reader carton. Is there printing or handwriting on the back of that photograph 25?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; there is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you read it to us?

Mr. Mandella. "Center impression No. 2 finger Oswald from Box A photo—latent on left unidentified—Photo Nos. 25 and 27 identical—Negative with Oswald unidentified."

52 Mr. Eisenberg. "Negative with Oswald," are you referring now to two of the three photographs—two of the three prints appearing on the photograph?

Mr. Mandella. That is right, two prints, exactly, the one in the center, of course I am not in reference to the one in the center, which is his. The two on the right and left are unidentified.

Mr. Eisenberg. And No. 34, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. No. 34, Commission Exhibit 656, is a palmprint from the left palm of Lee Harvey Oswald, the left palm section of course, the ulnar side again of the left side of the left palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. And do you have a note on the back of that?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I do. "Oswald's left palm—left side."

Mr. Eisenberg. And that again is in your own handwriting, is it Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Any other identifications?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; there is one more on box D, photo No. 13.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Exhibit 655, which contains two photographs, and I will extract the photograph labeled "13."

Mr. Mandella. Commission Exhibit 655, photo No. 13, the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. The section here is at the heel of the palm in the center.

Mr. Eisenberg. In the center of the palm?

Mr. Mandella. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. You were just pointing to the lower portion of the palm, which you refer to as the heel?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; this is the portion of Oswald's palm.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is there handwriting or printing on the back of that photograph?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; there is. "Right palm—Oswald—heel of hand."

Mr. Eisenberg. And that is your handwriting, is it, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. So you made a total of six identifications?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now when you made these identifications—or, I should say, when you received the photographs and when you made the identifications, did you have any knowledge of any kind as to how many, if any, prints of Oswald's were found among the many impressions which were given to you?

Mr. Mandella. I had no idea, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were you aware in any way of the conclusions of any other body concerning these impressions?

Mr. Mandella. I knew nothing about any examination by anyone.

Mr. Eisenberg. At an unofficial level, had you seen anything in the newspapers which would indicate any information on these?

Mr. Mandella. In the newspaper several months ago there was reference to a—I don't even recall whether it was fingerprints or palmprints or both but there was some reference in the newspaper I had seen, and that is all.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is all you recall about it?

Mr. Mandella. That is all I recall.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you pay any attention to that in making your identifications?

Mr. Mandella. No; it didn't affect me at all, nothing to do with the identifications.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your general attitude toward items you see like this in the newspapers, by the way?

Mr. Mandella. In the newspapers? It doesn't mean a thing. Attitude relative to fingerprints?

Mr. Eisenberg. I am trying to determine how far this might influence you in your evaluation, and I wonder as a police officer what your opinion is when you read accounts in newspapers of evidence in crimes.

Mr. Mandella. No; it doesn't affect me other than for general information purposes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did I transmit to you any information whatsoever concerning these prints?

53 Mr. Mandella. You did not, other than giving me the photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did I tell you that any of these prints might be Lee Harvey Oswald's?

Mr. Mandella. You made no indication as to that it could have been his.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know now, apart from your own identification, have you acquired any information at this point, subsequent to your identification but prior to your appearance here, as to these prints, other than your own identifications?

Mr. Mandella. I have no knowledge as to what has been done with these prints at all by anyone.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are you absolutely sure as to each of these identifications, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. Mandella. I am positive.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Mandella, are you familiar with the contention of some persons that 12 points are needed for identification of finger or palm prints?

Mr. Mandella. No I am not, no. Positive identifications are effected by the expert himself; 12 points are not necessary. A sufficient amount determined by the expert is the important factor.

Mr. Dulles. About how many? Have you any test as to how many points?

Mr. Mandella. I can't give a definite number, but I'd say in generalities five or six or seven points certainly should be enough, depending on their uniqueness and frequency.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the lowest number to which you have testified in court, Mr. Mandella.

Mr. Mandella. The lowest that I can recall I testified to, five points.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was there a conviction secured in that case?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; there was. Of course, I don't recall if the fingerprint was the thing that caused the conviction, but it was part of the testimony.

Mr. Dulles. In most of these cases where you have made an identification, have there been more than five points of identity?

Mr. Mandella. Well, it seems to run between, somewhere between 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and in some cases more. It depends on how much of the finger or palm that you have, how many characteristics are contained in that area.

Mr. Dulles. My question was directed to the specific prints that you have, photographs of prints that you have examined.

Mr. Mandella. Yes; it usually verges on 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. Dulles. In the cases of these identifications that you have made?

Mr. Mandella. Oh, no. Some—we have many more characteristics in some of these identifications here today.

Mr. Eisenberg. I think Commissioner Dulles is referring to cases previous to this.

Mr. Dulles. I was referring to both. First I was asking you in general how many do you consider are necessary, and secondly how many did you find in these particular cases that you have examined in the Oswald case?

Mr. Mandella. Oh. Would you like me to——

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have that information?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Fine.

Mr. Mandella. Of course these characteristics that I point out are the ones that I see and in some cases there is a few more, but these are the ones that are very definite and outstanding.

On the gun barrel, I forget the Commission exhibit number, there was 11 points of identity.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 658?

Mr. Mandella. Commission Exhibit 658. There was 11 points of identity on that particular palmprint.

Mr. Dulles. That is exactly what I wanted.

Mr. Mandella. Yes; now the brown wrapping paper bag, Commission's Exhibit 659——

Mr. Eisenberg. There is 659-A and B here. The one you have marked "left index Oswald"?

Mr. Mandella. Is that A?

54 Mr. Eisenberg. That is what I have marked "B." That is Commission Exhibit 659-B.

Mr. Mandella. Then No. 2, 659-A is the palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is marked "right palm"?

Mr. Mandella. Right palm, and there is 18 points, 18 characteristics that are very outstanding and in this case possibly more too.

Now in Commission's Exhibit 659-B——

Mr. Eisenberg. That is marked "left index Oswald"?

Mr. Mandella. It is the left index finger—Lee Harvey Oswald, there is 11 points of identity and possibly a few more. In Commission Exhibit 656 which is the No. 2 finger or the right index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald, there is 11 points, that is the whorl-type pattern.

Mr. Eisenberg. Excuse me a second Mr. Mandella. That is No. 25 center impression, marked by you "center impression No. 2 finger—Oswald," is that correct?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; that is correct. And there is 11 points of identity or characteristic.

Mr. Eisenberg. On No. 34?

Mr. Mandella. No. 34, the palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is marked by you "Oswald left palm—left side"?

Mr. Dulles. Palmprint on the box is it?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; box A.

Mr. Dulles. Box A?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; 18 points of identity I found on that particular exhibit.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you check your notes on that?

Mr. Mandella. I can explain this. On the reverse side I have 13 to 16 points.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the reverse side of number——

Mr. Mandella. It is the reverse side of Commission Exhibit 656. However, after going over this and looking at it again I found several more. Of course in this case it is still more than 18. But 18 that can be readily seen and recognized. And then Commission exhibit finally——

Mr. Eisenberg. 655?

Mr. Mandella. 655.

Mr. Eisenberg. Box D.

Mr. Mandella. Photo No. 13, the right palmprint of Oswald, and there is eight points of identity on that one.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Mandella, do you have any opinion concerning the ability to determine the freshness of a fingerprint?

Mr. Mandella. It is very difficult to tell. However, you can determine if it was left within say a few days, but certainly you can't pinpoint it. You can't say it was there so many hours or so many days. How many days I don't know, but in the developing of fingerprints we will say on an ashtray on this Commission desk here, if we just touch it now, as opposed to a fingerprint being left there several days ago, the impression that we recently left, as we applied powder to it to bring it about would naturally come out sooner because of the freshness of the oils on our fingers.

The others would come out, if we kept processing or powdering it with a brush. They would later come out too. So this is the only indication to me then, that the first ones that appear then were recently left. And in this you can't even say this definitely either. It is very difficult because at certain times it could be a little more oil on someone's fingers and this could last longer and appear to be fresher. So it is very difficult to tell positively.

Mr. Eisenberg. What you are describing is freshness, relative freshness, between one print and another, rather than absolute freshness of any given print?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; that is true.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now I give you Commission Exhibit No. 139, which is a rifle, and ask you whether you think if you developed a print on a steel portion of the rifle you could testify as to whether this was a fresh or a stale print?

Mr. Mandella. No; I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell especially on steel or on wood here whether it is fresh or not. By itself of course too, with nothing around it, you couldn't tell. It is impossible, as a matter of fact.

55 Mr. Eisenberg. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 649, which consists of a piece torn off of a cardboard type of box, and appearing on that is a powder impression under a tape, of which you have seen actually a photograph, Mr. Mandella.

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. If you had developed that impression, do you think you would testify as to relative freshness?

Mr. Mandella. In this case, with this cardboard, in my own experience—I assume the medium used here is powder——

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; I believe so.

Mr. Mandella. To develop it. If it comes out this fresh, I would have to assume that it was left there recently. But how recently I can't pinpoint that.

Mr. Eisenberg. Within 3 days?

Mr. Mandella. Oh, definitely I would say within 3 days.

Mr. Eisenberg. Within 2 days?

Mr. Mandella. Yes; I would say within about a day, a day and a half, because the cardboard is very porous and it would normally draw the oils, the perspiration, and it would disappear.

However, we do have an impression here with powder. That means that it was quite fresh, in my own opinion anyway.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Mandella, I can see that you have taken notes, numerous notes on the fingerprints, including those you didn't identify. I wonder whether we could introduce those as a Commission exhibit, rather than going through those one by one. Would you part with those? We could supply you with a copy later.

Lieutenant Mooney. I have the rough. It will only take us a couple minutes to——

Mr. Dulles. We would be very glad to give you a photograph copy of it.

Mr. Mandella. That is all I need. That is fine. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are handing me two pages, and these contain your original notes concerning the fingerprints?

Mr. Mandella. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. These contain your notes not only as to the fingerprints you identified, but those which you did not identify against a known print which you were given?

Mr. Mandella. That is right. There were quite a few fingerprints that didn't belong to Oswald. However, they belonged to one another.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is to say, you found two prints which were identical to each other?

Mr. Mandella. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. Two latents which were identical to each other?

Mr. Mandella. That is right, but to whom they belong I have no idea.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these notes admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 662?

Mr. Dulles. It shall be admitted as Exhibit 662.

(Commission Exhibit No. 662 was marked for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Mandella, is there anything you would like to add to your testimony here?

Mr. Mandella. Nothing other than what I already mentioned.

Mr. Eisenberg. I have no further questions.

Mr. Dulles. We thank you then Mr. Mandella, very much. I didn't catch your name.

Lieutenant Mooney. Lieutenant Mooney. Glad to have been of service.

Mr. Dulles. Would you please express to the Commissioner on behalf of the Chief Justice and the Commission our grateful thanks to you for the work that you have done, and it is greatly appreciated, and also express on my own personal behalf—I know the Commissioner—my appreciation for the cooperation he has given to the Commission.

Lieutenant Mooney. Thank you, sir. We are glad to have been of service.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I say that these two gentlemen both interrupted their vacation to come here, and they have been working practically night and day in order to meet with our time demands for testimony.

56 Mr. Dulles. We deeply appreciate that.

Mr. Mandella. Glad to have helped in any way.

Mr. Dulles. The Commission will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)


Friday, April 3, 1964
TESTIMONY OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH AND JAMES C. CADIGAN

The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m. on April 3, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, member.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; Melvin Aron Eisenberg, Assistant Counsel; and Charles Murray, Observer.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. The purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of Paul Stombaugh and James C. Cadigan. Mr. Stombaugh is a hair and fiber expert with the FBI, and Mr. Cadigan is a questioned documents expert with the FBI. They have been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work.

This is just to advise you of the nature of the interrogation today.

Will you rise: Do 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. Stombaugh. I do.

The Chairman. You may be seated. Mr. Eisenberg, you may proceed with the examination.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, could you state your full name and your position?

Mr. Stombaugh. Paul M., for Morgan, Stombaugh. I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the hair and fiber unit of the FBI laboratory as a hair and fiber examiner.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your education, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Furman University, Greenville, S.C., and I received a 1-year period of specialized training in the hair and fiber field in the laboratory under the supervision of the other experts.

Mr. Eisenberg. How long have you been in the hair and fiber field?

Mr. Stombaugh. Since 1960.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you approximate the number of examinations you have made in this field?

Mr. Stombaugh. I have made several thousand hair examinations and about twice as many fiber examinations.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you testified in court?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; I have testified in approximately 28 States, both federal and local courts, as an expert.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to examine the witness as an expert in this area.

The Chairman. The witness is qualified.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 140, which for the record consists of a blanket which was found in the garage of Mr. and Mrs. Paine, and a piece of string marked Paine Exhibit No. 2, and I ask you whether you are familiar with these items?

57 Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; I am. My mark is here on the blanket, and when this was received in the FBI laboratory this string was around a portion of it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you tell us what your mark is exactly, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. Due to the fact this was a piece of fabric and hard to mark, I put a piece of evidence tape on the blanket, stapled it to the blanket, and put my initials "PMS" with the date 11-23-63 thereon.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe the shape of the blanket and the position of the string, Paine Exhibit 2, when you received it?

Mr. Stombaugh. May I use this?

Mr. Eisenberg. What you are holding up is a piece of paper which—will you describe it, please?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is a piece of kraft paper approximately the same shape as this blanket. When I received the blanket, it had been folded together with both ends even; a slight triangle had been folded into one corner of the blanket, and another fold had been taken into the blanket thus.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "thus," you are folding the piece of kraft paper, and is the paper now folded into approximately—in a manner approximating the way the blanket was folded when you received it?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to introduce the piece of paper which the witness has so folded?

The Chairman. It may be so admitted.

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be Commission Exhibit 663.

(Commission Exhibit 663 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. There is a safety pin inserted into Exhibit 663, Mr. Stombaugh. Was there an equivalent safety pin on the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; there was a much larger safety pin attached to the blanket in approximately the same place as the small pin in the piece of paper.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, the blanket is folded so as to approximate approximately a right angle triangle, and the safety pin is at one angle of that triangle opposite the right angle, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. The safety pin would be at the vertex of the right angle——

Mr. Eisenberg. Now——

Mr. Stombaugh. Of the triangle.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were there any distinctive creases in the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; there were. There was one crease at the base, which would be the base of the right triangle, a very slight crease.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you mark that with the letter "A" please, on the Exhibit 663?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. This is opposite—this is the side facing the angle at which the safety pin is inserted, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct. It would be the base of the triangle.

Mr. Eisenberg. The base of the triangle——

Mr. Stombaugh. There was also another crease I found upon removing the safety pin and opening the blanket; I found that one end of the blanket had been folded in approximately 7 inches.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the relationship between that and the end which you have just marked "A," is that the opposite side?

Mr. Stombaugh. That would be the opposite side of the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you mark that "B"?

What was the relationship between the amount which the blanket was folded on the side "A" and the amount which it was folded on side "B," that is, were the folds approximately equal, or if different, how different, in length?

Mr. Stombaugh. The one, the fold marked "A" was not as great as the fold marked "B." The fold marked "B" was approximately 7 inches, the fold marked "A" was less than 7 inches.

Mr. Eisenberg. Proceed.

58 Mr. Stombaugh. There was one other crease in the blanket which was more or less a hump approximately 10 inches long, located approximately midway between the blanket, between—it is very difficult to describe the location.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you point to it, and maybe we can describe it?

Mr. Stombaugh. Approximately in this area.

Mr. Eisenberg. This is, approximately midway between the side at which the fold marked "A" appears and the side at which the fold marked "B" appears?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct, approximately midway.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you mark that fold or crease "C"? Was this a fold or a crease, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. This was a very slight crease. It appeared as a hump in the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was there any item in the blanket, any object in the blanket, which might have been causing that hump?

Mr. Stombaugh. Not when I opened it, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you form an opinion as to what might cause that hump to exist in the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; it would have had to have been a hard object, approximately 10 inches in length, which protruded upward, causing the yarns in the blanket to stretch in this area, and it would have had to have been tightly placed in the blanket to cause these yarns to stretch.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when you say the object was 10 inches long, do you mean that the object itself was 10 inches long or that there was an object 10 inches—an object protruding at a point 10 inches from the place you have marked "A"?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; the object itself would have had to have been approximately 10 inches long to have caused this hump.

Mr. Eisenberg. It couldn't have been longer than 10 inches?

Mr. Stombaugh. Not at this point; no, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could it have proceeded past that point marked "C," that is, could the object have been placed so that its base was at "C"—so that its base was at "A"? Is it possible that the object as it lay in the blanket passed "C" but with a protrusion at "C"?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; this is quite possible.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is possible?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is quite possible.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were there any other folds or creases, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

At the upper, call it the upper portion of the triangle, there were some creases in the blanket which had been caused by a piece of string which had been securely wrapped around the blanket at this point.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you mark the area "D," where those creases occurred?

Is the string you are referring to the Paine Exhibit 2 which you earlier identified?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was that wrapped around the blanket when you received it?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; this was loosely wrapped around the blanket at this point. From an examination of the blanket itself and these creases, it was apparent that this string had been tied around the blanket while something was inside this blanket, and the string had been tied rather tight in order for these creases to have remained in the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. In other words, the creases remained in the blanket although there was no object in it when you received it——

Mr. Stombaugh. Correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which would account for the creases, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you therefore deduced there had been an object in the blanket preceding your examination?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you notice anything else about the blanket which you would like to relate, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. The blanket exhibited much wear.

59 Mr. Eisenberg. We are just talking now about the shape, of course. We will be getting into composition later.

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; I cannot think of anything else at this time.

Mr. Eisenberg. In your opinion, would the blanket have made a secure package wrapped in the way and manner that it appeared to you?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; it would have. With the crease at fold "A," had it been folded down, it would have made a very snug and secure package containing some type of item in it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, was there anything about the string, Paine Exhibit 2, which would make an identification possible?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; the string is just common white cotton string. It is found in most stores throughout the country, and used for, well, many uses. There is nothing distinctive about the string itself which could be traced as to manufacturer or any definite use it was made for.

Mr. Eisenberg. Any distinctive accidental markings on it?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I found none.

Mr. Eisenberg. What kind—was it tied in a knot?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; it was tied in a granny knot, and also a bow knot.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you illustrate that for us? You are holding up a piece of string?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is another piece of string, not the original.

Mr. Eisenberg. Not the original.

Mr. Stombaugh. A granny knot is a common knot, tied with two simple thumb knots. It is a very hard knot to open as opposed to the boy scout knot, or the square knot rather, which is tied in this manner. This knot is very easy to open because all one has to do is to pull one free end of it and the other free end slides out.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are referring to the so-called "boy scout" knot?

Mr. Stombaugh. It is actually not a boy scout knot but a square knot.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you tie that left over right, right over left, is that the formula?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; left over right and right over left.

Mr. Eisenberg. How do you spell that, by the way?

Mr. Stombaugh. G-r-a-n-n-y.

Mr. Eisenberg. The granny knot, Mr. Stombaugh, is this a common or an uncommon knot?

Mr. Stombaugh. It is a very common knot. I believe that knot is tied more than any other knot because it is right over right, right over right, and it is usually used by people wrapping packages who want it tied securely so the package will not come open.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you say there was also a bow knot?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you illustrate that?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is the type of knot we use when we tie our shoe strings. It is made by forming a loop with the one free end, and wrapping the other free end around it and pulling it through.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that a hard or an easy knot to slip out, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is very easy, because you just take one of the loose ends and pull it and the knot falls apart.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was the relationship between the granny knot and the bow knot?

Mr. Stombaugh. I don't know. I have seen this numerous times, on numerous different occasions when one would either tie a granny knot or a square knot and follow it up with a bow knot. The granny knot would be to secure the package so it would not come loose. The bow knot is a temporary knot tied by one who wants the string to come off easily.

Now why they would tie a granny knot and follow this up with a bow knot I don't know, unless they had some long loose ends which they wanted to slacken up, shorten up, rather, so as they would not be hanging down.

Mr. Eisenberg. The Exhibit Paine No. 2 is tied into a knot at this point. Can you tell us what kind of a knot that is?

60 Mr. Stombaugh. This was a simple bow knot which I put into it.

Mr. Eisenberg. You put it into it?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. So the knot does not reproduce the knots as you found them originally?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; they do not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, I wonder if you could tie the demonstration piece of string you have been using into the granny knot and bow knot, in the manner in which you received it.

Mr. Stombaugh. There is the granny knot and here is the bow knot.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are not here trying to approximate the diameter or the circumference of the string, but only the knots?

Mr. Stombaugh. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I admit this string as an illustrative exhibit?

The Chairman. It may be done.

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 664, Mr. reporter.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 664, and received into evidence.)

Now, Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine its composition?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you give us your conclusions?

Mr. Stombaugh. The blanket is composed of a very small percentage of brown and green woolen fibers; an average of about 30 percent to 40 percent of brown and green cotton fibers, and the remaining portion brown and green delustered viscose fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "a very small portion of brown and green woolen fibers," could you be more specific; was it in the neighborhood of 1 percent or 10 percent?

Mr. Stombaugh. I was unable to obtain a definite percentage. This is a rather long, involved, and inaccurate method of determination because one would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis.

However, in the samples of the fabric that I made, I found approximately 1 to 2 percent woolen fibers, 20 to, I would say, 30, 35 percent cotton fibers, and the remainder of it viscose fibers. This is just an approximation from the microscopic slide that I made.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you have any reason to believe that the approximation was not made from a fair sample of the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I wouldn't. I took the sample myself.

However, the blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original composition has been worn off. Now, whether or not this same percentage of composition is missing from use or not I wouldn't be able to determine, but I would say that the approximation that I had given is fairly accurate for the blanket in its present condition.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, could you explain to us briefly how you were able to distinguish the three fibers, cotton, wool, and viscose?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. This chart shows the difference in the textile fibers when one observes them under a microscope. A cotton fiber appears to be, or rather, might be compared with an ordinary soda straw which has been flattened. You can see here that the fiber is hollow. The hollow is known as the lumen in cotton. The fiber is flattened and twisted much as teenagers do to soda straws in drug stores when they twist and crush the soda straws.

Mr. Eisenberg. Pardon me, Mr. Stombaugh: this chart is a chart labeled "Textile Fibers," and having three illustrations labeled "Cotton," "Wool," and "Viscose"?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

A woolen fiber actually is a hair which originates from an animal and is composed of three basic parts, the outer part being the scales which are the rough area on the outside of the hair, the inner portion known as the cortex, and a center portion known as the medulla. Microscopically this is what you would look for to identify wool.

61 Viscose is a synthetic fiber that is made by man. It is composed of chemicals, and is very rough around the outside area, having many striations running through it. The viscose fiber I have drawn here is what we would term a lustrous fiber. It does not have the delustering agent added to it, to cut down the luster. If this were a delustered fiber then we would have millions of small spots on the outside of this fiber which have been placed there chemically so as to cut down the luster of the fiber.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was the viscose in the blanket that we have been examining lustered or delustered?

Mr. Stombaugh. This was delustered.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce the chart which the witness has been discussing as 665?

This chart was prepared by you or under your supervision, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. It was prepared by me.

The Chairman. What is the number?

Mr. Eisenberg. That will be 665.

(Commission Exhibit No. 665 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine whether any debris was present?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did. I scraped the blanket and removed all the foreign textile fibers and hairs and placed them into a pillbox.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe to us how this scraping was performed?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. We suspend the blanket from a rack in the laboratory, place a clean sheet of kraft paper on a table directly under it and, using a spatula, thoroughly scrape it down. This knocks all the foreign material adhering to the blanket from the blanket, and it falls down to the paper. After we have thoroughly cleaned the blanket, then we scrape up all the debris and place it in the pillboxes for a microscopic examination.

Mr. Eisenberg. Why do you use this scrape method, as opposed to a fine-filter vacuum cleaner?

Mr. Stombaugh. We have found that the fine-filtered vacuum cleaner pulls all of the dirt and old debris from a blanket which are embedded on the inner portion of the fabric. We are not interested in this material. We are interested only in what is adhering to the top surface, which has been put there most recently. Through experience in the laboratory we have found this method to be the best so far.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that by use of the scrape you gathered the more recent debris, as opposed to the older debris?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And what type of debris did you find, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. I found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, as well as a number of limb and pubic hairs.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you draw any conclusions as to those hairs upon your initial examination of them?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did. They all had originated from a person of the Caucasian race and I compared these hairs with hair samples obtained from Harvey Oswald——

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I found that of the limb and pubic hairs I removed from the blanket, several matched Oswald's in all observable microscopic characteristics and could have originated from Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. You said these hairs were from a person of Caucasian race. Can you explain how you can tell the difference between hairs of the various types of races?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. Going back to my charts, I have a chart here which contains a diagram of a hair. This isn't any particular hair, this is a type of hair that could be animal or human. I am just using this to give one an idea of what a hair looks like.

First, we have the root, which is the portion of the hair embedded in the scalp or in the skin, whichever type hair it might be.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

62 Mr. Stombaugh. And from the root, extending out and growing, is the shaft of the hair, and the very distal end of that is the tip.

If we were to take this hair and place it under a microscope, this is what we would see. We find that the hair basically consists, in the shaft area, of scales composing the outside portion of the hair. Directly under the scales is the cortex. Now the scales vary in size and shape among animal and human hairs. The cortex also varies. Running through the center of the hair shaft, much as the lead in the center of a lead pencil, is what is known as the medulla.

The medulla is nothing more than air cells running through the center of the hairshaft.

In the cortex of the hair are small granules which appear under a microscope like tiny grains of sand. These are known as the hair pigment. This is the part of the hair that gives the hair its color, whether it is blond, dark brown, black, or what-have-you.

Also present in the cortex you will occasionally find air spaces located among the pigment granules which are known as cortical fusi. These will vary in size, shape, form, and location on the hair. Many hairs do not have any.

Basically that is what a hair looks like, and the basic component parts of the hair.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 666, this diagram of the hair?

The Chairman. Yes; it may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 666 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Stombaugh. Now, keeping the diagram of the hair on the side where we can refer to it, our first differentiation in the hair, of course, would be separating the human from the animal hairs. These are photomicrographs of human hairs which I took through a microscope.

Here are the animal hairs.

The first thing we look for, of course, would be the color, length, and texture of the hair. This comes from experience from looking at thousands of hairs, and we can usually pick one up and tell by the naked eye whether it is animal or human.

Mr. Eisenberg. Pardon me. You are referring to a chart which has on the upper right, "Human Hairs" and on the upper left, "Animal Hairs" as captions?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

However, when we place these hairs under a microscope we find that animal hairs vary from human hairs in many different aspects.

One, the medullary structure. In animal hair the medullary structure is much wider than that in a human hair. You will find that it exceeds more than one-third of the width of the hair shaft.

Secondly, the shape of the medulla, as in this rabbit hair, varies greatly. You can see the individual medullary cells very distinctly. In this chart I have some photographs of human hairs in which a medulla is not present. But the medulla in a human hair would look just about like this, very thin.

We move down to the pigmentation of the hair, which is located in the cortex. In the human hair the pigmentation is very fine and granular, and in this animal hair it is very coarse and elongated.

The size and shape of a root on the animal hair differs from the size and shape of the root in the human hair. Here we see the root of a dog hair which is very long and very thin. The root of a human hair is more or less shaped similar to a light bulb. The scales of animal hairs are very large. The scales of the human hairs are much smaller.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this chart which the witness has been using introduced as 667?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 667, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. You are looking at a new chart called "Racial Determination of Hairs" with the subcaption "General Appearance of Shaft"?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Once we have separated the animal hairs from the human hairs, our next problem is determining the race of the individual from whom the particular human hairs in which we are interested originated.

63 Looking at the hair under low power—under a low-power microscope—we find that a Caucasian hair differs from the hair of the Negroid or Mongoloid race in diameter fluctuation. The hair shaft varies in width through its entire length. I might take, for instance, this yellow or this black pencil. Here we find that the diameter of the pencil is uniform through the entire length. Now, if we would twist this pencil we would change the diameter of the pencil slightly. This would be so in a Caucasian hair, where there might be slight fluctuations in a hair, such as a person with wavy hair would have a slight fluctuation. The person with straight hair has hair shafts which for all practical purposes, are uniform in diameter the entire length.

In Negroid hair, there is great fluctuation. Their hair is very curly and kinky. This is caused by the great fluctuation present in their hairs.

Mr. Eisenberg. You mean in the diameters?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; diameters.

In Mongoloid hair, which includes Asiatic and North American Indians, there is little or no fluctuation present in their hairs.

Going back to the Caucasian hair, the color of the Caucasian individual's hair differs from black to blond and, of course, white.

Negroid hairs are dense black usually; some are white. There are a few exceptions here where we find some redheaded persons of this race. The Mongoloids are always black, but not quite as dense black as those of the Negroid race.

The texture of the hair: Caucasian head hairs, are very soft, flexible; Negroid hairs are very stiff and wiry; and Mongoloid hairs are flexible, but not as soft and flexible as the Caucasian.

Now, as to the general width, or rather diameter, of the shaft, we find Caucasian is medium, the Negroid is medium, the Mongoloid hairs are much larger than either the Negroid or the Caucasian.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this chart which the witness has been discussing marked as 668, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. Yes.

(Commission's Exhibit No. 668 was marked, and received in evidence.)

The Chairman. May we take a recess at this time just for a few moments.

(Short recess.)

Mr. Dulles. Mr. Eisenberg, would you proceed?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir. Mr. Stombaugh, you were discussing the characteristics of Caucasian as opposed to Negroid and Mongoloid hair. Could you proceed with that discussion?

Mr. Stombaugh. I have another chart here.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is labeled "Racial Determination of Hairs" and unlike chart 668 it has no subcaption under that general caption, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct. In the previous chart I used I had taken some photographs of hairs under relatively low power, 100 diameters.

In this chart I have enlarged the hairs, taking them under approximately 400 diameters, so we can look into the hair. Here we begin to see the real differences between the hairs among the various races.

In the Caucasian race, the cuticle, in other words, the layer of scales around the outside of the hair, is medium to thick.

In the Negroid hair the cuticle is very thick. In the Mongoloid hair the cuticle is very thick.

Pigmentation in the cortex, which gives the hair the color, in Caucasian hair is very fine to coarse and is very evenly distributed throughout the cortex of the hair. In Negroid hair the pigment is medium to coarse, but the big difference is that the pigment granules are clumped together, leaving large white-gapped areas throughout the cortex of the hair.

In the Mongoloid hair, the pigment is medium to coarse but it is very heavily distributed throughout the hair. As you can see, in the Caucasian hair the cortex is relatively light. In Negroid hair it is clumped, and in Mongoloid hair it is dense.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this chart admitted as 669?

Mr. Dulles. It is admitted as 669.

(Commission Exhibit No. 669 was marked, and received in evidence.)

64 Mr. Eisenberg. You have a chart here "Racial Determination of Hairs," and no subcaption, is that right?

Mr. Dulles. You haven't asked for this other to be admitted, have you?

Mr. Eisenberg. No; I will ask after he has finished with it.

Mr. Stombaugh. Occasionally we will run into situations in hairs, where we cannot determine with any certainty whether or not the hairs are of the Caucasian or Negroid or Mongoloid race, by examining it longitudinally, and we have to make a cross-section of the hair. If we make a cross-section of the hair it is the same as taking a banana and cutting off a very thin slice of the banana and placing it under a microscope and examining it. We find in the Caucasian race the hairs are oval in shape. In the Negroid race the hairs are flat, and have a flattened appearance, and in the Mongoloid race they are perfectly round. This is another characteristic which we use in determining the racial origin of hair.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this chart admitted as 670?

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 670 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Was it definitely established in your mind as a result of the various characteristics you have explained that the hairs found in the blanket were Caucasian hairs?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; they were all Caucasian hairs.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine those hairs and compare them with any known samples to determine whether they might have come from any specific individual?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion on that score?

Mr. Stombaugh. I examined the hairs found on the blanket and determined that most of them were limb and pubic hairs. In other words, they originated either from the leg or the arm or from the pubic area. I found several head hairs on the blanket also.

These hairs I compared with known hair samples from Lee Harvey Oswald. I found several of the limb hairs from the blanket and several of the pubic hairs from the blanket matched in all observable microscopic characteristics, and concluded these hairs could have come from Oswald.

Mr. Eisenberg. Where did you get the known sample, Mr. Stombaugh, of Lee Oswald's hair?

Mr. Stombaugh. These were obtained and were sent to the laboratory by the FBI office in Dallas.

I do not know whether the agent in Dallas personally took the samples or had a member of the Dallas Police Department take the samples.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were these hairs taken from one area or were they a representative sample?

Mr. Stombaugh. It was a fairly good representative sample.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you review the microscopic characteristics which led you to your conclusion, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. This chart contains a photomicrograph of Oswald's pubic hairs. This is just a very small area taken of a glass microscope slide containing the hairs. There were numerous other hairs. The photograph on the right shows one of the hairs I removed from the blanket, and one of the hairs from Oswald, showing, generally, the match.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, did you take these photographs on the left and right side yourself?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. This chart is captioned on the left "Photomicrograph of Oswald's Pubic Hairs" and on the right "Hair from the Blanket" and "Hair from Oswald"?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have it admitted?

(The item referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 672, and received into evidence.)

Mr. Dulles. May I ask a question? The one on the right seems darker than the one on the left, the hair itself.

Mr. Stombaugh. This one and this one?

65 Mr. Dulles. What is it?

Mr. Stombaugh. Are you referring——

Mr. Eisenberg. The hair shown on the right appears darker.

Mr. Dulles. There are two specimens there or two——

Mr. Stombaugh. Two.

Mr. Dulles. That is what I thought.

Mr. Stombaugh. You are thinking this hair looks darker than this one?

Mr. Dulles. No; I was thinking that both the hairs on the right, which I understand were taken from Oswald——

Mr. Eisenberg. One hair was actually from the blanket, one from Oswald.

Mr. Dulles. Seems darker than the ones taken from the blanket. Is the left the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. This portion here is one separate hair. This was taken from the blanket.

Mr. Dulles. That was taken from the blanket. The right-hand is taken from the blanket and the left-hand hairs were taken from Oswald himself?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; these are from Oswald.

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

Mr. Stombaugh. This is a comparison shot. This photograph was taken through two microscopes simultaneously showing how this portion of a pubic hair from the blanket matched a pubic hair from Oswald, which is this portion of the photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are pointing to the right side of the chart 672?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; this photograph was taken at 100 diameters and this photograph was taken at 400 diameters. There is a difference there also.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you state that again please?

Mr. Stombaugh. The photograph on the left was taken approximately at 100 diameters.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is Oswald's pubic hairs, a known sample?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; this is a general shot of his known sample.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the one on the right?

Mr. Stombaugh. The one on the right was taken at approximately 400 diameters.

Mr. Dulles. This is the blanket sample?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is a hair from the blanket compared with Oswald's.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have three photographs on this chart, of which two are known Oswald hairs, the photograph on the left and one of the two photographs on the right?

Mr. Stombaugh. Actually, this is one photograph taken through a comparison microscope. We are looking at two different hairs at the same time.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes. Well, when you say this is one photograph you are pointing to the one on the right but, as I understand it, the photograph on the right shows two different hairs?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. One of which is Oswald's hair, a known sample?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the other of which was obtained from the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the photograph on the left shows known samples of Oswald's pubic hairs?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. So we have in effect two views of Oswald's pubic hairs, one on the left and one half of the composite photograph on the right?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Following up on Mr. Dulles' question, the photograph on the right seems to have a much coarser and somewhat darker structure in both the known and the questioned sample than the photograph on the left, which is simply a known sample.

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you said that was because of the enlargement?

Mr. Stombaugh. The difference in the enlargement. The photograph on the left was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 100 times. The66 photograph on the right was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 400 times.

Mr. Eisenberg. The photograph on the right does not seem to show a hair four times larger, so I don't understand it.

Mr. Stombaugh. It was on the enlarging of the photograph itself.

Had these two prints been enlarged at the same enlarging factor, the hairs on the left, would be much, much smaller than the ones on the right. This was just blown up to this size so the hairs could be seen.

For instance, had we not blown these up, here we see them magnified 400 times, and this other photograph is a natural shot.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, here you are pointing to photograph 669, and the second shot which you call "natural" is 668?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. You can see the difference in the diameter and the difference in the detail of the photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were those photographs of the different magnifications?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; they were.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was 669, do you recall?

Mr. Stombaugh. I believe it was approximately 400.

Mr. Eisenberg. And 668?

Mr. Stombaugh. Approximately 100.

Mr. Eisenberg. So it corresponds to the difference in the right- and left-hand portions of 672?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; it would.

Now, the characteristics we look for in making a hair match. First would be the color.

The matches I found in Oswald's hairs. His hairs vary from light brown to a medium brown shade.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are you talking about the known samples now?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is his known sample. In this particular match the color was medium brown, and looking at the hair throughout its entire length, it ranged from a medium brown, and this color remained constant to the tip, where the color changed to a light brown and the very tip of it was transparent, it was clear, had no color at all. There were no color pigments in the tip of the hair.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are you referring now to the pubic hair which you illustrate on the right-hand side of 672?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I am referring to the pubic hair.

This is the gross appearance. I looked at it under low power where I could see the entire length of the hair.

Next, the thickness of the hair, or the diameter of the hair shaft. I found this diameter to be rather narrow for pubic hairs. Pubic hairs ordinarily are rather thick. Oswald's hairs were relatively narrow. Pubic hairs also have what we term nobbiness. You can see a nob right here, it is twisted——

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on chart 672?

Mr. Stombaugh. Here we see that it twists and it is very uneven. The shaft of the hair is generally very uneven in pubic hairs.

However, in Oswald's pubic hairs we had very little of this. The hairs were very smooth. They lacked this nobbiness. The upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs. This was an unusual characteristic.

The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. They had a very sharp tip and very clear. Ordinarily pubic hairs are rounded at the tips, and not pointed—this is from wearing against clothing—at all. This would indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher than the average persons.

The cuticle, in other words the very thin layer of scales covering his hairs, is very thin for pubic hairs. The scales exhibited a very small protrusion on the outside. The distance they protruded from the shaft of the hair is very slight.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you talk about the protrusion, do you mean the distance between the point of the scale and the balance of the cuticle, the center of the cuticle?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct. Some hairs will have a sawtooth effect, will look just like saw teeth do when you look at the blade of a saw.

Mr. Eisenberg. From the protrusion of the scales?

67 Mr. Stombaugh. From the protrusion of the scales. Others will be very small, have a slight protrusion.

Mr. Eisenberg. How was Oswald's?

Mr. Stombaugh. It was a very small protrusion. The gapping of Oswald's hair was very slight. In other words, between the cuticle and the cortex, the cortex of course containing the color pigment in the hair, occasionally you will find hairs where there will be no color pigment in areas up near the cuticle. There will be a gap there.

Oswald's hairs, as you can see here, have some gapped areas in there but not too many. They are very irregular, and the gapping does not go down too deeply into the cortex.

Pigmentation of his hairs was very fine, equally dispersed, and there was some chaining together of the larger pigment granules noted. In other words, three or four of the pigment granules were chained together. Instead of being dispersed such as they are in Exhibit No. 666, you would have five or six of them chained together, forming a slight irregular-appearing streak.

Cortical fusi, the air spaces present in the hairs such as I have drawn here on Exhibit 666, were for the most part absent in his hairs. I found very, very few of them, and would term them absent in his hairs.

The medulla in the hairs, those that contained a medulla, was constant. It was a continuous streak for the most part. There were some slight broken areas in it. The hairs of Oswald, that did not have a medulla, there was not a trace of one present. It was completely absent. This is unusual. Usually, you will find that the hairs will contain a medulla and if not in the ones that appear not to, you can find traces of a medulla present. In his I didn't find any medulla at all in several of the hairs.

The root area of his hairs was rather clear of pigment and there was only a fair amount of cortical fusi present. As in drawing No. 666, in the root area, you ordinarily would find a large amount of cortical fusi which rapidly diminish as you proceed out the hair shaft, and in his there was just a relatively few cortical fusi in the root area. I found this characteristic also in some of the hairs removed from the blanket.

Basically, that is the—those are the characteristics I used in matching Oswald's pubic hairs with pubic hairs from the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have been discussing the characteristics of Oswald's pubic hairs. In each case were the characteristics of the pubic hairs you found in the blanket the same as those you have noted as being present in Oswald's pubic hairs?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; they were all identical.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is as to protrusion of scale, absence of cortical fusi, chaining together to some extent of pigments, and so forth?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Without going through every item, every item you have named was identical?

Mr. Stombaugh. Every item I have found in hair from the blanket?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you go on, please?

Mr. Dulles. Just one second, off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Dulles. Back on the record.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have presented at this point a chart labeled "Microphotograph of Oswald's Limb Hairs" on the left, and on the right two subcaptions, "Hair from Blanket" and "Hair from Oswald," and do these—were these photographs taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Stombaugh. They were taken by me.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are they accurate reproductions of the material which according to the captions they are photographs of?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; they are.

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like this admitted as 671, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted as 671.

68 (Commission Exhibit No. 671 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you briefly discuss this exhibit?

Mr. Stombaugh. Exhibit 671 is similar to Exhibit 672 in that both contain two photographs. The photograph on the left is an overall shot of Oswald's limb hairs.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the known?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is the known from Oswald.

The photograph on the right contains photographs of two hairs, in this same photograph, the hair on the right being a limb hair from Oswald, and the hair on the left being a hair removed from the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification there, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. The magnification of these is approximately the same as in the previous submission, the one on the right being approximately 400 diameters and the one on the left 100 diameters.

Now, the one on the right is a limb hair. A limb hair is much smaller in diameter than a pubic hair. That is why there will appear to be some slight change in the size of these hairs.

I compared the limb hair from the blanket with the limb hair from Oswald which matched in all observable microscopic characteristics. The characteristics I found in this match were the color of the hair was light brown through its entire length, and the width of the hair shaft or the diameter was very fine. There was no fluctuation that one could readily see. The diameter of the hair shaft remained constant to the tip, where it diminished down to a point.

The tips of the hairs were very sharp and no abrasion was noted. In other words, the tips of these limb hairs were not rounded as one ordinarily finds. This would indicate the hairs were very tough, the same as the pubic hairs were.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are you describing now the known hairs?

Mr. Stombaugh. These are known hairs and the match I made; both.

Mr. Eisenberg. All right.

Mr. Stombaugh. The scales were of medium size, had very slight protrusion, and there was very slight gapping in the pigmentation located in the cortex right against the cuticle of the hair. There was a fair amount of cortical fusi equally distributed throughout the hair shaft.

This is not unusual in itself, but the amount of cortical fusi that I did find present is unusual.

The medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and very uneven. It was not a constant, smooth straight line such as one might find over here in this pubic hair on 672.

There was nothing unusual noted about the root area of these hairs.

Mr. Eisenberg. And again you are describing the characteristics of both hairs, and they were identical in all these characteristics?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were there any characteristics in which they were not identical?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; not on the limb hair, as I found it matched. I did find limb hairs and pubic hairs and head hairs in this blanket which were dissimilar to Oswald's and definitely did not come from him but the hairs I have talked about here matched in all microscopical characteristics.

Mr. Eisenberg. The other hairs, Mr. Stombaugh, could you make a determination as to race?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; they were all Caucasian.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you make a determination as to sex or age?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; it is not possible to determine sex or age from an examination of a hair.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you make a determination as to the number of individuals who had contributed these hairs?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I couldn't. You would have to have a hair sample from any suspected person, and hairs vary tremendously. Even on the same individual head hairs from the same individual can vary from one head area to another.

I have found as many as 12 to 15 different types of hair on the same person's head.

69 So, therefore, it would not be possible to estimate the number of different people whose hairs have appeared on this blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, are you able to say that the limb hairs and pubic hairs which you found in the blanket and which you have matched with Oswald's in observable microscopic characteristics came from Oswald to the exclusion of any other individual?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I couldn't say that. I could say that these hairs could have come from Oswald. I could not say they definitely came from him to the exclusion of all other Caucasian persons in the world.

In order to say this, one would have to take hair samples from all of these people and compare them and this, of course, is impossible.

Mr. Eisenberg. What degree of probability do you think there is that these hairs came from Oswald? And without putting a precise number on it, let's suppose you took head hairs from 100 Caucasian individuals, how many matches would you expect to find among those hundred different hairs on the basis of your experience?

Mr. Stombaugh. On the basis of my experience I would expect to find only one match.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is to say that the 100 hairs would be different from each other?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is your experience, therefore, that the hairs of different individuals do not match in observable microscopic characteristics—within the basis of your experience?

Mr. Stombaugh. Within the basis of my experience, I have examined thousands of hairs and I have never found Caucasian hairs from two different individuals that match.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when you say that, Mr. Stombaugh, have you been presented with hairs in your laboratory from Caucasian individuals which you knew before the examination came from two or more individuals?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

We have obtained samples of hairs from a hundred different people, and would select one hair, give it to an examiner and ask who it originated from, and invariably he would be able to find in the hundred different samples the individual the hair originated from.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when a specimen comes into your laboratory, does it frequently come in—and I am talking now about specimens that come in from a crime—does it frequently come in such, so that you have two specimens, two or more specimens, which you know before you begin are from two different people?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are told before you begin that they come from two different people?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; ordinarily a case such as a murder or a rape, you will obtain the clothing of the victim, the clothing of the suspect in the case, as well as hair samples from the victim and hair samples from the suspect.

Mr. Eisenberg. How many types of cases like this do you think you have processed?

Mr. Stombaugh. Processed approximately 500 a year.

Mr. Eisenberg. For how many years?

Mr. Stombaugh. Four years—no, three years.

Mr. Eisenberg. In any of these approximately 1,500 cases, have you found a case involving Caucasian hairs in which the hairs from the known two different individuals matched in observable physical characteristics microscopically?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; I have never found hair from two different Caucasian persons that matched.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you found any in non-Caucasian hairs, by the way?

Mr. Stombaugh. I have found several cases in which hairs from two different persons of the Negroid race, although the hairs did not match completely, the characteristics were such that I felt that I could not go further with the examination because I could not exclude the hairs. The hairs were too similar. When70 I make a hair match. I know that any case might go to court, and of course I want to be absolutely certain in my mind.

In these cases I am referring to right now, the hair sample from the victim and the hair sample from the suspect were pubic hairs. They were so similar to each other that I could not find any pubic hairs that I could match with the suspect's pubic hairs, and be certain in my mind that these hairs came from him rather than her. I couldn't do this.

So, therefore, I sent the evidence back without further conclusion. This has happened in approximately three cases. However, I would like to point out that I could not take his, the suspect's pubic hairs, and the victim's pubic hairs and completely match them up under a microscope slide such as the match shown in the chart. They did not absolutely match, but they were too similar for a good determination to be made.

Mr. Eisenberg. What proportion of the 1,500 cases that you have described—approximately 1,500 cases—have involved Negroid as opposed to Caucasian hairs, just roughly?

Mr. Stombaugh. I would say about approximately a third. Of course, a lot of these cases we don't know the race. They don't list the race, but in examining the hairs I can tell the race——

Mr. Eisenberg. So in 1,000-odd cases of the Caucasian hair examinations you haven't 2 matches between hairs from different individuals?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And in the 500-odd cases of Negroid, 500-odd cases involving hairs from two different Negroid individuals, you have found three cases where although the hairs were not identical they were so close that you felt you didn't want to go further in your examination, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that a fair recapitulation?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. Could I just ask a question here?

There is a distinction then, as I gather from your testimony, an understandable one, between the comparison of hairs and, say, the comparison of fingerprints, because obviously the hair that you find on the victim has left the assailant and, therefore, you are not looking at the same hair but you are looking at a different hair?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Dulles. And that, therefore, distinguishes testimony in regard to hair, we will say, with regard to fingerprint examination?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; that, and also a fingerprint will remain the same throughout one's life. It will never change. A hair will.

Mr. Dulles. I see.

Mr. Stombaugh. You can see my hair, I am starting to get white at the temples. Mine is changing characteristics.

Mr. Dulles. We all do.

But is there—let's say you examine 100 hairs, let's say, that are found on the victim, and 100 hairs that are different hairs that are found on the assailant; let us say that there are certain characteristics common to all of these hairs.

Do you get my question? Let's say 10, not 100, whatever number you want to take.

Mr. Stombaugh. Ordinarily, you would find one or two.

Mr. Dulles. That have certain characteristics. You have pointed out on exhibit—on the left-hand side of Exhibit 672, the circle you have made on 672, circle A.

Is there a common characteristic that you have marked on one of the other hairs? I believe the hair marked with the "A," was taken from Oswald himself, the hair on which you have marked that particular characteristic.

Is there any corresponding characteristic that should be marked or indicated on a hair that was found on the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, I testified as to all the characteristics I found.

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

Mr. Stombaugh. Now, the difficulty in using a photomicrograph, you are71 trying to photograph a round object and as a result of this all of these characteristics just won't appear in focus.

Mr. Eisenberg. To be more specific, Mr. Stombaugh, that circle marked "A" was to show a nobbiness in Oswald's hair. As I recall, you testified there was very little nobbiness present in that pubic hair, as opposed to the normal amount of nobbiness of pubic hair?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. On the right-hand side of 672, I suppose we don't see much or any nobbiness in either the known or——

Mr. Stombaugh. No; there is none present here.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that would correspond with the point you made as to "A," that there was very little nobbiness?

Mr. Stombaugh. Very little.

Mr. Eisenberg. And that is why there is no corresponding mark for nobbiness characteristic on the right-hand side, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. The right-hand side of 672?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct. Oswald's hairs, where the nobbiness did appear was in the lower third, in other words, the area from the root out on the shaft approximately one-third. The remaining two-thirds of the hair shaft all the way out to the tip was relatively straight, no nobbiness at all present. This was characteristic. Ordinarily a pubic hair will have this nobbiness two-thirds to three-fourths of the way up. So this was a characteristic which exists in Oswald's pubic hairs which is different from the ordinary or average.

Mr. Dulles. And you found that both on the hairs taken from Oswald himself and on the hairs found in the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, on this general point, when you make your comparison examination, do you come to your conclusions on the basis of what you see under the microscope, or on the basis of the photographs you take?

Mr. Stombaugh. On the basis of what I see under the microscope.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you usually take photographs?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you took them—can you explain why you took them here?

Mr. Stombaugh. I took these at your request as an exhibit just to show what the hairs looked like. In a photograph it is very hard to try to point out the characteristics of hairs because they aren't clear. Under a microscope you can see each of these points by focusing up and down. If I am looking at the pigment on the hair, I can focus the comparison microscope up and down and see exactly the same characteristics, the pigment is exactly the same size, dispersed about the same, and there is approximately the same amount of pigment in a given area.

Also, the cuticle is of the same thickness. I can line the hairs up longitudinally and see that the tips of the scales match equally as far as protrusion and distance goes.

This you couldn't show in the photographs. In order to show each and every characteristic in photographs, I would have to take 500 or 600 different photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. So these photographs are just as a general illustration of the kind of thing you see, rather than being given to the Commission as photographs from which the Commission is to make an identification?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct. If I were to look at these photographs myself, I couldn't make an identification on them because I wouldn't be able to see enough and I would say this looks like this and this looks like this, but so what?

What about the size of the pigments, what about the size of the scales, what about the thickness of the cuticle? I see a medulla here, I don't see a medulla over here. So you just couldn't see all the characteristics in a photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg. But these characteristics you do see as you change the focus on the microscope?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; these appear by looking through different areas of the hair shaft itself.

72 Mr. Eisenberg. Now, getting to the microscope itself, suppose a person without experience looked through the microscope directly at the hairs. Would he be able to directly interpret the hairs—a known and a questioned hair—to see if they are probably identical, or does it take experience even to interpret what you see through a microscope?

Mr. Stombaugh. This takes experience to interpret what you see.

We get quite a few people through the lab on tours and every now and then I will set up some hairs. I had one man making a match with a dog hair and a human hair, and he said they came from the same person, because he couldn't interpret what he saw. He just thought he saw something which he didn't.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell from these hairs that you found in the blanket, and let me add parenthetically we sometimes have been calling this blanket a rug but we have been talking about the object——

Mr. Dulles. You call it a blanket, technically.

Mr. Eisenberg. Technically a blanket, and it is Exhibit 140. This Exhibit 140, Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell whether these hairs had been pulled out or had fallen out?

Mr. Stombaugh. These hairs had fallen out naturally. They have died and fallen from the body. This is a very normal occurrence. When one combs one's hair, ordinarily you will find one or two strands of hair on the comb, because hair is constantly being replaced in most people.

Mr. Eisenberg. How can you tell it had fallen out?

Mr. Stombaugh. From the shape of the root.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the difference of the shape of the root where a hair falls out and the shape of the hair of a root where it has been taken out artificially or unnaturally?

Mr. Stombaugh. In Exhibit 667, I have a photomicrograph of a root of a human hair. Now, this hair has died and has fallen out naturally, you can tell by the shape of it here. The follicle has just come right along with it. It is starting to shrivel. If this hair was a healthy hair and had been forcibly removed, this root would have been collapsed and twisted. It is very characteristic, it is easy to tell whether a hair has been forcibly removed or whether it fell out naturally.

Mr. Eisenberg. Suppose it is cut, suppose the hair was cut, can you tell that?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, we can tell from looking at the tip of a hair whether it has been cut, burned, crushed, and whether it has been cut with a sharp instrument, such as a razor, or whether it has been cut with a dull instrument.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were these hairs cut, the hairs in 140, that you found in Exhibit 140?

Mr. Stombaugh. Some of the tips of the head hairs had been cut, but the limb hairs and the pubic hairs had not.

Mr. Eisenberg. But they all had roots on them?

Mr. Stombaugh. They all had roots on them.

Mr. Eisenberg. Getting back to the blanket for a moment, as to the composition, you testified that there were woolen, viscose, and cotton fibers. I don't recall whether you said that there were green and brown fibers of each type of textile?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, each type had green and brown fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, also getting back to the shape of the blanket when you received it, the shape of 140 and its folds, we had discussed a crease which you marked "C," which you said was caused by an object 10 inches long, and we discussed whether the object was 10 inches long or could have been longer.

How long was the crease "C"?

Mr. Stombaugh. The crease "C," the hump in the blanket itself, was approximately 10 inches long.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did that run—as the blanket is folded, and looking from "A" to the general area of "D"—and putting "A" at the left-hand side—can you tell us how that crease ran, did it run from left to right or from top to bottom?

73 Mr. Stombaugh. It ran from left to right.

Mr. Eisenberg. It ran from left to right, and about 10 inches long?

Mr. Stombaugh. Approximately 10 inches long.

Mr. Eisenberg. As I recall, you testified it was caused by a distortion in the fibers, that is to say, the fact the crease was still present even though there was no object in the blanket was caused by a distortion of the fibers?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; the fibers had been stretched in this area—not the fibers, the yarns.

Mr. Dulles. Can one see that on the blanket itself?

Mr. Eisenberg. Let's take a look at 140, Mr. Stombaugh, and see if it is still present?

Mr. Stombaugh. If I can find where it was here. I doubt if it will still be present because the creases on the edges of the blanket are gone. I can't tell. It has been folded so much. No. I can't see it.

When I received the blanket in the laboratory, I noticed, when I put the blanket down flat, it had an area that was humped just like this.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have put a pencil underneath?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you have picked it up an inch or two, you have made a hump of about an inch or an inch and a half up from the rest of the blanket, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes. But it was very slight and you could hardly notice it, but I happened to look at the blanket from a distance and saw the hump and went over to measure it. But we tried to photograph it and we just couldn't get it. We tried various ways of lighting.

So I made a notation in my notes regarding that slight hump.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, just to make the record clear, the hump was 10 inches long, and therefore you felt that the object immediately causing the hump must have been approximately 10 inches long, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes. The object causing the hump itself.

Mr. Eisenberg. But could it have been attached to an object which was longer than 10 inches, or could it have been attached to an object, running underneath the object causing the protrusion, which was longer than 10 inches?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Okay. That is what I think was the source of the confusion earlier.

Now, you placed this mark "C" on this paper illustration, Exhibit 663. Does that—does the placement of the mark approximate the general area where you found the hump?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, approximately, according to my notes. It could be to the left a little or to the right a little. This isn't to scale.

Mr. Eisenberg. One last question on the blanket, Mr. Stombaugh. Could you form any opinion as to the quality of the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, the composition of the blanket being mostly viscose, a very cheap synthetic, indicated to me that it was an inferior blanket, relatively inexpensive.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you determine whether it was a domestic or a foreign product?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, I couldn't.

Mr. Eisenberg. It might have been either?

Mr. Stombaugh. Could have been either, yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you a photograph which is labeled on the bottom "C 11, Commission Exhibit 150." It is a color photograph of a brownish textured shirt, long-sleeved, with a hole in the right elbow, and I ask you whether you recognize the shirt that is pictured in that photograph?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, I do.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you see your mark anywhere on that?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, my mark is in red, initials "PMS" are in the collar of the shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this photograph admitted?

74 Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted, 673.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 673, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Let me state for the record we are introducing the photograph at this point rather than the shirt itself because depositions are being taken in Dallas simultaneously with the testimony being elicited today, and the shirt is being used by those members of the staff who are in Dallas.

Mr. Dulles. I understand.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you receive this shirt that is pictured in Exhibit 673, said shirt being Commission Exhibit 150?

Mr. Stombaugh. I received this shirt the same day I received the blanket, which was November 23, 1963, approximately 7:30 a.m.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, did you conduct an examination to determine the composition of this shirt?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you do that?

Mr. Stombaugh. I did this later on that morning.

Mr. Eisenberg. What were your conclusions as to the composition, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. The shirt is composed of gray-black cotton, dark blue cotton, and orange-yellow cotton fibers. The dark yarn in the shirt is composed of a mixture of dark blue and gray-black cotton fibers twisted together, and the light yellowish orange looking colors here, the yarns in this part of the shirt were composed of orange-yellow cotton fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine the shirt to determine—pardon me, Mr. Dulles, were you going to put a question on the composition?

Mr. Dulles. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine the shirt to determine the presence of hairs or other debris?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, I didn't.

Mr. Eisenberg. You did not?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Neither then or at any subsequent time?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you take a look at your notes on that, Mr. Stombaugh, to make sure about that?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; I did not remove the debris from the shirt. I noted in my notes the two buttons from the top were forcibly removed, the right elbow area was worn through, the bottom front inside of the shirt was ripped forcibly, and that I had made a known sample of this shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, I had been under the impression you found some wax on that shirt.

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; down the face of the shirt I did find some wax adhering to it, and this wax I removed and delivered to the spectrographic unit for a spectrographic examination.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does that show in your notes?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I was looking for debris and hairs. I knew I had not scraped the shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. I am using the wrong term, I guess.

Mr. Stombaugh. I recall doing this. This was later in the afternoon when I removed this wax and took it to the spectrographic unit. This was after I had conducted other examinations on some other items.

Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, we had an earlier discussion, and you had mentioned this to me in an earlier discussion, as I recall——

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find any body hairs on this shirt—or any hairs, I should say?

Mr. Stombaugh. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of examination had not been requested. It seemed unnecessary.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, were you able to determine the quality of the shirt or did you form any opinion as to the quality of the shirt?

75 Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; it was an inexpensive shirt. I found no labels in it indicating the manufacturer.

Mr. Dulles. Any indication that labels had been torn out?

Mr. Stombaugh. Not that I recall, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were you able to determine, Mr. Stombaugh, whether this was a domestic, whether this was of domestic or foreign origin?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; there are so many different shirt manufacturers in this country, that there is little value in trying to trace down a particular source unless we can find a manufacturer's marking in the shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. Any laundry marks which you attempted to trace down?

Mr. Stombaugh. I found no laundry marks. The shirt was well worn and appeared to have been hand laundered.

Mr. Eisenberg. If there are no further questions on the shirt, I will move on to another item.

Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I am.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does that have your mark on it?

Mr. Stombaugh. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.

In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.

Mr. Eisenberg. And it is—looking at those notes and as you remember now—this is the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is the bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?

Mr. Stombaugh. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which is at one end of the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. One end of the bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?

Mr. Stombaugh. The tape also was light brown.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m., 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you form any opinions as you examined it, concerning the construction of the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. When I looked at the bag and examined it, it struck me as being a homemade bag such as I could make. Occasionally I will have a need for something like this at home. Therefore, I will take some brown paper and a strip of tape home with me. Then when I get home I will fold the tape—fold the paper rather—in the shape I need—and to seal it up I will tear strips of the sealing tape from the little piece I have.

Here we find that this tape has been torn at several places, such as one would do in an instance like that. Due to these torn edges, I was under the impression, from looking at the bag, that it was a homemade bag which someone had made at home and they did not have a tape dispenser which machine-cuts tape. Therefore, they had to tear it, which they did—or cut it, of course—with a knife. And this is the case where pieces of tape were torn.

Mr. Eisenberg. You were pointing to various torn edges as you testified, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. How many, if any, square-cut edges did you notice?

76 Mr. Stombaugh. I found—according to my drawing—two machine-cut edges.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would that indicate—well, do you form any opinion as to, on the basis of that, as to the origin, possible origin, of the tape?

Mr. Stombaugh. The origin of the tape as far as the manufacturer——

Mr. Eisenberg. What I am referring to is this: on the basis of that would you draw an inference that the person had taken—whoever made this bag—had taken two lengths of tape from a dispensing machine and had subsequently torn it up into smaller strips, or do you think he had one length of tape from a dispensing machine which he subsequently tore up into smaller strips?

Mr. Stombaugh. From the ends that I could see, now I don't know whether there were any ends underneath which I did not have a chance to look at, I don't have anything in my notes, but from what I can see it would appear he took a strip of tape, machine-cut from a dispenser, and used that entire strip, thus using up both ends of the tape because we have two machine-cut ends.

Mr. Eisenberg. In other words, it would be a machine-cut strip at the beginning of the tape which the person pulled out, left over from the last cut?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg. And a machine-cut at the end, where the person himself ripped the tape from the machine?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you infer that he then divided it into smaller strips on the occasion when he made the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; he pulled one strip, of course, he could have pulled two or three strips, I don't know, but it would appear he took one strip of tape and tore it into smaller pieces to be used on the bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you notice any bulges or creases or folds apart from the fold used in making of the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I didn't. I noticed that one end of the bag had been torn.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, would you say that the absence of bulges would be inconsistent with the carrying of a heavy object or an irregularly shaped object in the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, I don't believe I am qualified to answer that question, because I actually am not an expert in paper.

Mr. Eisenberg. All right. We will leave that to the questioned document examiner and we will take it up with him.

Did you notice anything else about the bag relating to its gross physical characteristics and its shape, apart from any debris which you may have found inside or outside the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; just an oblong homemade bag was the impression I received from looking at it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think it was, if it was in fact a homemade bag, do you think it was a well-made bag, Mr. Stombaugh? Did you form any opinion as to that?

Mr. Stombaugh. In my opinion, just a personal opinion, the person was aware as to how to make a bag, to seal the ends by folding both corners in and then folding them flat.

Mr. Eisenberg. You just demonstrated that both corners originally were folded by the crease lines, and you folded it over again to show how it was made?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; this makes a neat and also a secure corner or end to the bag, to prevent losing any of the contents.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine the outside of this paper bag——

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Exhibit 142 and also 626, to see if there were any foreign items on the surface?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And what did you find?

Mr. Stombaugh. I found that the bag had previously been dusted for latent fingerprints because I found traces of what appeared to be fingerprint powder on it.

77 I was using white gloves at the time I examined this and the gloves became quite soiled from the fingerprint powder.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find anything else?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; nothing on the outside of the bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. How did you conduct that examination, by the way?

Mr. Stombaugh. With a low-power microscope.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find any cotton fibers on the outside of the bag at all, Mr. Stombaugh, white or colored?

Mr. Stombaugh. There were white cotton fibers on the outside but I was using a pair of white cotton gloves, so these would be of no value. White cotton is the most common thing we have in the way of textiles, and therefore it just doesn't have sufficient individual characteristics to be of value for comparison and identification purposes. It is for this reason that we use gloves of this material.

Mr. Eisenberg. And those fibers may have come from your white cotton gloves?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; they could very easily have come from my gloves from handling the object with a pair of gloves on.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you proceed to examine the inside of the paper bag to see if there were any foreign objects?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What were your conclusions?

Mr. Stombaugh. I removed the debris from the inside of the bag by opening the bag as best I could, and tapping it and knocking the debris on to a small piece of white paper, and I found a very small number of fibers. Upon examining these fibers, I found a single brown, delustered, viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers from the inside of the bag. I also found a minute particle of wood and a single particle of a waxy substance.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attach any significance to the particle of wood, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; it was too minute for identification purposes. It could have come from any surface, including the bag itself. Sometimes all of the wood used in the manufacture of paper doesn't go into a pulp, and this might be a very tiny such fragment.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine the wood fragment?

Mr. Stombaugh. I looked at it microscopically.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attempt to compare it with the wood of the Exhibit 139, which is a rifle?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; the wood particle from the bag was too minute for comparison purposes. There wasn't much you could do with it, it was very small.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attach any significance to the body wax—or to the wax, I should say?

Mr. Stombaugh. The wax particle I noticed, and I recalled having seen wax on the shirt, Exhibit No. 673, so therefore I put that aside for a spectrographic examination and comparison of the wax particle from the inside of the bag with the wax from the shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. And what were the results?

Mr. Stombaugh. They were entirely different.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was there any analysis made of the wax in the bag as to its origin, do you know?

Mr. Stombaugh. It was examined by the spectrographic examiner and he found it was just common wax.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say common wax, do you mean the kind you wax a floor with?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; more like that which could have come from a candle, candle wax.

Mr. Eisenberg. What about the wax on the shirt as to origin?

Mr. Stombaugh. It was paraffin.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now you also said there were several fibers, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; I did. There was a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers.

78 Mr. Eisenberg. Did this single brown viscose fiber match the fibers from the blanket, Exhibit 140?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; it did.

Mr. Eisenberg. In what characteristics were they matched?

Mr. Stombaugh. The fibers in the blanket had a large number of brown viscose fibers, delustered and one fiber I found in the bag was also a viscose fiber of the same type and color as seen under a low-powered microscope. The delustering spots seen on the fiber were the same size, and both fibers were approximately the same diameter.

Mr. Eisenberg. How common is viscose, Mr. Stombaugh, as a fiber?

Mr. Stombaugh. Viscose is fairly common. It is used in many types of garments; it depends on the quality of the garment.

Mr. Eisenberg. And this was delustered viscose, did you say?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. How common is delustered viscose?

Mr. Stombaugh. It is most common, I would say. It is more common than lustrous.

Mr. Eisenberg. Generally speaking, how many variations of diameter would a delustered viscose come in?

Mr. Stombaugh. This is entirely up to the manufacturer. He can make viscose any diameter he wants, and there could be hundreds of variations in the diameter of viscose fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. But the fiber you found in the paper bag, 142, matched the fibers you found in the Exhibit 140?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; but the viscose fibers in the blanket varied in size also.

Mr. Eisenberg. To what extent?

Mr. Stombaugh. There were 10 to 15 different diameters of viscose in this blanket. It appeared to me as if the blanket was made of scrap viscose, scrap fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the diameters would be random?

Mr. Stombaugh. They were random; yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, what about the color, was the color a match between the fiber found in 140—in 142—and the fiber which is in the composition of 140, the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; the color matched some of the viscose fibers, the brown viscose fibers in the blanket. Of course, these colors also varied slightly but not to any great extent, not like the diameter.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were there any other common characteristics between the viscose fibers found in the blanket and the viscose fibers found in the paper bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers found in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter, the diameter of that same fiber would have the same size of delustering markings, same shape, same form, and also same color.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you found in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the green cotton fiber—was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony mentioned?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which are contained in the composition of the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. These matched in all observable microscopic characteristics.

Mr. Eisenberg. And those were what?

Mr. Stombaugh. The color and the amount of twist of the cotton fibers were the same as the color and twist found in these. Mainly the color is what we go by on cotton.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were they mercerized or unmercerized?

Mr. Stombaugh. They were not mercerized.

Mr. Eisenberg. How common is cotton as a fiber, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. Cotton is the most common fiber used.

Mr. Eisenberg. And what about nonmercerized cotton, as to commonness?

Mr. Stombaugh. You would find more unmercerized cotton in use than mercerized,79 because to mercerize cotton is an added production factor used in cotton.

Mr. Eisenberg. How great a variation do you get in degree of twist?

Mr. Stombaugh. You are referring to between mercerized and un——

Mr. Eisenberg. No; within unmercerized cotton.

Mr. Stombaugh. This would depend on the quality of the cotton and the length of the cotton also.

Mr. Eisenberg. But I mean as samples come across your desk in your office, or as you read about them in books, is there a great variation in twist or a small variation?

Mr. Stombaugh. It depends—there is a small variation but this would depend on the type of cotton. There are different types of cotton, and each is determined from the length of the individual cotton fiber.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you tell what kind of cotton you were dealing with in the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; because here we are not dealing with a full-length cotton fiber. We are dealing with a fragment of a single fiber.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, could you determine whether there was a variation in the twist of the cotton fibers within the blanket itself as there was, you say, in the diameter of the viscose fibers?

Mr. Stombaugh. The twist seemed to coincide with the twist found in the cotton from the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes. But looking just to the blanket now for a second, you said the brown viscose or the viscose generally in the blanket itself varied as to diameter. Did the cotton in the blanket vary within itself as to twist or was the cotton of a fairly uniform twist?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; it was fairly uniform twist.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you said the fibers you found, the green cotton fibers you found, in the bag were the same twist as the twist of the cottons which composed the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And just to tie this into the questions I was asking a few seconds ago, would this degree of twist be significant, that is can you determine under the microscope 4 different kinds of degrees of twist or 20—how many different degrees of twist can you determine under a microscope, just approximately?

Mr. Stombaugh. Are you referring to the same type of cotton——

Mr. Eisenberg. Well, when you get a piece of cotton?

Mr. Stombaugh. Or cotton as a whole?

Mr. Eisenberg. When you get a piece of cotton under the microscope and you don't know what type it is? I am referring to cotton as a whole.

Mr. Stombaugh. I see. The degree of twist could be—now if we are dealing with fresh cotton, cotton running right from the plant, then the degree of twist, this varies, and this could be used in the identification of the type of cotton. But in the manufacturing process quite frequently when the cotton is spun into yarns then this twist is affected.

Mr. Eisenberg. Well, at this point I am not interested in determining the type of cotton. What I am interested in is determining how significant the degree of twist is as an identifying factor.

Mr. Stombaugh. I would say no significance at all as far as the sole identifying characteristic goes, whether or not this cotton of this cotton has the same twist. The twist we use is for identification purposes only, supplementing other identifying characteristics.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the only purpose I am interested in.

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; that is the only purpose.

Mr. Eisenberg. But in getting to that, how valuable is it for identification purposes? I am curious as to how many—how much a twist can vary. As you pick up a random fiber, and put it under your microscope, I am interested in how much the twist can vary. For example, if there are only two possibilities, then it isn't too helpful that you get a match in twist, but if there are great variations in twist in cotton fibers as they come under your microscope, it would be helpful in making your identification.

Mr. Stombaugh. I see what you are getting at. There are great variations.80 Sometimes in a cotton fiber, the twist will be rather far apart. Other times it will be rather close together. This piece——

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the fibers, the cotton fibers, to begin with, matched in twist, that is, the cotton fibers you found in the paper bag matched the twist of the ones that are contained in the blanket, and you said they also matched in color?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like to ask you the same question as to color that I asked you as to twist. How many different shades do you think you can distinguish under the microscope in a green cotton? Would the range be just 2 or 3 different shades, or do you think you could distinguish between 20 or 30 different types of green cotton if you laid them next to each other under the microscope?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; the range in green cotton fibers, for that matter in any color, is tremendous. This could go to 50 sometimes 100 different shades which you can distinguish under a microscope. To the naked eye, it would look as if it is just green. But you could take, say five different fabrics of the same type that have been dyed exactly the same color or rather you think they are the same shade, and put the individual fibers under the microscope and there will be a big difference noted in shades.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now were the green cotton fibers in the blanket uniform as to shade between themselves?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; these varied.

Mr. Eisenberg. To what extent?

Mr. Stombaugh. They go from a green to a very pale green.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the——

Mr. Stombaugh. Might be seven or eight different shades.

Mr. Eisenberg. So when you say there is a match, you mean the green cotton fibers you found in the paper bag were within the spectrum of shades that are laid out in the green cotton fibers from the blanket—is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. No. I forget how many different shades of green I found in this blanket. Under the circumstances, I considered the exact number of no particular significance. But we will say it might be possibly eight different separate shades, and the fibers I found from the blanket matched some of these shades. Not all of them; but there might be a medium-green fiber that I found in the bag, which I matched with a medium-green fiber from this blanket. It might have been one that had a yellowish-green tinge to it, which I also matched with the yellowish-green tinged cotton fibers from the blanket.

So unless the colors match absolutely, there is no match.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you recall how many green cotton fibers you found in the paper bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. I have here in my notes "several"—

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Stombaugh. I have here in my notes "several light green cotton fibers," which would be approximately two or three.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you recall whether they represented two or three different shades?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; they were all different from each other but each matched the cotton fibers in the blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. So you had two or three cotton fibers of two or three shades of green in the bag, and they matched against these two or three of the seven or eight shades of green cotton which were in the blanket, is that a correct recapitulation?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you say there are 50 to 100—approximately—green shades of cotton that can be distinguished under the microscope?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I would say that is true. This would vary from dark green, of course, all the way up to light-pale green.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find anything else within the bag, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; that is all I found inside the bag.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if you81 can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibers in the bag, ultimately came from the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come from this blanket, because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers.

Now these 3 different types of fibers have 6 different general colors, and if we would multiply that, say by a minimum of 5 different shades of each so you would have 30 different shades you are looking for, and 3 different types of fibers. Here we have only found 1 brown viscose fiber, and 2 or 3 light green cotton fibers. We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.

So if I had found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are there any further questions as to the blanket?

Mr. Dulles. Do you have any, Mr. Murray?

Mr. Murray. I have none, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you recognize Exhibit 139? Are you familiar with that?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I am.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine that in the laboratory?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know when you made that examination?

Mr. Stombaugh. On the morning of November 23, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is your mark on it?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; here is my mark.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which consists of your initials?

Mr. Stombaugh. My initials, and the date 11-23-63. Do you mind if I check to see if this is unloaded?

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine the rifle to determine whether it contained on its surface or crevices any hair or other debris?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us how you made that examination?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.

I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun—I possibly might find some in a crevice some place—because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were you unhappy at all about that?

Mr. Stombaugh. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.

Mr. Eisenberg. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?

82 Mr. Stombaugh. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact.

Mr. Eisenberg. Proceed.

Mr. Dulles. It was dusted by the Dallas police, was it, first?

Mr. Stombaugh. I don't know who dusted it.

Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, I believe that will be shown later that it was dusted by Dallas police.

As far as you know, did it come into your office, into your laboratory before it went to the identification division, latent fingerprint section?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it had been dusted for latent prints.

So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun.

At this point of the butt plate, the end of the stock——

Mr. Eisenberg. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you point to that again?

Mr. Stombaugh. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is on the left side of the butt plate?

Mr. Stombaugh. It is on the left side; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge, jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the wood, is that what you are referring to?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here, according to my notes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.

Mr. Stombaugh. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.

The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.

You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.

Mr. Eisenberg. "These" being the ones that you found in the butt plate crevice?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; adhering to this small jagged edge.

Mr. Eisenberg. Before we get to those, were there any other fibers of value on the rest of the Exhibit 139?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented.

Mr. Eisenberg. You could not make a determination as to their nature?

Mr. Stombaugh. I could tell what type they were.

Mr. Eisenberg. Meaning textile type?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; such as wool, cotton, what-have-you, but the grease and the dirt had changed the colors which ruined the characteristics for comparison purposes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you tell whether they were old or new?

Mr. Stombaugh. They all appeared old.

Mr. Eisenberg. What about——

Mr. Dulles. What do you mean by old, 2 or 3 months old, 2 or 3 weeks old?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, a length of time, I would say that in excess of a month or 2 months.

Mr. Dulles. In that area?

Mr. Stombaugh. In that area or longer. They weren't recently put in there. Let's say that.

Mr. Eisenberg. What about the grease, did you attempt to examine the grease?

83 Mr. Stombaugh. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Why was that?

Mr. Stombaugh. I could see no need of it at that time.

Mr. Eisenberg. Let's return then to the fibers which you referred to as being fresh, which you said you found in the crevice of the butt plate, and I will ask Mr. Dulles' question in reverse: What do you mean by fresh, why do you call these fresh?

Mr. Stombaugh. In the first place, this was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were these fibers in a position where they could have easily been knocked off by rough use?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.

Mr. Eisenberg. In the crevice?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice.

Mr. Dulles. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in part by the dusting?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.

Mr. Eisenberg. Of the butt plate?

Mr. Stombaugh. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice.

Mr. Eisenberg. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had been folded into the crevice by the dusting?

Mr. Stombaugh. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now assuming your conclusion is accurate that they were dusted into the crevice, and had not been in the crevice originally but had merely adhered to the jagged edge, how much—how rough a handling would it have taken to have gotten them loose from that jagged edge?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would the use of the weapon itself have jarred them loose?

Mr. Stombaugh. I doubt it. I doubt it.

Mr. Eisenberg. I am talking now about the jagged edge position, and not the crevice position.

Mr. Stombaugh. You mean breaking them loose? They were adhering to the jagged edge.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.

Mr. Stombaugh. It might, of course—there are a lot of factors here you don't know, but they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked loose and fallen off.

Mr. Eisenberg. What I can't understand is, when you are talking about the handling of the gun are you talking about the position in which you found them, or are you talking about the position which you deduced they were in before you found them brushed into the crevice?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, both. The position I found them in. I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Stombaugh. And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off. They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?

Mr. Stombaugh. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by84 saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.

Mr. Eisenberg. In other words, you concluded they were fresh—well, you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter. I couldn't—this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.

But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago, and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off.

Am I making myself a little more clear?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; you are making yourself clear; yes.

Now, looking at Exhibit 139, the weapon, and Exhibit 140, the blanket, do you think it is possible that the bulge you described before, which you marked "C," might have been caused by some component part of 139, the rifle?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes. At the time I found the hump in the blanket which I believed you have marked point C.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is point C on the replica piece of paper you have folded up, marked Exhibit 663?

Mr. Stombaugh. I checked the telescopic sight on Exhibit 139, and noted that the approximate length and general shape of the scope——

Mr. Dulles. Exhibit 139 being the blanket?

Mr. Eisenberg. Being the rifle.

Mr. Stombaugh. Were approximately the same so far as length and shape went, and at the time I thought to myself it is quite possible the hump in the blanket could have been made by that telescopic sight.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attempt to match up the rifle into the blanket to see if that could be true?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; I didn't want to handle the rifle any more than possible. I took a ruler and measured the scope and then compared the measurement with the hump in the blanket and it was approximately the same.

Mr. Eisenberg. What about the relationship, the spatial relationship of the scope to the end of the gun, as compared with the spatial relationship of the hump in the blanket to the end of the blanket? Were those matching?

Mr. Stombaugh. From the way the blanket was folded at the time, and from measuring this, and not using the gun itself and putting it in contact with the blanket, just from measurements, I determined it is possible that the scope could have made the hump. In other words, the gun could have fitted in there. But I couldn't be absolutely certain on any of this. This is just from measurements.

Mr. Eisenberg. And visual comparison?

Mr. Stombaugh. And visual comparison; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is there any further information you would like to give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?

Mr. Stombaugh. Just the fibers I removed.

Mr. Dulles. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers that were found in the jagged edge?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers.

85 Mr. Eisenberg. What does that mean?

Mr. Stombaugh. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt plate of the gun.

Mr. Dulles. Did you find all three shades?

Mr. Stombaugh. All three shades; yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. All three shades were found on the fragments that were found in the butt of the gun?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you made photographs showing these, color photographs showing these?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. Color photographs are very difficult to make microscopically because the color isn't always identical to what you see in the microscope. So these colors are slightly off.

Mr. Eisenberg. You have shown a chart captioned "Microphotograph Showing Match Between Orange-Yellow Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle and Orange-Yellow Cotton Fibers From Oswald's Shirt." Did you take this photograph?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; it was taken under my supervision.

Mr. Eisenberg. It was taken under your supervision.

Mr. Chairman, may I submit this as 674.

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted, 674.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 674, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification?

Mr. Stombaugh. I believe this was 400 also. I am not certain of this, because the shot itself has also been enlarged.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now you were discussing the reproduction of the color in the photomicrograph?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir. These are the orangish-yellow fibers. The color is not exactly the same as what one would see under the microscope.

However, you can see that the fibers on both sides, namely, the fiber from the rifle here, and this——

Mr. Dulles. On the right-hand side——

Mr. Stombaugh. On the right-hand side.

Mr. Dulles. Of Exhibit 674?

Mr. Stombaugh. And the fibers from the shirt, which are on the left-hand side of Exhibit 674, do match. The colors are the same and also, we find the same twist in the fiber.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, was the orange-yellow cotton fiber—were the orange-yellow cotton fibers in the shirt of a uniform shade?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; they were all of a uniform shade. It was what we would call a uniform dye job.

Mr. Eisenberg. What about the twist?

Mr. Stombaugh. The twist was about normal. These, you can see here.

Mr. Eisenberg. You are pointing to the right-hand side and left-hand side of 674?

Mr. Stombaugh. You can see the twist to these fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did they have a uniform twist?

Mr. Stombaugh. Uniform.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the match was identical as to twist and shade, and the fibers in the shirt were uniform in themselves as to these two characteristics, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take a photograph of the gray-black cotton fibers?

Mr. Stombaugh. These are the gray-black cotton fibers and the color didn't come out well on these in this instance because of time and color process limitations.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just a second. You have a chart here—a photomicrograph—captioned "Microphotograph Showing Match Between Gray-Black Cotton Fibers86 From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle, etc. and Gray-Black Cotton Fibers From Oswald's Shirt."

Did you take these photographs or were they taken under your supervision?

Mr. Stombaugh. Under my supervision.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 675?

Mr. Dulles. 675, it will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 675, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Stombaugh. The same would apply to Exhibit 675 as to 674, with the exception of the color. The color on these is much darker and we tried up to last night to duplicate the exact color and this is the best I could come up with under the time and color process limitations. It took us about 4 hours to make a photograph such as this.

Mr. Eisenberg. There is an apparent match of colors in the photograph——

Mr. Stombaugh. But there is one——

Mr. Eisenberg. I say, there is an apparent match in photographs, in color, or is that just my eyes deceiving me?

Mr. Stombaugh. This one appears to be slightly lighter than this shade.

Mr. Eisenberg. I see.

Mr. Stombaugh. But actually they are both a gray black, almost black in color.

Mr. Eisenberg. But under the microscope they were identical, and a different shade than what we see in Exhibit 675?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. In all these cases did you make your determination of color and match under the microscope, or by use of the photographs?

Mr. Stombaugh. Under the microscope.

Mr. Eisenberg. And these are illustrative and prepared for the Commission's use?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you have a chart of photomicrograph captioned "Match Between Dark Blue Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle, etc." Did you prepare these photographs or were they prepared under your supervision?

Mr. Stombaugh. Under my supervision.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have these received as Exhibit 676?

Mr. Dulles. 676.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 676, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the magnification of 675 and 676, by the way?

Mr. Stombaugh. All of these were made at approximately 400 diameters.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find a color match here?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; the color match of the dark blue cotton fibers shows rather well in this photograph, Exhibit 676.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now there is also a violet-colored fiber running through the right-hand side of 676.

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; I asked the photographer about this when he developed this and I said, "Why did we get this, this is not in the slide at all," and he said that is one of the orange fibers. They use different techniques in bringing out the blue and the yellow-orange in a photomicrograph.

Mr. Dulles. The shades are the fiber of the blanket?

Mr. Stombaugh. No; this shade in the photograph is different from what that fiber actually is. It is in the development process. I am not too familiar with color photography. There is an art to it. However, I do know that there are times and technical limitations on the accuracy of color reproductions.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, were the shades in—were the shades of the dark blue cotton fibers uniform throughout the shirt which is pictured in Commission Exhibit 673?

Mr. Stombaugh. No sir; the dark blue fibers had some lighter shades and some slightly darker shades.

Mr. Eisenberg. About how many different shades?

Mr. Stombaugh. There were only about three in this.

87 Mr. Eisenberg. Do you recall how many dark blue fibers you got from the butt plate?

Mr. Stombaugh. I believe a total of six or seven fibers from the butt plate and three of them are blue fibers and all matched.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you recall whether they were one or more shades?

Mr. Stombaugh. Two shades.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that two of the fibers were two different shades of blue?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And they matched two different shades of blue in the shirt out of a total of three different shades of blue?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you testified before there were about 50 to 100 ranges of shade of green cotton. What about the ranges in shades of blue cotton?

Mr. Stombaugh. The same would apply to blue cotton.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the ranges in shades of orange yellow cotton?

Mr. Stombaugh. The orange-yellow cotton I have here——

Mr. Eisenberg. 674.

Mr. Stombaugh. This is a shade of a yellow cotton fiber, it appears orange yellow under a microscope. Sometimes you get greenish yellow. These will vary, the orange-yellow shade itself might be only two variations in orange yellow, but in a greenish yellow it might be 50 to 100.

Mr. Eisenberg. There was a gray-black cotton fiber in the shirt. Were they uniform between themselves as to color?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes; these were uniform.

Mr. Eisenberg. How many shades of gray, in the gray-black area, can you distinguish?

Mr. Stombaugh. The gray-black in itself would be similar to the orange-yellow and would be possibly two or three.

Mr. Eisenberg. And in the black taken as a broader——

Mr. Stombaugh. Black taken in itself would go from, all the way from, very grayish-light gray all the way down to dense black.

Mr. Eisenberg. How many different shades can you distinguish?

Mr. Stombaugh. Black is different. There are only about 25 or 30 shades, I would say, in black.

Mr. Eisenberg. So you identified the fibers you found on the butt plate as matching the fibers you found in the shirt, not only as to color but as to shades within those colors, out of a range going from 25 in the gray-black or black area to 50 to 100 in the yellow and blue areas?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And degrees of twist were all the same?

Mr. Stombaugh. They were the same.

Mr. Eisenberg. Any other characteristics?

Mr. Stombaugh. Just type of fibers, they were all cotton fibers.

Mr. Eisenberg. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you go into that in a little more detail, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. Stombaugh. Yes. Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors together on the gun.

Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing this shirt, so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I recall you said it could have.

Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket?

88 Mr. Stombaugh. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.

The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off.

In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen off the gun.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, is there anything you would like to add to your testimony?

Mr. Stombaugh. No, sir; I can think of nothing else.

Mr. Dulles. And you found no other pieces of fabric or other foreign material on the gun?

Mr. Stombaugh. Nothing that I could associate with either the blanket or the shirt. I found——

Mr. Dulles. Or the paper bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. Or the paper bag; no, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?

Mr. Stombaugh. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?

Mr. Stombaugh. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.

Mr. Eisenberg. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?

Mr. Stombaugh. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.

We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

Mr. Eisenberg. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?

Mr. Stombaugh. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us which that is?

Mr. Stombaugh. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag?

Mr. Stombaugh. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an opinion on those.

Now if I would have found, say 15 or 20 fibers and all 15 or 20 matched the fibers from the blanket, then I could say, "Yes, I feel that these very easily could have come from the blanket." But I didn't. I only found two of the many types.

Mr. Eisenberg. Okay. I have no further questions.

Mr. Dulles. Do you have any further questions?

Mr. Murray. No; I have no further questions.

Mr. Dulles. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Stombaugh, we appreciate your coming.

89

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.

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 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——

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 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 in92 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 two93 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 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.

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?

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 replica96 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 1. 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 is97 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 or98 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 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-, 2-, 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——

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 samples——

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 10 days later is darker as to the tape but lighter as to the paper.

Would you like the opportunity, Mr. Murray?

Mr. Murray. No, thank you.

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 morphology of the fibers in the paper?

Mr. Cadigan. No.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you tell us why?

Mr. Cadigan. I didn't feel it was necessary.

Mr. Eisenberg. I wonder whether you could do that, Mr. Cadigan, and send us a letter as to the results?

Mr. Cadigan. Certainly.

(The letter referred to was later supplied and is set forth at the end of this testimony.)

Mr. Eisenberg. And also, did you notice how the glue had been applied to the tapes?

Mr. Cadigan. Yes; you might say glue was applied all the way across the tapes.

Mr. Eisenberg. There are no discernible differences in them?

Mr. Cadigan. The glue on the tapes would be applied with a brush at the time of manufacture.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is there more than one way of applying glue?

Mr. Cadigan. Oh, yes. On some tapes, if you look at them either before or after they are used you will see a continuous line running right down the tape where they have used a wheel applicator, merely a difference in manufacturing methods.

Mr. Eisenberg. But you found a brush applicator?

Mr. Cadigan. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Will the same manufacturer use two different methods?

Mr. Cadigan. He might or might not.

Mr. Eisenberg. In your experience, is it likely that he would use two different methods?

Mr. Cadigan. I really couldn't say.

Mr. Dulles. Mr. Cadigan, I thank you very much for your most interesting and helpful testimony.

(Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

(Following is the text of a letter relating to the fiber composition of the gummed tapes in Exhibits 142 and 677.)

United States Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., April 8, 1964.
[By Courier Service].

Hon. J. Lee Rankin,

General Counsel, the President's Commission, 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Rankin: During the testimony of Special Agent James C. Cadigan on April 3, 1964, before the President's Commission, Mr. Melvin Eisenberg of your staff orally requested Special Agent Cadigan to make a fiber analysis of101 the gummed tape on the paper sack found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Commission Exhibit 142, and of the sample of gummed tape in Commission Exhibit 677 Obtained November 22, 1963, at the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Fiber analysis of the two gummed tapes in Commission Exhibits 142 and 677 revealed that they were similar in fiber composition.

Sincerely yours,

J. Edgar Hoover.

Tuesday, April 21, 1964
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW, DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY, GOV. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR., AND MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

The President's Commission met at 1:30 p.m., on April 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Francis W. H. Adams, assistant counsel; Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers; and Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas.

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW

Senator Cooper. The Commission will come to order.

Dr. Shaw, you understand that the purpose of this inquiry is taken under the order of the President appointing the Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy to investigate all the facts relating to his assassination.

Dr. Shaw. I do.

Senator Cooper. And report to the public.

Do 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?

Dr. Shaw. I do.

Senator Cooper. Do you desire an attorney to be with you?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Specter. Will you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. Shaw. Robert Roeder Shaw.

Mr. Specter. What is your profession, please?

Dr. Shaw. Physician and surgeon.

Mr. Specter. Will you outline briefly your educational background?

Dr. Shaw. I received my B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1927, and my M.D. degree from the same institution in 1933.

Following that I served 2 years at the Roosevelt Hospital in New York City from July 1934, to July 1936, in training in general surgery. I had then 2 years of training in thoracic surgery at the University Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich., from July 1936 to July 1938.

On August 1, 1938, I entered private practice limiting my practice to thoracic surgery in Dallas, Tex.

Mr. Dulles. What kind of surgery?

Dr. Shaw. Thoracic surgery or surgery of the chest.102 I have practiced there continuously except for a period from June 1942, until December 1945, when I was a member of the Medical Corps of the Army of the United States serving principally in the European theater of operations.

I was away again from December 1961, until June of 1963, when I was head of the MEDICO team and performed surgery at Avicenna Hospital in Kabul, Pakistan.

Mr. Dulles. Will you tell us a little bit about MEDICO. Is that the ship?

Dr. Shaw. No; that is HOPE. MEDICO was formed by the late Dr. Tom Dooley.

Mr. Dulles. Yes; I know him very well. He was the man in Laos.

Dr. Shaw. Yes, sir; this was one of their projects.

Mr. Dulles. I see.

Dr. Shaw. I returned to——

Mr. Dulles. An interesting project.

Dr. Shaw. I returned to Dallas and on September 1, 1963, started working full time with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School as professor of thoracic surgery and chairman of the division of thoracic surgery.

In this position I also am chief of thoracic surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas which is the chief hospital from the standpoint of the medical facilities of the school.

Mr. Specter. Are you licensed to practice medicine in the State of Texas?

Dr. Shaw. I am.

Mr. Specter. Are you certified?

Dr. Shaw. By the board of thoracic surgery you mean?

Mr. Specter. Yes; by the board of thoracic surgery.

Dr. Shaw. Yes; as of 1948.

Mr. Specter. What experience, if any, have you had, Dr. Shaw, with bullet wounds?

Dr. Shaw. I have had civilian experience, both in the work at Parkland Hospital, where we see a great amount of trauma, and much of this involves bullet wounds from homicidal attempts and accidents.

The chief experience I had, however, was during the Second World War when I was serving as chief of the thoracic surgery center in Paris, France. And during this particular experience we admitted over 900 patients with chest wounds of various sort, many of them, of course, being shell fragments rather than bullet wounds.

Mr. Specter. What is your best estimate as to the total number of bullet wounds you have had experience with?

Dr. Shaw. It would be approximately 1,000, considering the large number of admissions we had in Paris.

Mr. Specter. What were your duties in a general way on November 22, 1963.

Dr. Shaw. On that particular date I had been at a conference at Woodlawn Hospital, which is our hospital for medical chest diseases connected with the medical school system. I had just gone to the Children's Hospital to see a small patient that I had done a bronchoscopy on a few days before and was returning to Parkland Hospital, and the medical school.

Woodlawn and the Children's Hospital are approximately a mile away from Parkland Hospital.

Mr. Specter. Were you called upon to render any aid to President Kennedy on November 22?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Specter. Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B. Connally on that day?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe briefly the circumstances surrounding your being called into the case.

Dr. Shaw. As I was driving toward the medical school I came to an intersection of Harry Hines Boulevard and Industrial Boulevard.

There is also a railroad crossing at this particular point. I saw an open limousine pass this point at high speed with a police escort. We were held up in traffic because of this escort. Finally, when we were allowed to proceed,103 I went on to the medical school expecting to eat lunch. I had the radio on because it was the day that I knew the President was in Dallas and would be eating lunch at the Trade Mart which was not far away, and over the radio I heard the report that the President had been shot at while riding in the motorcade. I went on to the medical school and as I entered the medical school a student came in and joined three other students, and said the President has just been brought into the emergency room at Parkland, dead on arrival.

The students said, "You are kidding, aren't you?" and he said, "No, I am not. I saw him, and Governor Connally has been shot through the chest."

Hearing that I turned and walked over to the emergency room, which is approximately 150 yards from the medical school, and entered the emergency room.

Mr. Specter. At approximately what time did you arrive at the emergency room where Governor Connally was situated?

Dr. Shaw. As near as I could tell it was about 12:45.

Mr. Specter. Who was with Governor Connally, if anyone, at that time, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. Shaw. I immediately recognized two of the men who worked with me in thoracic surgery, Dr. James Duke and Dr. James Boland, Dr. Giesecke, who is an anesthesiologist, was also there along with a Dr. David Mebane who is an instructor in general surgery.

Mr. Specter. What was Governor Connally's condition at that time, based on your observations?

Dr. Shaw. The Governor was complaining bitterly of difficulty in breathing, and of pain in his right chest. Prior to my arriving there, the men had very properly placed a tight occlusive dressing over what on later examination proved to be a large sucking wound in the front of his right chest, and they had inserted a rubber tube between the second and third ribs in the front of the right chest, carrying this tube to what we call a water seal bottle.

Mr. Specter. What was the purpose?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; this is done to reexpand the right lung which had collapsed due to the opening through the chest wall.

Mr. Specter. What wounds, if any, did you observe on the Governor at that time?

Dr. Shaw. I observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound.

Mr. Specter. How long after your initial viewing of him was he taken to the operating room?

Dr. Shaw. Within about 5 minutes. I stepped outside to talk to Mrs. Connally because I had been given information by Dr. Duke that blood had been drawn from the Governor, sent to the laboratory for cross-matching for blood that we knew would be necessary, that the operating room had already been alerted, and that they were ready and they were merely awaiting my arrival.

Mr. Specter. How was Governor Connally transported from the emergency room to the operating room?

Dr. Shaw. On a stretcher.

Mr. Specter. And was he transported up an elevator as well?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. It is two floors above the emergency rooms.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe what happened next in connection with Governor Connally's——

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask a question, putting in this tube is prior to making an incision?

Mr. Shaw. Yes; a stab wound.

Mr. Dulles. Just a stab wound?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. What treatment next followed for Governor Connally, Doctor?

Dr. Shaw. He was taken to the operating room and there Dr. Giesecke started the anesthesia. This entails giving an intravenous injection of sodium pentothal and then after the Governor was asleep a gas was used, that will be on the anesthetic record there.

104 Mr. Specter. Do you know at approximately what time this procedure was started?

Dr. Shaw. I will have to refresh my memory again from the record. We had at the time I testified before, we had the——

Mr. Specter. Permit me to make available to you a copy of the Parkland Memorial Hospital operative record and let me ask you, first of all, if you can identify these two pages on an exhibit heretofore marked as Commission Exhibit 392 as to whether or not this constitutes your report?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; this is a transcription of my dictated report of the operation.

Mr. Specter. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. On this it states that the operation itself was begun at 1300 hours or 1 o'clock, 1 p.m., and that the actual surgery started at 1335 or 1:35 p.m.

The operation was concluded by me at 3—1520 which would be 3:20 p.m.

Mr. Specter. You have described, in a general way, the chest wound. What other wounds, if any, was Governor Connally suffering from at the time you saw him?

Dr. Shaw. I will describe then the wound of the wrist which was obvious. He had a wound of the lower right forearm that I did not accurately examine because I had already talked to Dr. Gregory while I was scrubbing for the operation, told him that this wound would need his attention as soon as we were able to get the chest in a satisfactory condition. There was also, I was told, I didn't see the wound, on the thigh, I was told that there was a small wound on the thigh which I saw later.

Mr. Specter. When did you first have an opportunity then to examine Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. Shaw. After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was asleep so we could manipulate him—before that time it was necessary for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately examine the wound entrance.

We knew this was the wound exit.

Mr. Specter. This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the body]?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. How did you know it was a wound exit.

Dr. Shaw. By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound. This wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until the Governor was anesthetized.

Mr. Specter. Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's chest?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; the front part.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor's chest?

Dr. Shaw. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axillary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.

Mr. Specter. What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?

Dr. Shaw. Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.

Mr. Specter. Now I hand you a diagram which is a body diagram on Commission Exhibit No. 679, and ask you if, on the back portion of the figure, that accurately depicts the point of entry into Governor Connally's back?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. The depiction of the point of entry, I feel is quite accurate.

Mr. Specter. Now, with respect to the front side of the body, is the point of exit accurately shown on the diagram?

Dr. Shaw. The point is——

Mr. Specter. We have heretofore, may the record show the deposition covered much the same ground with Dr. Shaw, but the diagrams used now are new diagrams which will have to be remarked in accordance with your recollection.

Dr. Shaw. Yes. Because I would have to place—they are showing here the angle.

105 Mr. Dulles. Is this all on the record?

Mr. Specter. It should be.

Dr. Shaw. We are showing on this angle, the cartilage angle which it makes at the end of the sternum.

Mr. Specter. That is an inverted V which appears in front of the body?

Dr. Shaw. Now the wound was above that. They have shown it below that point so the wound would have to be placed here as far as the point is concerned.

Mr. Specter. Would you draw on that diagram a more accurate depiction of where the wound of exit occurred?

Dr. Shaw. Do you want me to initial this?

Mr. Specter. Yes; if you please, Dr. Shaw.

I hand you another body diagram marked Commission Exhibit 680 and I will ask you if that accurately depicts the angle of decline as the bullet passed through Governor Connally?

Dr. Shaw. I think the declination of this line is a little too sharply downward. I would place it about 5 off that line.

Mr. Specter. Will you redraw the line then, Dr. Shaw, and initial it, indicating the more accurate angle?

Dr. Shaw. The reason I state this is that as they have shown this, it would place the wound of exit a little too far below the nipple. Also it would, since the bullet followed the line of declination of the fifth rib, it would make the ribs placed in a too slanting position.

Mr. Specter. What operative procedures did you employ in caring for the wound of the chest, Dr. Shaw.

Dr. Shaw. The first measure was to excise the edges of the wound of exit in an elliptical fashion, and then this incision was carried in a curved incision along the lateral portion of the right chest up toward the right axilla in order to place the skin incision lower than the actual path of the bullet through the chest wall.

After this incision had been carried down to the level of the muscles attached to the rib cage, all of the damaged muscle which was chiefly the serratus anterior muscle which digitates along the fifth rib at this position, was cleaned away, cut away with sharp dissection.

As soon as—of course, this incision had been made, the opening through the parietal pleura, which is the lining of the inside of the chest was very obvious. It was necessary to trim away several small fragments of the rib which were still hanging to tags of periosteum, the lining of the rib, and the ragged ends of the rib were smoothed off with a rongeur.

Mr. Specter. What damage had been inflicted upon a rib, if any, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. Shaw. About 10 centimeters of the fifth rib starting at the, about the mid-axillary line and going to the anterior axillary line, as we describe it, or that would be the midline at the armpit going to the anterior lateral portion of the chest had been stripped away by the missile.

Mr. Specter. What is the texture of the rib at the point where the missile struck?

Dr. Shaw. The texture of the rib here is not of great density. The cortex of the rib in the lateral portions of our ribs, is thin with the so-called cancellus portion of the rib being very spongy, offering very little resistance to pressure or to fracturing.

Mr. Specter. What effect, if any, would the striking of that rib have had to the trajectory of the bullet?

Dr. Shaw. It could have had a slight, caused a slight deflection of the rib, but probably not a great deflection of the rib, because of the angle at which it struck and also because of the texture of the rib at this time.

Mr. Specter. You say deflection of the rib or deflection of the bullet?

Dr. Shaw. Deflection of the bullet, I am sorry.

Mr. Specter. Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?

Dr. Shaw. No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation.

Mr. Specter. Have you brought the X-rays with you, Dr. Shaw, from Parkland Hospital?

106 Dr. Shaw. Yes; we have them here.

Mr. Specter. May the record show we have available a viewer for the X-rays.

Dr. Shaw, would you, by use of the viewer, exhibit the X-rays of the Governor's chest to show more graphically that which you have heretofore described?

Dr. Shaw. This is the first X-ray that was taken, which was taken in the operating room with the Governor on the operating table, and at this time anesthetized. The safety pin that you see here is used, was used, to secure the tube which had been put between the second and third rib in expanding the Governor's lung.

We can dimly see also the latex rubber tube up in the chest coming to the apex of the chest.

The variations that we see from normal here are the fact that first, there is a great amount of swelling in the chest wall which we know was due to bleeding and bruising of the tissues of the chest wall, and we also see that there is air in the tissues of the chest wall here and here. It is rather obvious.

Mr. Specter. When you say here and here, you are referring to the outer portions, showing on the X-ray moving up toward the shoulder area?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; going from the lower chest up to the region near the angle of the shoulder blade.

The boney framework of the chest, it is obvious that the fifth rib, we count ribs from above downward, this is the first rib, second rib, third rib, fourth rib, fifth rib, that a portion of this rib has been shattered, and we can see a few fragments that have been left behind.

Also the rib has because of being broken and losing some of its substance, has taken a rather inward position in relation to the fourth and the sixth ribs on either side.

Mr. Specter. What effect was there, if any, on the upper portion of that rib?

Dr. Shaw. This was not noticed at the time of this examination, Mr. Specter. However, in subsequent examinations we can tell that there was a fracture across the rib at this point due to the rib being struck and bent.

Mr. Specter. When you say this point, will you describe where that point exists on the X-ray?

Dr. Shaw. This is a point approximately 4 centimeters from its connection with the transverse process of the spine.

Mr. Specter. And is the fracture, which is located there, caused by a striking there or by the striking at the end of the rib?

Dr. Shaw. It is caused by the striking at the end of the rib.

Mr. Specter. Fine. What else then is discernible from the viewing of the X-ray, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. Shaw. There is a great amount of, we would say, obscuration of the lower part of the right lung field which we know from subsequent examination was due to blood in the pleural cavity and also due to a hematoma in the lower part of the right lower lobe and also a severe laceration of the middle lobe with it having lost its ability to ventilate at that time. So, we have both an airless lung, and blood in the lung to account for these shadows.

Mr. Specter. Is there anything else visible from the X-ray which is helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition?

Dr. Shaw. No; I don't think so.

Mr. Specter. Would it be useful—As to that X-ray, Dr. Shaw, will you tell us what identifying data, if any, it has in the records of Parkland Hospital, for the record?

Dr. Shaw. On this X-ray it has in pencil John G. Connally.

Mr. Specter. Is that G or C?

Dr. Shaw. They have a "G" November 22, 1963, and it has number 218-922.

Mr. Specter. Were those X-rays taken under your supervision?

Dr. Shaw. Yes, by a technician.

Mr. Specter. And that is, in fact, the X-ray then which was taken of Governor Connally at the time these procedures were being performed?

Dr. Shaw. It is.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, would any of the other X-rays be helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition?

Dr. Shaw. I believe the only—perhaps showing one additional X-ray would107 show the fracture previously described which was not easily discernible on the first film. This is quite often true but not important to the—here is the fracture that can be easily seen.

Mr. Specter. You are now referring to a separate and second X-ray.

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Will you start out by telling us on what date this X-ray was performed.

Dr. Shaw. This X-ray was made on the 29th of November 1963, 7 days following the incident.

Mr. Specter. What does it show of significance?

Dr. Shaw. It shows that there has been considerable clearing in the lower portion of the lung, and also that there is a fracture of the fifth rib as previously described approximately 4 centimeters from the transverse process posteriorly.

Mr. Specter. Is there anything else depicted by that X-ray of material assistance in evaluating the Governor's wound?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. McCloy. Were there any photographs taken as distinguished from X-rays of the body?

Dr. Shaw. There were no photographs.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, we shall then, subject to the approval of the Commission, for the record, have the X-rays reproduced at Parkland Memorial Hospital, and, if possible, also have a photograph of the X-ray made for the permanent records of the Commission to show the actual X-ray, which Dr. Shaw has described during his testimony here this afternoon.

Senator Cooper. It is directed that it be made a part of the record of these hearings.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, what additional operative procedures did you perform on Governor Connally's chest?

Dr. Shaw. I will continue with my description of the operative procedure. The opening that had been made through the rib after the removal of the fragments was adequate for further exploration of the pleural cavity. A self-retaining retractor was put into place to maintain exposure. Inside the pleural cavity there were approximately 200 cc. of clotted blood.

It was found that the middle lobe had been lacerated with the laceration dividing the lobe into roughly two equal parts. The laceration ran from the lower tip of the middle lobe up into its root or hilum.

However, the lobe was not otherwise damaged, so that it could be repaired using a running suture of triple zero chromic catgut.

The anterior basal segments of the right lower lobe had a large hematoma, and blood was oozing out of one small laceration that was a little less than a centimeter in length, where a rib fragment had undoubtedly been driven into the lobe. To control hemorrhage a single suture of triple zero chromic gut was placed in this laceration. There were several small matchstick size fragments of rib within the pleural cavity. Examination, however, of the pericardium of the diaphragm and the upper lobe revealed no injury to these parts of the chest.

A drain was placed in the eighth space in the posterior axillary line similar to the drain which had been placed in the second interspace in the front of the chest.

The drain in the front of the chest was thought to be a little too long so about 3 centimeters of it were cut away.

Attention was then turned on the laceration of the latissimus dorsi muscle where the missile had passed through it. Several sutures of chromic gut where used to repair this muscle.

The incision was then closed with interrupted No. zero chromic gut in the muscles of the chest wall—first, I am sorry, in the intercostale muscle, and muscles of the chest wall, and the same suture material was used to close the serratus anterior muscle in the subcutaneous tissue, and interrupted vertical sutures of black silk were used to close the skin.

Attention was then turned to the wound of entrance which, as previously described, was about a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter, roughly108 elliptical in shape. The skin edges of this wound were incised—excised, I beg your pardon—I have to go back just a little bit.

Prior to examination of this wound, a stab wound was made at the angle of the scapula to place a drain in the subscapular space. In the examination of the wound of entrance, the examining finger could determine that this drain was immediately under the wound of entrance, so that it was adequately draining the space.

Two sutures were placed in the facia of the muscle, and the skin was closed with interrupted vertical matching sutures of black silk.

That concluded the operation. Both tubes were connected to a water seal bottle, and the dressing was applied.

Mr. Specter. Who was in charge then of the subsequent care on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. Shaw. Dr. Charles Gregory who had been previously alerted and then came in to take care of the wrist.

Mr. Specter. Now, with respect to the wound on the wrist, did you have any opportunity to examine it by way of determining points of entry and exit?

Dr. Shaw. My examination of the wrist was a very cursory one. I could tell that there was a compound comminuted fracture because there was motion present, and there was a ragged wound just over the radius above the wrist joint. But that was the extent of my examination of the wrist.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, did I take your deposition at Parkland Memorial Hospital on March 23 of 1964?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; you did.

Mr. Specter. Has that deposition been made available to you?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. To you here this afternoon?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Have you subsequent to the giving of that deposition on March 23, 1964, had an opportunity to examine Governor Connally's clothing which we have available in the Commission room here today?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Now, based on all facts now within your knowledge, is there any modification which you would care to make in terms of the views which you expressed about entrance and exit wounds back on March 23, based on the information which was available to you at that time?

Dr. Shaw. From an examination of the clothing, it is very obvious that the wound of entrance was through the coat sleeve.

Mr. Specter. While you are testifying in that manner, perhaps it would be helpful if we would make available to you the actual jacket, if it pleases the Commission.

We shall reserve Exhibits Nos. 681 for the X-ray of November 22; 682 for the X-ray of November 29; and we shall now mark a photograph of the coat for our permanent records as "Commission Exhibit No. 683".

Dr. Shaw, I hand you at this time what purports to be the coat worn by Governor Connally, which we introduce subject to later proof when Governor Connally appears later this afternoon; and, for the record, I ask you first of all if this photograph, designated as Commission Exhibit No. 683, is a picture of this suit coat?

Dr. Shaw. It is.

Mr. Specter. I had interrupted you when you started to refer to the hole in the sleeve of the coat. Will you proceed with what you were testifying about there?

Dr. Shaw. The hole in the sleeve of the coat is within half a centimeter of the very edge of the sleeve, and lies——

Mr. Dulles. This is the right sleeve, is it not?

Dr. Shaw. I am sorry, yes. Thank you. Of the right sleeve, and places it, if the coat sleeve was in the same position, assuming it is in the same position that my coat sleeve is in, places it directly over the lateral portion of the wrist, really not directly on the volar or the dorsum of the surface of the wrist,109 but on the lateral position or the upper position, as the wrist is held in a neutral position.

Mr. Specter. With the additional information provided by the coat, would that enable you to give an opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. Shaw. There is only one tear in the Governor's garment as far as the appearance of the tear is concerned, I don't think I could render an opinion as to whether this is a wound of entrance or exit.

Mr. Specter. Then, do you have sufficient information at your disposal in total, based on your observations and what you know now to give any meaningful opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. Shaw. I would prefer to have Dr. Gregory testify about that, because he has examined it more carefully than I have.

Mr. Specter. Fine.

Mr. Dulles. Could you tell at all how the arm was held from that mark or that hole in the sleeve?

Dr. Shaw. Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain.

I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor's arm held in approximately this position.

Mr. Specter. Indicating the right hand held close to the body?

Dr. Shaw. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that it is the only possibility.

Senator Cooper. Why do you say you don't think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location——

Dr. Shaw. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.

Mr. Dulles. Or whether it was one or two wounds?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. Or two bullets?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; or three.

Mr. Dulles. Why do you say three?

Dr. Shaw. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.

Mr. Dulles. Oh, yes; we haven't come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?

Mr. McCloy. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?

Dr. Shaw. I have no firm opinion.

Mr. McCloy. That is right.

Dr. Shaw. Asking me this now if it was true. If you had asked me a month ago I would have.

Mr. Dulles. Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion?

Dr. Shaw. They could.

Mr. McCloy. I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has no firm opinion now that they were.

Mr. Dulles. As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?

Dr. Shaw. That is correct.

Senator Cooper. When you say all three are you referring to the wounds you have just described to the chest, the wound in the wrist, and also the wound in the thigh?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Senator Cooper. It was possible?

Dr. Shaw. Our original assumption, Senator Cooper, was that the Governor was approximately in this attitude at the time he was——

Senator Cooper. What attitude is that now?

Dr. Shaw. This is an attitude sitting in a jump seat as we know he was,110 upright, with his right forearm held across the lower portion of the chest. In this position, the trajectory of the bullet could have caused the wound of entrance, the wound of exit, struck his wrist and proceeded on into the left thigh. But although this is a possibility, I can't give a firm opinion that this is the actual way in which it occurred.

Mr. Specter. If it pleases the Commission, we propose to go through that in this testimony; and we have already started to mark other exhibits in sequence on the clothing. So that it will be more systematic, we plan to proceed with the identification of clothing and then go on to the composite diagram which explains the first hypothesis of Dr. Shaw and the other doctors of Parkland. And then proceed from that, as I intend to do, with an examination of the bullet, which will explore the thinking of the doctor on that subject.

Dr. Shaw, for our record, I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 684 and ask you if that is a picture of the reverse side of the coat, which we will later prove to have been worn by Governor Connally, the coat which is before you?

Dr. Shaw. It is.

Mr. Specter. What, if anything, appears on the back of that coat and also on the picture in line with the wound which you have described on the Governor's posterior chest?

Dr. Shaw. The picture—the coat and the picture of the coat, show a rent in the back of the coat approximately 2-centimeters medial to the point where the sleeve has been joined to the main portion of the garment.

The lighter-colored material of the lining of the coat can be seen through this rent in the coat.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, I show you a shirt, subject to later proof that it was the shirt worn by Governor Connally, together with a photograph marked "Commission Exhibit No. 685," and ask you if that is a picture of that shirt, the back side of the shirt?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; it is a picture of the back side of the shirt. However, in this particular picture I am not able to make out the hole in the shirt very well.

Now I see it, I believe; yes.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe the hole as you see it to exist in the shirt? Aside from what you see on the picture, what hole do you observe on the back of the shirt itself?

Dr. Shaw. On the back of the shirt itself there is a hole, a punched out area of the shirt which is a little more than a centimeter in its greater diameter. The whole shirt is soiled by brown stains which could have been due to blood.

Mr. Specter. How does the hole in the back of the shirt correspond with the wound on the Governor's back?

Dr. Shaw. It does correspond exactly.

Mr. Specter. Now turning the same shirt over to the front side, I ask you if the photograph, marked "Commission Exhibit No. 386," is a picture of the front side of this shirt?

Dr. Shaw. It is.

Mr. Specter. What does the picture of the shirt show with respect to a hole, if any, on the right side of the front of the shirt?

Dr. Shaw. The picture and the shirt show on the right side a much larger rent in the garment with the rent being approximately 4 centimeters in its largest diameter.

Mr. Specter. What wound, if any, did the Governor sustain on his thigh, Dr. Shaw?

Mr. Dulles. Just one moment, are you leaving this?

Mr. Specter. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder whether or not it would not be desirable for the doctor to put on this photograph where these holes are, because they are not at all clear for the future if we want to study those photographs.

Dr. Shaw. This one is not so hard.

Mr. Dulles. That one appears but the other one doesn't appear and I think it would be very helpful.

Dr. Shaw. How would you like to have me outline this?

111 Mr. Specter. Draw a red circle of what you conceive to be the hole there, Doctor.

Mr. Dulles. The actual hole is not nearly as big as your circle, it is the darkened area inside that circle, is it not?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; the darkened area is enclosed by the circle.

Mr. Specter. Are you able to note on the photograph of the back of the shirt, 685?

Will you draw a red circle around the area of the hole on the photograph then, Dr. Shaw?

Mr. Dulles. Would you just initial those two circles, if you can.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh?

Dr. Shaw. He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect of the left thigh.

Mr. Specter. Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Specter. Did you have an opportunity to examine it sufficiently to ascertain its location on the left thigh?

Dr. Shaw. No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location.

Mr. Specter. Where was it with respect to a general location then on the Governor's thigh?

Dr. Shaw. It is on the medial anterior aspect of the thigh.

Mr. Dulles. Nontechnically, what does it mean?

Dr. Shaw. Well, above, slightly above, between, in other words, the medial aspect would be the aspect toward the middle of the body, but as far as being how many centimeters or inches it is from the knee and the groin, I am not absolutely sure.

Mr. Specter. I now show you a pair of trousers which we shall later identify as being those worn by the Governor. I will, first of all, ask you if a photograph bearing Commission Exhibit No. 687 is a picture of those trousers?

Dr. Shaw. It is.

Mr. Specter. And what hole, if any did you observe on the trousers and on the picture of the trousers?

Dr. Shaw. There is a hole in the garment that has been made by some instrument which has carried away a part of the Governor's garment. In other words, it is not a tear but is a punched out hole, and this is approximately 4 centimeters on the inner aspect from the crease of the trousers.

Mr. Dulles. Can you tell where the knee is there and how far above the knee approximately?

Dr. Shaw. I can't tell exactly.

Mr. Dulles. I guess you can't tell.

Dr. Shaw. From the crotch I would say it would be slightly, it is a little hard to tell, slightly more toward the knee than the groin.

Mr. Specter. Does that hole in the left leg of the trousers match up to the wound on the left thigh of the Governor?

Dr. Shaw. To the best of my recollection it does.

Mr. Dulles. Are there any other perforations in these trousers at all, any other holes?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Dulles. So that means that whatever made the hole on the front side did not come through and make a hole anywhere else in the trousers?

Dr. Shaw. That is correct. It had to be a penetrating wound and not a perforating wound, it didn't go on through.

Mr. Specter. Will you turn those trousers over, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. Shaw. I believe we had already looked at it.

Mr. Specter. On the reverse side, and state whether or not this picture bearing Commission Exhibit No. 688 accurately depicts the reverse side of the trousers?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; it does.

Mr. Specter. Is there any hole shown either on the picture or on the trousers themselves?

Dr. Shaw. No.

112 Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, I now show you a body diagram which is marked "Commission Exhibit No. 689."

Senator Cooper. May I ask a question before you ask that question?

When you first saw Governor Connally in the emergency room was he dressed or undressed?

Dr. Shaw. His trousers were still on. He had his shorts on, I should say, Senator Cooper, but his coat, shirt, and trousers had been removed.

Mr. Specter. Were his clothes anywhere in the vicinity where you could have seen them?

Dr. Shaw. No; I never saw them. This is the first time that I saw them.

Mr. Specter. That is earlier today when you examined them in this room?

Dr. Shaw. That is correct.

Mr. Specter. Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted by a single missile?

Dr. Shaw. That is correct.

Mr. Specter. With reference to that diagram, would you explain the position that you had earlier thought the Governor to have been in when he was wounded here?

Dr. Shaw. We felt that the Governor was in an upright sitting position, and at the time of wounding was turning slightly to the right. This would bring the three wounds, as we know them, the wound in the chest, the wound in the wrist, and the wound in the thigh into a line assuming that the right forearm was held against the lower right chest in front.

The line of inclination of this particular diagram is a little more sharply downward than is probably correct in view of the inclination of the ribs of the chest.

Mr. Specter. Will you redraw that line, Dr. Shaw, to conform with what you believe to be——

Dr. Shaw. The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its line of inclination.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder if you could use that red pencil to make it a little clearer for us?

Dr. Shaw. I think these would probably work well on this paper. Perhaps this isn't a tremendous point but it slopes just a little too much.

Mr. Specter. You have initialed that to show your incline?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. With respect to the wound you described on the thigh, Dr. Shaw, was there any point of exit as to that wound?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Specter. I now show you——

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one more question there, how deep was the wound of entry, could you tell at all?

Dr. Shaw. Mr. Dulles, I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I have.

Mr. Dulles. We will hear Dr. Gregory later?

Mr. Specter. Yes; he is scheduled to testify as soon as Dr. Shaw concludes.

Dr. Shaw, I now show you Commission Exhibit 399 which has heretofore been identified as being a virtually whole bullet weighing 158 grains.

May I say for the record, that in the depositions which have been taken in Parkland Hospital, that we have ascertained, and those depositions are part of the overall record, that is the bullet which came from the stretcher of Governor Connally.

First, Dr. Shaw, have you had a chance to examine that bullet earlier today?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; I examined it this morning.

Mr. Specter. Is it possible that the bullet which went through the Governor's chest could have emerged being as fully intact as that bullet is?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; I believe it is possible because of the fact that the bullet113 struck the fifth rib at a very acute angle and struck a portion of the rib which would not offer a great amount of resistance.

Mr. Specter. Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off?

Dr. Shaw. I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance.

Mr. Specter. Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have gone into the Governor's thigh without causing any more damage than appears on the face of that bullet?

Dr. Shaw. If it was a spent bullet; yes. As far as the bullet is concerned it could have caused the Governor's thigh wound as a spent missile.

Mr. Specter. Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue?

Dr. Shaw. Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory?

Mr. Specter. May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony and——

Dr. Gregory. I will say yes.

Mr. Specter. And indicates in the affirmative. Do you have sufficient knowledge of the wound of the wrist to render an opinion as to whether that bullet could have gone through Governor Connally's wrist and emerged being as much intact as it is?

Dr. Shaw. I do not.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true in hypothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the upper portion of the back or lower portion of the neck with a 6.5-mm. missile passing between the strap muscles of the President's neck, proceeding through a facia channel striking no bones, not violating the pleural cavity, and emerging through the anterior third of the neck, with the missile having been fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the muzzle being approximately 100 to 250 feet from the President's body; that the missile was a copper jacketed bullet. Would it be possible for that bullet to have then proceeded approximately 4 or 5 feet and then would it be possible for it to have struck Governor Connally in the back and have inflicted the wound which you have described on the posterior aspect of his chest, and also on the anterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. And what would your reason be for giving an affirmative answer to that question, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. Shaw. Because I would feel that a missile with this velocity and weight striking no more than the soft tissues of the neck would have adequate velocity and mass to inflict the wound that we found on the Governor's chest.

Mr. Specter. Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689?

Dr. Shaw. Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck you mean?

Mr. Specter. No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next question.

Dr. Shaw. All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the—I mean in the wrist.

Mr. Specter. Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the114 damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.

Dr. Shaw. I see.

Mr. Specter. Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone through the President in the way that I have described and proceed through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether or not it was bullet 399?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?

Dr. Shaw. I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.

Mr. Specter. What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?

Dr. Shaw. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw, have you had an opportunity today here in the Commission building to view the movies which we referred to as the Zapruder movies and the slides taken from these movies?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. And what, if any, light did those movies shed on your evaluation and opinions on this matter with respect to the wounds of the Governor?

Dr. Shaw. Well, my main interest was to try to place the time that the Governor was struck by the bullet which inflicted the wound on his chest in reference to the sequence of the three shots, as has been described to us.

(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

This meant trying to carefully examine the position of the Governor's body in the car so that it would fall in line with what we knew the trajectory must be for this bullet coming from the point where it has been indicated it did come from. And in trying to place this actual frame that these frames are numbered when the Governor was hit, my opinion was that it was frame number, let's see, I think it was No. 36.

Mr. Specter. 236?

Dr. Shaw. 236, give or take 1 or 2 frames. It was right in 35, 36, 37, perhaps.

Mr. Specter. I have heretofore asked you questions about what possibly could have happened in terms of the various combinations of possibilities on missiles striking the Governor in relationship to striking the President as well. Do you have any opinion as to what, in fact, did happen?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. From the pictures, from the conversation with Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, it seems that the first bullet hit the President in the shoulder and perforated the neck, but this was not the bullet that Governor Connally feels hit him; and in the sequence of films I think it is hard to say that the first bullet hit both of these men almost simultaneously.

Mr. Specter. Is that view based on the information which Governor Connally provided to you?

Dr. Shaw. Largely.

Mr. Specter. As opposed to any objectively determinable facts from the bullets, the situs of the wounds or your viewing of the pictures?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. I was influenced a great deal by what Governor Connally knew about his movements in the car at this particular time.

Mr. Dulles. You have indicated a certain angle of declination on this chart here which the Chief Justice has.

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Do you know enough about the angle of declination of the bullet that hit the President to judge at all whether these two angles of declination are consistent?

115 Dr. Shaw. We know that the angle of declination was a downward one from back to front so that I think this is consistent with the angle of declination of the wound that the Governor sustained.

Senator Cooper. Are you speaking of the angle of declination in the President's body?

Dr. Shaw. Of the first wound?

Mr. Specter. Yes.

Dr. Shaw. First wound.

Mr. Specter. What you have actually seen from pictures to show the angle of declination?

Dr. Shaw. That is right.

Mr. Specter. In the wounds in the President's body?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; that is right. I did not examine the President.

Mr. Dulles. And that angle taking into account say the 4 feet difference between where the President was sitting and where the Governor was sitting, would be consistent with the point of entry of the Governor's body as you have shown it?

Dr. Shaw. The jump seat in the car, as we could see, placed the Governor sitting at a lower level than the President, and I think conceivably these two wounds could have been caused by the same bullet.

Mr. Specter. Do you have anything else to add, Dr. Shaw, which you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Dr. Shaw. I don't believe so Mr. Specter.

Mr. Specter. May it please the Commission then I would like to move into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 679 and 680, and then reserve Nos. 681 and 682 until we get the photographs of the X-rays and I now move for admission into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 683 through 689.

Senator Cooper. They have all been identified, have they?

Mr. Specter. Yes, sir; during the course of Dr. Shaw's testimony.

Senator Cooper. It is ordered then that these exhibits be received in the record.

(The documents referred to, previously identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 679, 680, and 683–689 for identification were received in evidence.)

Mr. McCloy. Just one or two questions. It is perfectly clear, Doctor, that the wound, the lethal wound on the President did not—the bullet that caused the lethal wound on the President, did not cause any wounds on Governor Connally, in your opinion?

Dr. Shaw. Mr. McCloy, I couldn't say that from my knowledge.

Mr. McCloy. We are talking about the, following up what Mr. Dulles said about the angle of declination, the wound that came through the President's collar, you said was consistent between the same bullet. I just wondered whether under all the circumstances that you know about the President's head wound on the top that would also be consistent with a wound in Governor Connally's body?

Dr. Shaw. On the chest, yes; I am not so sure about the wrist. I can't quite place where his wrist was at the time his chest was struck.

Mr. McCloy. Now perhaps this is Dr. Gregory's testimony, that is the full description of the wrist wound, that would be his rather than your testimony?

Dr. Shaw. I think he could throw just as much light on it as I could. And more in certain aspects.

Mr. McCloy. It did hit bone?

Dr. Shaw. Obviously.

Mr. McCloy. And there must have been a considerable diminution in the velocity of the bullet after penetrating through the wrist?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. The wound inflicted on it, the chest wound on Governor Connally, if you move that an inch or two, 1 inch or the other, could that have been lethal, go through an area that could easily have been lethal?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; of course, if it had been moved more medially it could have struck the heart and the great vessels.

Mr. McCloy. Let me ask you this, Doctor, in your experience with gunshot wounds, is it possible for a man to be hit sometime before he realizes it?

116 Dr. Shaw. Yes. There can be a delay in the sensory reaction.

Mr. McCloy. Yes; so that a man can think as of a given instant he was not hit, and when actually he could have been hit.

Dr. Shaw. There can be an extending sensation and then just a gradual building up of a feeling of severe injury.

Mr. McCloy. But there could be a delay in any appreciable reaction between the time of the impact of the bullet and the occurrence?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; but in the case of a wound which strikes a bony substance such as a rib, usually the reaction is quite prompt.

Mr. McCloy. Yes.

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. Now, you have indicated, I think, that this bullet traveled along, hit and traveled along the path of the rib, is that right?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet could not have hit the rib at all but it might have been the expanding flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you would call it on the rib itself?

Dr. Shaw. I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it.

Mr. McCloy. Was—up until you gave him the anesthetic—the Governor was fully conscious, was he?

Dr. Shaw. I would not say fully, but he was responsive. He would answer questions.

Mr. McCloy. I think that is all I have.

The Chairman. I have no questions of the doctor.

Mr. Dulles. There were no questions put to him that were significant as far as our testimony is concerned?

Dr. Shaw. No; we really don't have to question him much. Our problem was pretty clearcut, and he told us it hurt and that was about his only response as far as——

Senator Cooper. Could I ask you a question, doctor?

I think you said from the time you came into the emergency room and the time you went to the operating room was about 5 minutes?

Dr. Shaw. Yes; it was just the time that it took to ask a few simple questions, what has been done so far, and has the operating room been alerted, and then I went out and talked to Mrs. Connally, just very briefly, I told her what the problem was in respect to the Governor and what we were going to have to do about it and she said to go ahead with anything that was necessary. So this couldn't have taken more than 5 minutes or so.

Mr. Dulles. Did he say anything or did anyone say anything there about the circumstances of the shooting?

Dr. Shaw. Not at that time.

Mr. Dulles. Either of Governor Connally or the President?

Dr. Shaw. Not at that time. All of our conversation was later.

Mr. Dulles. Was the President in the same room?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Dulles. Did you see him?

Dr. Shaw. I only saw his shoes and his feet. He was in the room immediately opposite. As I came into the hallway, I could recognize that the President was on it, in the room to my right. I knew that my problem was concerned with Governor Connally, and I turned and went into the room where I saw that he was.

Mr. Dulles. Did you hear at that time or have any knowledge, of a bullet which had been found on the stretcher?

Dr. Shaw. No; this was later knowledge.

Mr. Dulles. When did you first hear that?

(At this point Senator Russell entered the hearing room.)

Dr. Shaw. This information was first given to me by a man from the Secret Service who interviewed me in my office several weeks later. It is the first time I knew about any bullet being recovered.

117 Senator Cooper. I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony you have had wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest.

What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would this experience—you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by bullets—have provided you knowledge also about the characteristics of missiles, particularly bullets of this type?

Dr. Shaw. No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more. Perhaps a little more since I have seen deformed bullets from wounds, but I haven't gone into that aspect of wounds.

Senator Cooper. In the answers to the hypothetical questions that were addressed to you, based upon the only actual knowledge which you could base that answer, was the fact that you had performed the operation on the wound caused in the chest, on the wound in the chest?

Dr. Shaw. That is true. I have seen many bullets that have passed through bodies or have penetrated bodies and have struck bone and I know manners from which they are deformed but I know very little about the caliber of bullets, the velocity of bullets, many things that other people have much more knowledge of than I have.

Senator Cooper. That is all.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Shaw.

TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY

Senator Cooper. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are going to give to this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. Gregory. I do.

Mr. Specter. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. Gregory. Doctor Charles Francis Gregory.

Mr. Specter. What is your profession, sir?

Dr. Gregory. I am a physician and surgeon.

Mr. Specter. Would you outline your educational background briefly, please?

Dr. Gregory. I received a bachelor of science degree from the University of Indiana in 1941, and an M.D. degree in medicine from the Indiana University School of Medicine in 1944.

Following 1-year internship and a tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, I undertook 5 years of postgraduate training in orthopedic surgery at Indiana University Medical Center.

Upon completing that training I became a member of the faculty at Indiana University Medical School, and remained so until November of 1952, when I reentered the U.S. Navy for another 20 months.

In 1956 I was appointed professor and then chairman of the Division of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, where I presently am.

Mr. Specter. Are you certificated by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery?

Dr. Gregory. I am, in 1953.

Mr. Specter. What experience, if any, have you had with bullet wounds, Doctor?

Dr. Gregory. Beyond the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School, my experience has covered a tour of duty in the Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division.

Mr. Specter. What is your best estimate as to the total number of bullet wounds you have had an opportunity to observe and treat?

Dr. Gregory. I would estimate that I have dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds.

Mr. Specter. Are you a licensed doctor in the State of Texas at the present time?

Dr. Gregory. I am.

118 Mr. Specter. What were your duties in a general way back on November 22, 1963, with Parkland Hospital?

Dr. Gregory. On that date, November 22, 1963, I was seeing patients in the health service of the adjacent medical school building when about noon I was advised that the President of the United States had been admitted to Parkland Hospital due to gunshot injuries.

I went immediately to the emergency room area of the Parkland Hospital, and upon gaining admission to the emergency room, I encountered the hospital superintendent.

I inquired of him then as to whether or not the President had injuries which might require my attention and he indicated that they were not of that nature.

I, therefore, took a number of unnecessary onlookers like myself from the emergency area in order to reduce the confusion, and I went to the fifth floor of the hospital, which is the orthopedic ward.

And after attending a number of patients there, I prepared to leave the hospital, but stopped by the surgical suite on my way out, to check and see if any need for my services might have come up, and encountered there Dr. Shaw who indicated to me that Governor Connally had also been injured, and that these included injuries to his extremities for which I would be retained.

Mr. Specter. Did Dr. Shaw then call upon you to perform operative aid for Governor Connally?

Dr. Gregory. He did.

Mr. Specter. And when did you first see Governor Connally then?

Dr. Gregory. I first saw Governor Connally after Dr. Shaw had prepared him and draped him for the surgical procedures which he carried out on the Governor's chest.

Mr. Specter. Now, did you have any opportunity to observe the wound on the Governor's chest?

Dr. Gregory. I could see the wounds on the Governor's chest, but I could see them only through the apertures available in the surgical drapes, and therefore I had difficulty orienting the exact positions of the wounds, except for the wound identified as the wound of exit which could be related to the nipple in the right chest which was exposed.

Mr. Specter. Now what did you observe with respect to the wound on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. Gregory. I did not have an opportunity to examine the wound on the Governor's wrist until Dr. Shaw had completed his surgical treatment of the Governor's chest wound.

At that time he was turned to his back and it was possible to examine both the right upper extremity and the left lower extremity for wounds of the wrist and left thigh respectively.

The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.

There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease.

Mr. Specter. You say that the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?

Dr. Gregory. I assumed it to be a wound of entrance because of the general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent by the X-rays.

Mr. Specter. Would you proceed to tell us, even though it is out of sequence, what those factors, later determined to be, were which led you to assume that it was the wound of entrance?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. Assuming that the wrist wound, which included a shattering fracture of the wrist bone, of the radial bone just above the wrist, was produced by a missile there were found in the vicinity of the wound two things119 which led me to believe that it passed from the dorsal or back side to the volar. The first of these——

Mr. Specter. When you say volar what do you mean by that?

Dr. Gregory. The palm side.

Mr. Specter. Proceed.

Dr. Gregory. The first of these was evidence of clothing, bits of thread and cloth, apparently from a dark suit or something of that sort which had been carried into the wound, from the skin into the region of the bone.

The second of these were two or three small fragments of metal which presumably were shed by the missile after their encounter with the firm substance which is bone.

Mr. Specter. As to the bits of cloth which you describe, have you had an opportunity earlier today to examine a coat, heretofore identified and marked by a picture bearing Commission Exhibit No. 683, which we will have later testimony on as being Governor Connally's coat?

Dr. Gregory. I have.

Mr. Specter. And what, if anything, did your examination disclose with respect to the wound of the right wrist?

Dr. Gregory. Well, the right sleeve of the coat has a tear in it close to the margin at a point which is, I think, commensurate with the location of the dorsal surface, the back side of the wrist, forearm where the two may have been superimposed and both damaged by the same penetrating body.

Mr. Specter. Is the nature of the material of the suit coat the same as that which you found in the wound of the wrist?

Dr. Gregory. It is. As a matter of fact, at the time that the wound was treated, and the cloth was found, the speculation was made as to the kind of—the color of the suit the Governor was wearing and moreover the thread was almost identifiable as mohair or raw silk or something of that nature and entirely consistent with this fabric.

Mr. Specter. Was the color, which you speculated about, the same as which you see in this jacket?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; it was my impression it was black or either dark blue.

Mr. Specter. You say there was something in the X-ray work which led you to further conclude that that was the wound of entrance?

Dr. Gregory. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Will you proceed now to show the Commission those X-rays, please?

Dr. Gregory. This is an X-ray made in the lateral view of the Governor's wrist at the time he was brought to the hospital prior to any surgical intervention.

Mr. Specter. As to the first X-ray, Dr. Gregory, would you identify the date when it was taken?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; this film was made on November 22, 1963, as indicated by a pencil marking on that film, and it further bears the assigned X-ray number of 219-992, which was that of the patient, Governor John Connally.

Mr. Specter. May it please the Commission we shall reserve number 690 and 691 for later identification of those photographs and X-rays.

Senator Cooper. So ordered.

Dr. Gregory. If you will notice in addition to the apparent fracture of this, the radial bone here.

Mr. Specter. Are you now describing a second X-ray?

Dr. Gregory. No; these are two taken at right angle of the Governor's wrist prior to attention. These are diagnostic film, one made with the hand palm down and one with the hand turned 90.

Mr. Specter. Do they bear identical numbers then?

Dr. Gregory. They do.

Mr. Specter. Is there any mark on them at the present time which distinguishes them by way of marking or number?

Dr. Gregory. Other than the pencil markings on each of these two films and my own which I attached last evening for convenience.

Mr. Specter. Can you mark one of them as "A" and one as "B," so that when you describe them here we will know which you are referring to?

Dr. Gregory. Very well. Let the record show that "A" stands for the anteroposterior120 view, Exhibit No. 691, and "B" stands for the lateral view, Exhibit No. 690, of the right wrist and forearm. "A" then demonstrates a comminuted fracture of the wrist with three fragments.

Mr. Specter. What do you mean by comminuted?

Dr. Gregory. Comminuted refers to shattering, to break into more than two pieces, specifically many pieces, and if I may, I can point out there is a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, and there are several smaller fragments lying in the center of these three larger ones.

Mr. Specter. How many fragments are there in total, sir, in your opinion?

Dr. Gregory. I would judge from this view that counting each isolated fragment there are fully seven or eight, and experience has taught that when these things are dismantled directly under direct vision that there very obviously may be more than that.

Mr. Specter. Will you continue to describe what that X-ray shows with respect to metallic fragments, if any?

Dr. Gregory. Three shadows are identified as representing metallic fragments. There are other light shadows in this film which are identified or interpreted as being artifacts.

Mr. Specter. What is the basis of distinction between that which is an artifact and that which is a real shadow of the metallic substance?

Dr. Gregory. A real shadow of metallic substance persist and be seen in other views, other X-ray copies, whereas artifacts which are produced by irregularities either in the film or film carrier will vary from one X-ray to another.

Mr. Specter. Is it your view that these other X-ray films led you to believe that those are, in fact, metallic substances?

Dr. Gregory. As a matter of fact, it is the mate to this very film, the lateral view marked "B", which shows the same three fragments in essentially the same relationship to the various levels of the forearm that leads me to believe that these do, in fact, represent metallic fragments.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe as specifically as you can what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?

Dr. Gregory. I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters in diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal.

Mr. Specter. What would your estimate be as to their weight in total?

Dr. Gregory. I would estimate that they would be weighed in micrograms which is very small amount of weight. I don't know how to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you.

It is the kind of weighing that requires a microadjustable scale, which means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp.

Mr. Specter. Have you now described all the metallic substances which you observed either visually or through the X-rays in the Governor's wrist?

Dr. Gregory. These are the three metallic substance items which I saw.

Now if I may use these to indicate why I view the path as being from dorsal to volar, from the back of the wrist to the palm side, these have been shed on the volar side suggesting that contact with this bone resulted in there being flaked off, as the remainder of the missile emerged from the volar side leaving the small flakes behind.

Mr. Specter. Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?

Dr. Gregory. There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.

Mr. Specter. And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?

Dr. Gregory. Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.

Mr. Specter. Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion,"121 indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?

Dr. Gregory. Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.

Mr. Dulles. Would you show that on your own wrist?

Dr. Gregory. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.

Dr. Gregory. I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.

But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.

Mr. Specter. Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.

Dr. Gregory. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.

Mr. Specter. Before proceeding to the other factors indicating point of entry and point of exit, Dr. Gregory, I call your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 399, which is a bullet and ask you first if you have had an opportunity to examine that earlier today?

Dr. Gregory. I have.

Mr. Specter. What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?

Dr. Gregory. In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile.

(At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.)

I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead.

The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not inconsistent with one of the characteristics known for missiles which is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a linear motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion which is a spinning motion having to do with maintaining the integrity of the initial linear direction, but if they strike an object they may be caused to turn in their path and tumble end over, and if they do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the strike time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air upon emergence, tumble into another target backward. That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.

Mr. Specter. Is there sufficient metallic substance missing from the back or rear end of that bullet to account for the metallic substance which you have described in the Governor's wrist?

Dr. Gregory. It is possible but I don't know enough about the structure of bullets or this one in particular, to know what is a normal complement of lead or for this particular missile. It is irregular, but how much it may have lost, I have no idea.

Mr. Dulles. Would the nature of the entry wound give you any indication as to whether it entered backward or whether it entered forward?

Dr. Gregory. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business122 end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance, and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it.

Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which I have examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of fabric lost, and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we recovered them.

Mr. Specter. Is the back of that bullet characteristic of an irregular missile so as to cause the wound in the wrist?

Dr. Gregory. I would say that the back of this being flat and having sharp edges is irregular, and would possibly tend to tear tissues more than does an inclined plane such as this.

Mr. Specter. Would the back of the missile be sufficiently irregular to have caused the wound of the right wrist, in your opinion?

Dr. Gregory. I think it could have; yes. It is possible.

Mr. Specter. Would it be consistent with your observations of the wrist for that missile to have penetrated and gone through the right wrist?

Dr. Gregory. It is possible; yes. It appears to me since the wound of exit was a small laceration, that much of the energy of the missile that struck the Governor's wrist was expended in breaking the bone reducing its velocity sufficient so that while it could make an emergence through the underlying soft tissues on his wrist, it did not do great damage to them.

Mr. Specter. Is there any indication from the extent of the damage to the wrist whether the bullet was pristine, that is: was the wrist struck first in flight or whether there had been some reduction in the velocity of the missile prior to striking the wrist?

Dr. Gregory. I would offer this opinion about a high velocity rifle bullet striking a forearm.

Mr. Specter. Permit me to inject factors which we have not put on the record although it has been brought to your attention previously: Assume this is a 6.5-millimeter missile which was shot from a rifle having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with a distance of approximately 160 to 200 feet between the weapon and the victim; and answer the prior question, if you would, Dr. Gregory, with those factors in mind?

Dr. Gregory. I would fully expect the first object struck by that missile to be very badly damaged, and especially if it were a rigid bone such as the wrist bone is, to literally blow it apart. I have had some experience with rifle wound injuries of the forearm produced by this type of missile, and the last two which I attended myself have culminated in amputation of the limb because of the extensive damage produced by the missile as it passed through the arm.

Considerably more than was evidenced in the Governor's case either by examination of the limb itself or an examination of these X-rays.

Mr. Specter. Now, as to the experience you had which you experienced which resulted in amputations, what was the range between the weapon and the victim's limb, if you know?

Dr. Gregory. The range in those two instances, I concede was considerably shorter but I cannot give you the specific range. By short I mean perhaps no more than 15 or 20 yards at the most.

Mr. Specter. Would the difference between the 15 or 20 yards and the 160 to 250 feet make any difference in your opinion, though, as to the damage which would be inflicted on the wrist had that bullet struck it as the first point of impact?

Dr. Gregory. No, sir; I don't think it would have made that much difference.

Mr. Specter. Do you know what the color was of the fragments in the wrist of the Governor, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. Gregory. As I recall them they were lead colored, silvery, of that color. I did not recall them as being either brass or copper.

Mr. Specter. Are there any other X-rays of the Governor's wrist which would aid the Commission in its understanding of the injuries to the wrist?

123 Dr. Gregory. Only to indicate that there were two fragments of metal retrieved in the course of dealing with this wound surgically.

For the subsequent X-rays of the same area, after the initial surgery indicate that those fragments are no longer there.

And as I stated, I thought I had retrieved two of them. The major one or ones now being missing. The small one related to the bone or most closely related to the bone, and I will put back up here——

Mr. Specter. On the new X-rays which you put up, would you identify them first by indicating the date the X-ray was taken?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; the date of the X-ray is the same, November 22, 1963, and they may be identified as Exhibit "C" anteroposterior view postoperative, which is this one.

Mr. Specter. Did they bear the same numbers, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. Gregory. They will bear the same numbers; yes.

Mr. Dulles. I think you had better get them marked.

We haven't got them marked yet "A," "B," and "C."

Representative Boggs. Postoperative, these are after the operation?

Dr. Gregory. These two. This one was made before the wound was dealt with.

Mr. Specter. Which one?

Dr. Gregory. "A" is the one made before the wound was dealt with surgically.

Senator Cooper. Could you mark it 4 "A," "B," "C," and "D," Doctor?

Mr. McCloy. Is that "B," we have had another "B" here, you know?

Dr. Gregory. This is "C." "A" and "C" are comparable X-rays, one made before and one made after the operation was carried out.

Before the operation, you will note a large fragment of metal visible here, not visible in this one. You will also note a small satellite fragment not visible here. A second piece of metal visible preoperatively is still present postoperatively.

No effort incidentally is made to dissect for these fragments. They are small, they are proverbial needles in hay stacks, and we know from experience that small flakes of metal of this kind do not ordinarily produce difficulty in the future, but that the extensive dissection required to find them may produce such consequences and so we choose to leave them inside unless we chance upon them, and on this occasion, those bits of metal recovered were simply found by chance in the course of removing necrotized material.

Other than that the X-rays have nothing more to offer so far as the wrist is concerned.

Mr. Specter. May we then reserve 692 for "C" and 693 for "D"?

Dr. Gregory. I will put the other marks on these.

Senator Cooper. So ordered.

Dr. Gregory. For your convenience.

Mr. Dulles. Was the wound of exit in the wrist also jagged like the wound of entry or was there, what differences were there between the wound of entry and the wound of exit?

Dr. Gregory. The wound of exit was disposed transversely across the wrist exactly as I have it marked here. It was in the nature of a small laceration, perhaps a centimeter and a half in length, about a half an inch long, and it lay in the skin creases so that as you examined the wrist casually it was a very innocent looking thing indeed, and it was not until it was probed that its true nature in connection with the remainder of the wound was evident.

Senator Russell. When did you first see this bullet, Doctor, the one you have just described in your testimony?

Dr. Gregory. This bullet?

Senator Russell. Yes.

Dr. Gregory. This morning, sir.

Senator Russell. You had never seen it until this morning?

Dr. Gregory. I had never seen it before this time.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?

Dr. Gregory. As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as124 the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a half a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.

Mr. Specter. How about on the volar or front side of the wrist?

Dr. Gregory. The volar surface or palmar surface had a wound disclosed transversely about a half centimeter in length and about 2 centimeters above the flexion crease to the wrist.

Mr. Specter. Then the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist was a little larger than the wound on the volar or palm side of the wrist?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; it was.

Mr. Specter. And is that characteristic in terms of entry and exit wounds?

Dr. Gregory. It is not at all characteristic of the entry wound of a pristine missile which tends to make a small wound of entrance and larger wound of exit.

Mr. Specter. Is it, however, characteristic of a missile which has had its velocity substantially decreased?

Dr. Gregory. I don't think that the exchange in the velocity will alter the nature of the wound of entrance or exit excepting that if the velocity is low enough the missile may simply manage to emerge or may not emerge at all on the far side of the limb which has been struck.

Mr. Dulles. Would this be consistent with a tumbling bullet or a bullet that had already tumbled and therefore entered back side too?

Dr. Gregory. The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.

Mr. Dulles. What do you mean by irregular?

Dr. Gregory. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.

Mr. Specter. Have you now described all of the characteristics on the Governor's wrist which indicate either the point of entry or the point of exit?

Dr. Gregory. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don't know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile. That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.

This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it aside.

Mr. Specter. Would that then also indicate the wound of entrance where that striking took place?

Dr. Gregory. I believe it is more in keeping with it, yes.

Mr. Specter. As to the thigh wound, what, if anything, did you observe as to a wound on the thigh, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. Gregory. I was apprised that the Governor had a wound of the thigh, and I did examine it immediately the limb was available for it after Dr. Shaw had completed the surgery.

The wound was located on the inner aspect of the thigh, a little to the front surface about a third of the way up from the knee. The wound appeared to me to be rounded, almost a puncture type of wound in dimension about equal to a pencil eraser, about 6 mm.

I suspected that there might be a missile buried here and so an X-ray was obtained of that limb, and——

Mr. Specter. Have you brought the X-ray with you?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; I have.

Mr. Specter. On what date was that X-ray taken?

Dr. Gregory. This X-ray is marked as having been taken on November 22, 1963. It indicates that it was made of the left thigh, and it belongs to John Connally, John G. Connally.

125 Mr. Specter. That says "G" instead of "C"?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. It appears to me to be a "G." The number again is 219-922.

Mr. Specter. Is that the same number as the other X-rays bear?

Dr. Gregory. I believe it is, yes.

Mr. Specter. May we reserve then Commission Exhibit No. 694 for that X-ray?

Senator Cooper. It may be so done.

Dr. Gregory. There are a series of these films. Would you like them marked subsequently "E", "F," and "G"?

Mr. Specter. Insofar as you feel they are helpful in characterizing the wounds, do mark them in that way.

Dr. Gregory. All right.

This I understand is Exhibit E, then and it is a single X-ray made on the anterior posterial view of Mr. Connally's thigh. The only thing found is a very small fleck of metal marked with an arrow here. It is that small, and almost likely to be overlooked. This was not consonant with the kind of wound on the medial aspect of his thigh.

Our next natural assumption was that that missile having escaped from the thigh had escaped the confines of this X-ray and lay somewhere else. So that additional X-rays were made of the same date and I submit two additional X-rays identified again as belonging to John G. Connally, the left lower extremity, November 22, 1963, and these two are numbered 218-922, and they are an anterial posterior view which I will mark "F," and a lateral view which I will mark "G."

Mr. Specter. May we reserve 695 for "F," and 696 for "G"?

Senator Cooper. So ordered.

Dr. Gregory. Careful examination of this set of X-rays illustrated or demonstrates, I should say, a number of artificial lines, this is one and there is one. These lines I think represent rather hurried development of these films for they were taken under emergency conditions. They were intended simply to let us know if there was another missile in the Governor's limb where it might be located.

The only missile turned up is the same one seen in the original film which lies directly opposite the area indicated as the site of the missile wound or the wound in the thigh, but a fragment of metal, again microscopic measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.

Mr. Specter. What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic fragment?

Dr. Gregory. This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight thereabouts, not much more than that.

Mr. Specter. Could that fragment, in your opinion, have caused the wound which you observed in the Governor's left thigh?

Dr. Gregory. I do not believe it could have. The nature of the wound in the left thigh was such that so small a fragment as this would not have produced it and still have gone no further into the soft tissues than it did.

Mr. Specter. Would the wound that you observed in the soft tissue of the left thigh be consistent with having been made by a bullet such as that identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Dr. Gregory. I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing.

I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather.

Mr. Specter. Had the missile gone through his wrist in reverse, would it likely have continued in that same course until it reached his thigh, in your opinion?

126 Dr. Gregory. The missile that struck his wrist had sufficient energy left after it passed through the radius to emerge from the soft tissues on the under surface of the skin. It could have had enough to partially enter his thigh, but not completely.

Mr. Specter. In the way which his thigh was wounded?

Dr. Gregory. I believe so; yes.

Mr. Specter. What did you do, Dr. Gregory, with the missile fragments which you removed from his wrists?

Dr. Gregory. Those were turned over to the operating room nurse in attendance with instructions that they should be presented to the appropriate authorities present, probably a member of the Texas Rangers, but that is as far as I went with it myself.

Mr. Specter. I now show you a part of a document heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 392, a two-page report which bears your name on the second page, and I ask you if this is the report you made of the operation on Governor Connally?

Dr. Gregory. It appears to be the same; yes.

Mr. Specter. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct?

Dr. Gregory. In essence they are true and correct; yes.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Gregory, does that report show the name of the nurse to whom you turned over the metallic fragments?

Dr. Gregory. There are two nurses who are identified on this page. One is the scrub nurse, Miss Rutherford, and the second is the circulating nurse, Mrs. Schrader.

Mr. Specter. And is one or the other the nurse to whom you turned over the metallic fragments?

Dr. Gregory. I do not remember precisely to whom I handed them. I do not know.

Mr. Specter. I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No. 679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back, and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.

Dr. Gregory. They do not in that, though the location of the wounds on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that entrance and exit terms have been reversed.

Mr. Specter. Would you delete the inaccurate statement and insert the accurate statement with your initials by the side of the changes, please?

Will you now describe the operative procedures——

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question that relates, I think, to your question. Assuming that the wrist wound and the thigh wound were caused by the same bullet, would you agree that the approximate trajectory is as indicated in this chart where Dr. Shaw has drawn a trajectory that he assumed taking into account three bullets instead of two? I am only asking you about the two wounds, namely the wrist and the thigh.

Dr. Gregory. It would strike me, sir, that the trajectory to the wrist and the subsequent wound of the thigh could be lined up easily in a sitting position.

Now, those two could probably be lined up with a trajectory of the wound in the chest as well, but this would require a more precise positioning of the individual.

Mr. Dulles. But do you agree in general, taking the two wounds with which you are particularly familiar, that that would have been the trajectory as between the wrist and the thigh as drawn on that chart?

Dr. Gregory. Yes, essentially so; yes, sir.

Mr. Specter. For the record, how was that chart identified. Doctor?

Dr. Gregory. This is identified as Commission Exhibit 689.

Mr. Specter. Would you outline briefly the operative procedures which you performed on the Governor, please?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. The wound on the dorsum of the Governor's wrist was treated by debridement, which means to remove by sharp surgical excision all contaminated tissues and those which are presumed to have been rendered nonviable by force. This meant removing a certain amount of skin, subcutaneous127 tissue, fat, and all of the particles of clothing, threads of cloth, which we could identify; and, incidentally, a bit of metal or two.

That wound was subsequently left open; in other words, we did not suture it or sew it together. This is done in deference to potential infection which we know often to be associated with retained organic material such as cloth.

The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged. The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound was then sutured, closed.

After this, the fracture was manipulated into a hopefully respectable position of the fragments, and a cast was applied, and some traction, using rubber bands, was applied to the finger and the thumb in order to better hold the fracture fragments in their reduced or repositioned state.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Gregory, could all of the rounds which were inflicted on the Governor, that is, those described by Dr. Shaw, and those which you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?

Dr. Gregory. I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a single missile under these specifications.

Mr. Specter. Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been described here today?

Dr. Gregory. I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished.

Mr. Specter. Why do you say that, sir?

Dr. Gregory. I think that to pass through the soft tissues of the President would certainly have decelerated the missile to some extent. Having then struck the Governor and shattered a rib, it is further decelerated, yet it has presumably retained sufficient energy to smash a radius.

Moreover, it escaped the forearm to penetrate at least the skin and fascia of the thigh, and I am not persuaded that this is very probable. I would have to yield to possibility. I am sure that those who deal with ballistics can do better for you than I can in this regard.

Mr. Specter. What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the thigh?

Dr. Gregory. I think that is a much more plausible possibility or probability.

Mr. Specter. How about the likelihood of passing through the President and through the Governor's chest, but missing his wrist and passing into his thigh?

Dr. Gregory. That, too, is plausible, I believe.

Mr. Specter. Are there any other circumstances of this event which have been related to you, including the striking of the President's head by a third bullet, which would account in any way, under any possibility, in your view, for the fracture of the right wrist which was apparently caused by a missile?

Dr. Gregory. May I refer to this morning's discussions?

Mr. Specter. Yes, please do.

Dr. Gregory. This morning I was shown two additional missiles or portions of missiles which are rather grossly distorted.

Mr. Specter. Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the missiles which have heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570.

128 Dr. Gregory. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.

These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.

Mr. Dulles. In his wrist?

Dr. Gregory. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. And in his thigh?

Dr. Gregory. I don't know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile.

Mr. Specter. I now hand you an exhibit heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 388, which depicts the artist's drawing of the passage of a bullet through the President's head, and I ask you, first of all, if you have had an opportunity to observe that prior to this moment?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. I saw this illustration this morning.

Mr. Specter. Well, if you assume that the trajectory through the President's head was represented by the path of a 6.5-mm. bullet which fragmented upon striking the skull, both the rear and again the top, is it possible that a fragment coming at the rate of 2,000 feet per second from the distance of approximately 160 to 230 feet, could have produced a fragment which then proceeded to strike the Governor's wrist and inflict the damage which you have heretofore described?

Dr. Gregory. I think it is plausible that the bullet, having struck the President's head, may have broken into more than one fragment. I think you apprised me of the fact that it did, in fact, disperse into a number of fragments, and they took tangential directions from the original path apparently.

Mr. Specter. Assuming the fact that the autopsy surgeon presented for the record a statement that the fragments moved forward into the vicinity of the President's right eye, as the diagram shows, that there were approximately 40 star-like fragments running on a line through the head on the trajectory, and that there was substantial fragmentation of the bullet as it passed through the head, what is your view about that?

Dr. Gregory. I think it is possible that a fragment from that particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right arm.

Mr. Specter. Did you have an opportunity to observe the slides and films commonly referred to as the Zapruder film this morning?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; I saw those this morning.

Mr. Specter. Did they shed any light on the conclusions—as to your conclusions with respect to the wounds of the Governor and what you observed in the treatment of the Governor?

Dr. Gregory. Yes, to this extent. It seemed to me in frames marked 234, 235, and 236, Governor Connally was in a position such that a single missile entered his back, could have passed through his chest, through his right forearm, and struck his thigh. That is a possibility.

I looked at the film very carefully to see if I could relate the position of Governor Connally's right arm to the movement when the missile struck the President's head, presumably the third missile, and I think that the record will show that those are obscured to a degree that the Governor's right arm cannot be seen. In the Governor's own words, he did not realize his right arm had been injured, and he has no idea when it was struck. This is historical fact to us at the time of the initial interview with him.

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask just one question? If a bullet had merely struck the Governor's arm without previously having struck anything else, is it conceivable that impediment of the bone that it hit there would be consistent with merely a flesh wound on the thigh? Do you follow me?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; I follow you. I would doubt it on the basis of the kind of wound that the Governor has. Now the kind of wound in the Governor's right forearm is the kind that indicates there was not an excessive amount of energy expended there, which means either that the missile producing it had dissipated much of its energy, either that or there was an impediment to it someplace else along the way.

129 It is simply that there was not enough energy loss there, and one would expect a soft tissue injury beyond that point to be of considerably greater magnitude.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Gregory, did I take your deposition back on March 23, 1964, at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; you did.

Mr. Specter. Have you had an opportunity to review that deposition prior to today?

Dr. Gregory. Yes; I have looked it over.

Mr. Specter. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Gregory, that you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Dr. Gregory. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. Dulles. Are you in agreement with the deposition as given?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. I don't think there are any—there is any need to change any of the essence of the deposition. There are a few typographical errors and word changes one might make, but the essence is essentially as I gave it.

Mr. Specter. I have no further questions, sir.

Senator Cooper. I would just ask this question. In your long experience of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have you acquired, through that, knowledge of ballistics and characteristics of bullets?

Dr. Gregory. Within a very limited sphere.

Senator Cooper. I know your testimony indicates that.

Dr. Gregory. I have been concerned with the behavior of missiles in contact with tissues, but I am not very knowledgeable about the design of a missile nor how many grains of powder there are behind it. My concern was with the dissipation of the energy which it carries and the havoc that it wreaks when it goes off.

Senator Cooper. You derived that knowledge from your actual study of wounds and their treatment?

Dr. Gregory. Study of wounds together with what I have read from the Army proving grounds, various centers, for exploring this kind of thing. I don't own a gun myself.

Mr. McCloy. You are from Texas and you do not own a gun?

Dr. Gregory. Well, sir, I went from Indiana to Texas. My father gave me a .410 shotgun, but he took it away from me shortly after he gave it to me.

The Chairman. Doctor, thank you very much.

Dr. Gregory. Thank you very much, sir, Mr. Chief Justice.

(A short recess was taken.)

The Chairman. Governor, the Commission will come to order, please.

TESTIMONY OF GOV. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

Governor, this Commission has met today for the purpose of taking the testimony of you and Mrs. Connally concerning the sad affair that you were part of. If you will raise your right hand, please, and be sworn. Do 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?

Governor Connally. I do.

The Chairman. You may be seated, Governor. Mr. Specter will conduct the examination.

Mr. Specter. Will you state your full name for the record, please?

Governor Connally. John Bowden Connally.

Mr. Specter. What is your official position with the State of Texas, sir?

Governor Connally. I am now Governor of the State of Texas.

Mr. Specter. Did you have occasion to be in the automobile which carried President John F. Kennedy through Dallas, Tex., back on November 22, 1963.

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Specter. Will you outline briefly, please, the circumstances leading up to the President's planning a trip to Texas in November of last year?

Governor Connally. You want to go back to—how far back do you want to130 go, a few days immediately prior to the trip or a month before, or all of the circumstances surrounding it?

Mr. Specter. Well, just a very brief picture leading up to the trip, Governor, starting with whatever point you think would be most appropriate to give some outline of the origin of the trip.

Governor Connally. Well, it had been thought that he should come to Texas for a period of many months, as a matter of fact. There was some thought given to it during 1962. The trip kept being delayed.

Finally in the fall of 1963 it was decided that he definitely should come, or should come in the fall of last year as opposed to waiting until this year, when his appearance might have more political overtones.

So I came up, I have forgotten the exact date, around the middle of October and talked to him about it, discussed the details, asked him what he would like to do.

He said he would like to do whatever he could do that was agreeable with me; it was agreeable with me that he more or less trust me to plan the trip for him, to tell him where he would like to go. About that time some thought was being given to having four fundraising dinners. His attitude on that was he wouldn't prefer that. He felt that the appearances would not be too good, that he would much prefer to have one if we were going to have any. I told him this was entirely consistent with my own thoughts. We ought not to have more than one fundraising dinner. If we did, it ought to be in Austin. If we could do it, I would like for him to see and get into as many areas of the State as possible while he was there.

He, on his own, had made a commitment to go to the dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas, which was being given the night of the 21st in Houston, so shortly, really before he got there, and when I say shortly I would say 2 weeks before he came, the plans were altered a little bit in that he landed originally in San Antonio in the afternoon about 1:30 of the afternoon of the 21st. From there we went to Houston, attended the Thomas dinner that night at about 8 o'clock.

After that we flew to Fort Worth, spent the night at the Texas Hotel, had a breakfast there the next morning, and left about 10 o'clock, 10:30, for the flight over to Dallas.

Mr. Specter. In what vehicle did you fly from Fort Worth to Dallas?

Governor Connally. In Air Force 1.

Mr. Specter. And approximately what time did you arrive at Love Field, Tex.

Governor Connally. I would say about 11:50, 12:00, shortly before noon. I believe the luncheon was planned for 12:30, and we were running on schedule. I believe it was 11:50.

Mr. Specter. Would you describe for us briefly the ceremonies at Love Field on the arrival of the President?

Governor Connally. Well, we, as usual, the President had a receiving line there. I conducted Mrs. Kennedy through the receiving line and introduced her to about 15 or 17 people who were there as an official welcoming committee.

The President came right behind, was introduced to them, and then he and Mrs. Kennedy both went over to the railing and spoke to a number of people who were standing around, who visited for 5 or 10 minutes, and then we got into the car as we had customarily done at each of the stops, and Mrs. Connally and I got on the jump seats, and with the President and Mrs. Kennedy on the back seat, and took off for the long motorcade downtown.

Mr. Specter. I will now hand you a photograph which I have marked "Commission Exhibit 697," Governor Connally, and ask you if that accurately depicts the occupants of the car as you were starting that motorcade trip through Dallas?

Governor Connally. Yes; it does.

Mr. Specter. Do you know the identities of the men who are riding in the front seat of the car?

Governor Connally. Yes. Roy Kellerman is on the right front. He is a Secret Service agent, and Bill—I can't remember the other's name——

Mr. Specter. Greer.

131 I hand you another photograph here, Governor, marked as "Commission Exhibit 698," and ask you if that is a picture of the President's automobile during its ride through the downtown area of Dallas?

Governor Connally. Yes; I assume it is. This is certainly the President's automobile, and this is the precise position that each of us occupied in the ride through Dallas. It was the same position, and could be a photograph, of any number of places that we went. But I was seated in the jump seat immediately in front of him, and Mrs. Connally was seated immediately in front of Mrs. Kennedy in the jump seat, and Roy Kellerman was immediately in front of me.

Mr. Specter. Mr. Chief Justice, may I move at this time the admission into evidence of Exhibits 697 and 698?

The Chairman. They may be admitted.

(The items marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 697 and 698 were received in evidence.)

Mr. Specter. What was the relative height of the jump seats, Governor, with respect to the seat of the President and Mrs. Kennedy immediately to your rear?

Governor Connally. They were somewhat lower. The back seat of that particular Lincoln limousine, which is a specially designed and built automobile, as you know, for the President of the United States, has an adjustable back seat. It can be lowered or raised. I would say the back seat was approximately 6 inches higher than the jump seats on which Mrs. Connally and I sat.

Mr. Specter. Do you know for certain whether or not the movable back seat was elevated at the time?

Governor Connally. No; I could not be sure of it, although I know there were—there was a time or two when he did elevate it, and I think beyond question on most of the ride in San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, and Dallas, it was elevated. For a while—the reason I know is—I sat on the back seat with him during part of the ride, particularly in San Antonio, not in Dallas, but in San Antonio. The wind was blowing, and we were traveling fairly fast, and Mrs. Kennedy preferred to sit on the jump seat, and I was sitting on the back seat part of the time, and the seat was elevated, and I think it was on substantially all the trip.

Mr. Specter. Was the portion elevated, that where only the President sat?

Governor Connally. No; the entire back seat.

Mr. Specter. Describe in a general way the size and reaction of the crowd on the motorcade route, if you would, please, Governor?

Governor Connally. When we got into Dallas, there was quite a large crowd at the airport to greet their President, I would say several thousand people.

Part way downtown, in the thinly populated areas of Dallas, where we traveled, the crowds were not thick and were somewhat restrained in their reaction. By restrained, I mean they were not wildly enthusiastic, but they were grown people. There was a mature crowd as we went through some of the residential areas. They applauded and they were obviously very friendly in their conduct.

But as we, of course, approached downtown, the downtown area of Dallas, going down the main street, the crowds were tremendous. They were stacked from the curb and even outside the curb, back against the back walls. It was a huge crowd. I would estimate there were 250,000 people that had lined the streets that day as we went down.

The further you went the more enthusiastic the response was, and the reception. It was a tremendous reception, to the point where just as we turned on Houston Street off of Main, and turned on Houston, down by the courthouse, Mrs. Connally remarked to the President, "Well, Mr. President, you can't say there aren't some people in Dallas who love you." And the President replied, "That is very obvious," or words to that effect.

So I would say the reception that he got in Dallas was equal to, if not more, enthusiastic than those he had received in Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston.

132 Mr. Specter. Are there any other conversations which stand out in your mind on the portion of the motorcade trip through Dallas itself?

Governor Connally. No; actually we had more or less desultory conversation as we rode along. The crowds were thick all the way down on both sides, and all of us were, particularly the President and Mrs. Kennedy were, acknowledging the crowds. They would turn frequently, smiling, waving to the people, and the opportunity for conversation was limited. So there was no particularly significant conversation or conversations which took place. It was, as I say, pretty desultory conversation.

Mr. Specter. Did the automobile stop at any point during this procession?

Governor Connally. Yes; it did. There were at least two occasions on which the automobile stopped in Dallas and, perhaps, a third. There was one little girl, I believe it was, who was carrying a sign saying, "Mr. President, will you please stop and shake hands with me," or some that was the import of the sign, and he just told the driver to stop, and he did stop and shook hands, and, of course, he was immediately mobbed by a bunch of youngsters, and the Secret Service men from the car following us had to immediately come up and wedge themselves in between the crowd and the car to keep them back away from the automobile, and it was a very short stop.

At another point along the route, a Sister, a Catholic nun, was there, obviously from a Catholic school, with a bunch of little children, and he stopped and spoke to her and to the children; and I think there was one other stop on the way downtown, but I don't recall the precise occasion. But I know there were two, but I think there was still another one.

Mr. Specter. Are there any other events prior to the time of the shooting itself which stand out in your mind on the motorcade trip through Dallas?

Governor Connally. No; not that have any particular significance.

Mr. Specter. As to the comment which Mrs. Connally had made to President Kennedy which you just described, where on the motor trip was that comment made, if you recall?

Governor Connally. This was just before we turned on Elm Street, after we turned off of Main.

Mr. Specter. Onto Houston?

Governor Connally. Onto Houston, right by the courthouse before we turned left onto Elm Street, almost at the end of the motorcade, and almost, I would say, perhaps a minute before the fatal shooting.

Mr. Specter. What was the condition of the crowd at that juncture of the motorcade, sir?

Governor Connally. At that particular juncture, when she made this remark, the crowd was still very thick and very enthusiastic. It began to thin immediately after we turned onto Elm Street. We could look ahead and see that the crowd was beginning to thin along the banks, just east, I guess of the overpass.

Mr. Specter. Was there any difficulty in hearing such a conversational comment?

Governor Connally. No, no; we could talk without any, and hear very clearly, without any difficulty, without any particular strain. We didn't do it again because in trying to carry on a conversation it would be apparent to those who were the spectators on the sidewalk, and we didn't want to leave the impression we were not interested in them, and so we just didn't carry on a conversation, but we could do so without any trouble.

Mr. Specter. As the automobile turned left onto Elm from Houston, what did occur there, Governor?

Governor Connally. We had—we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could—I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right133 shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately—the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

Mr. Specter. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor Connally. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this—that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and, in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest, that I had probably been fatally hit.

So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to—I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again—it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap——

Mr. Specter. Nellie is Mrs. Connally?

Governor Connally. Mrs. Connally. When she pulled me over into her lap, she could tell I was still breathing and moving, and she said, "Don't worry. Be quiet. You are going to be all right." She just kept telling me I was going to be all right.

After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, "Bill, get out of line." And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said, "Get us to a hospital quick." I assumed he was saying this to the patrolman, the motorcycle police who were leading us.

At about that time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of the line, and I lost consciousness and didn't regain consciousness until we got to the hospital.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, I hand you a photograph, marked Commission Exhibit 699, which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza depicting the intersection of Houston and Elm, and ask you if you would take a look at that photograph and mark for us, if you would, with one of the red pencils at your right, the position of the President's automobile as nearly as you can where it was at the time the shooting first started.

Governor Connally. I would say it would be about where this truck is here. It looks like a truck. I would say about in that neighborhood.

Mr. Specter. Would you place your initials, Governor, by the mark that you made there?

134 Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor Connally. No; I did not.

Mr. Specter. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?

Governor Connally. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know. 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

Mr. Specter. What was your impression then as to the source of the shot?

Governor Connally. From back over my right shoulder which, again, was where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound as coming back over my right shoulder.

Mr. Specter. At an elevation?

Governor Connally. At an elevation. I would have guessed at an elevation.

Mr. Specter. Excuse me.

Governor Connally. Well, that is all.

Mr. Specter. Did you have an impression as to the source of the third shot?

Governor Connally. The same. I would say the same.

Mr. Specter. How fast was the President's automobile proceeding at that time?

Governor Connally. I would guess between 20 and 22 miles an hour, and it is a guess because I didn't look at the speedometer, but I would say in that range.

Mr. Specter. Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?

Governor Connally. He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.

Mr. Specter. Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?

Governor Connally. Yes; I have to—I would say it was after the third shot when she said, "They have killed my husband."

Mr. Specter. Did she say anything more?

Governor Connally. Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got his brains in my hand."

Mr. Specter. Did that constitute everything that she said at that time?

Governor Connally. That is all I heard her say.

Mr. Specter. Did Mrs. Connally say anything further at this time?

Governor Connally. All she said to me was, after I was hit when she pulled me over in her lap, she said, "Be quiet, you are going to be all right. Be still, you are going to be all right." She just kept repeating that.

Mr. Specter. Was anything further stated by Special Agent Roy Kellerman other than that which you have already testified about?

Governor Connally. No; those are the only two remarks that I heard him make.

Mr. Specter. Was any statement made by Special Agent William Greer at or about the time of the shooting?

Governor Connally. No; I did not hear Bill say anything.

Mr. Specter. Did you observe any reaction by President Kennedy after the shooting?

Governor Connally. No; I did not see him.

Mr. Specter. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?

Governor Connally. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them.

135 Mr. Specter. When you turned to your right, Governor Connally, immediately after you heard the first shot, what did you see on that occasion?

Governor Connally. Nothing of any significance except just people out on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw men, women, and children.

Mr. Specter. Do you have any estimate as to the distance which the President's automobile traveled during the shooting?

Governor Connally. No; I hadn't thought about it, but I would suppose in 10 to 12 seconds, I suppose you travel a couple of hundred feet.

Mr. Specter. Did you observe any bullet or fragments of bullet strike the windshield?

Governor Connally. No.

Mr. Specter. Did you observe any bullet or fragments of bullet strike the metal chrome?

Governor Connally. No.

Mr. Specter. Did you experience any sensation of being struck any place other than that which you have described on your chest?

Governor Connally. No.

Mr. Specter. What other wounds, if any, did you sustain?

Governor Connally. A fractured wrist and a wound in the thigh, just above the knee.

Mr. Specter. What thigh?

Governor Connally. Left thigh; just above the knee.

Mr. Specter. Where on the wrist were you injured, sir?

Governor Connally. I don't know how you describe it.

Mr. Specter. About how many inches up from the wrist joint?

Governor Connally. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on the inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out almost in the center of the wrist on the underside.

Mr. Specter. About an inch from the base of the palm?

Governor Connally. About an inch from the base of the palm, a little less than an inch, three-quarters of an inch.

Mr. Specter. Were you conscious of receiving that wound on the wrist at the time you sustained it?

Governor Connally. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. Specter. When did you first know you were wounded in the right wrist?

Governor Connally. When I came to in the hospital on Saturday, the next morning, and I looked up and my arm was tied up in a hospital bed, and I said, "What is wrong with my arm?" And they told me then that I had a shattered wrist, and that is when I also found out I had a wound in the thigh.

Mr. Specter. Can you describe the nature of the wound in the thigh?

Governor Connally. Well, just a raw, open wound, looked like a fairly deep penetration.

Mr. Specter. Indicating about 2 inches?

Governor Connally. No; I would say about an inch, an inch and a quarter long is all; fairly wide, I would say a quarter of an inch wide, maybe more, a third of an inch wide, and about an inch and a quarter, an inch and a half long.

Mr. Specter. Were you conscious that you had been wounded on the left thigh at the time it occurred?

Governor Connally. No.

Mr. Specter. Did you first notice that in the hospital on the following day also?

Governor Connally. Yes.

Mr. Specter. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?

Governor Connally. The second one.

Mr. Specter. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?

Governor Connally. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached136 that far, and after I heard that shot. I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.

Mr. Specter. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?

Governor Connally. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.

Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather—I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it—so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.

Mr. Specter. What was the nature of the exit wound on the front side of your chest, Governor?

Governor Connally. I would say, if the Committee would be interested, I would just as soon you look at it. Is there any objection to any of you looking at it?

The Chairman. No.

Governor Connally. You can tell yourself.

I would say, to describe it for the record, however, that it, the bullet, went in my back just below the right shoulder blade, at just about the point that the right arm joins the shoulder, right in that groove, and exited about 2 inches toward the center of the body from the right nipple of my chest. I can identify these for you.

The bullet went in here—see if I properly describe that—about the juncture of the right arm and the shoulder.

Mr. Specter. Let the record show that the Governor has removed his shirt and we can view the wound on the back which he is pointing toward.

Governor Connally. The other two are tubes that were inserted in my back by the doctors.

Mr. Specter. Dr. Shaw is present and he can, perhaps, describe with identifiable precision where the wounds are.

Dr. Shaw. There is the wound of the drain that has been specifically described. It was not as large as the scar indicated because in cleaning up the ragged edges of the wound, some of the skin was excised in order to make a cleaner incision. This scar——

Mr. Specter. Will you describe the location, Doctor, of that wound on the Governor's back?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. It is on the right shoulder, I will feel it, just lateral to the shoulder blade, the edge of which is about 2 centimeters from the wound, and just above and slightly medial to the crease formed by the axilla or the armpit, the arm against the chest wall.

Mr. Specter. What other scars are shown there on the Governor's back?

Dr. Shaw. The other scars are surgically induced. This is the incision that was made to drain the depth of the subscapular space.

Mr. Specter. And there you are indicating an incision at what location, please?

Dr. Shaw. Just at the angle of the shoulder blade. Here is the angle of the shoulder blade.

These incisions were never closed by suture. These incisions were left open and they healed by what we call secondary intention, because in this case there was what we call a Penrose drain, which is a soft-rubber drain going up into the depths of the shoulder to allow any material to drain. This was to prevent infection. The other small opening was the one in which the tube was placed through the eighth interspace.

137 Mr. Specter. Indicate its location, please, Doctor, on his back.

Dr. Shaw. This is lower on the right back in what we refer to as the posterior axillary line, roughly this line.

Mr. Specter. There you are drawing a vertical, virtually vertical line?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. It is on the right back, but getting close to the lateral portion of the chest. This also was a stab wound which was never sutured. There was a rubber drain through this that led to what we call a water seal bottle to allow for drainage of the inside of the chest.

Mr. Specter. Indicating again the second medically inflicted wound.

Dr. Shaw. Yes; that is right.

Mr. Specter. Will you now, Doctor, describe the location of the wound of exit on the Governor's chest, please?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. The wound of exit was beneath and medial to the nipple. Here was this V that I was indicating. It is almost opposite that. At the time of the wound there was a ragged oval hole here at least 5 centimeters in diameter, but the skin edges were excised, and here again this scar does not look quite as nice as it does during the more lateral portion of the surgically induced incision, because this skin was brought together under a little tension, and there is a little separation there.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe the entire scar there, Doctor, for the record, please?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. The entire surgical incision runs from the anterior portion of the chest just lateral to the, we call it, the condral arch, the V formed by the condral arch, and then extends laterally below the nipple, running up, curving up, into the posterior axillary portion or the posterior lateral wall of the chest.

Mr. Specter. What is the total length of the scar, Doctor?

Dr. Shaw. Twenty centimeters, about.

Mr. Dulles. Where was the center of the bullet wound itself in that scar about?

Dr. Shaw. Here.

Mr. Dulles. There?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. All of the rest of this incision was necessary to gain access to the depths of the wound for the debridement, for removing all of the destroyed tissue because of the passage of the bullet.

Mr. Dulles. Would you give us in your hand the area of declination from the entry to the——

Dr. Shaw. This way.

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

Mr. Specter. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor?

Dr. Shaw. We are talking about the angle now, of course, with the horizontal, and I would say—you don't have a caliper there, do you?

Dr. Gregory. Yes.

Dr. Shaw. I was going to guess somewhere between 25 and 30.

Mr. Dulles. Sorry to ask these questions.

Governor Connally. That is fine. I think it is an excellent question.

Dr. Shaw. Well, this puts it right at 25.

Mr. Specter. That is the angle then of elevation as you are measuring it?

Dr. Shaw. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the posterior wound over the anterior wound.

The Chairman. The course being downward back to front?

Dr. Shaw. Yes.

Governor Connally. Back to front.

The Chairman. Yes.

Dr. Shaw. At the time of the initial examination, as I described, this portion of the Governor's chest was mobile, it was moving in and out because of the softening of the chest, and that was the reason I didn't want the skin incision to be directly over that, because to get better healing it is better to have a firm pad of tissue rather than having the incision directly over the softened area.

Mr. Dulles. Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were seated now the way he was in the chair?

Dr. Shaw. That is a good question. Of course, we don't know exactly whether138 he was back or tipped forward. But I don't think there is going to be much difference.

Mr. Dulles. Were you seated in about that way, Governor?

Governor Connally. Mr. Dulles, I would say I was in about this position when I was hit, with my face approximately looking toward you, 20 off of center.

Dr. Shaw. Yes; I got 27. That didn't make much difference.

Mr. Specter. Is that reading taken then while the Governor is in a seated position, Doctor?

Dr. Shaw. Yes, seated; yes.

Representative Boggs. May I ask a question? How would his hand have been under those circumstances, Doctor, for the bullet to hit his wrist?

Dr. Gregory. I think it fits very well, really, remembering at the other end the trajectory is right here, and there would be no problem to pose his hands in that fashion, and if you will note, you can see it best from over here really, because you did see that the point of entry, and you can visualize his thigh, there is no problem to visualize the trajectory.

Mr. Dulles. Would you be naturally holding your hand in that position?

Dr. Gregory. It could be any place.

Governor Connally. It could be anywhere on that line, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. Chief Justice, you see this is the leg.

Dr. Shaw. Of course, the wound is much smaller than this.

Mr. Specter. Let the record show the Governor has displayed the left thigh showing the scar caused by the entry of the missile in the left thigh.

Dr. Gregory, will you describe the locale of that?

Dr. Gregory. Yes. This scar, excisional scar, is a better term, if I may just interject that——

Mr. Specter. Please do.

Dr. Gregory. The excisional scar to the Governor's thigh is located at a point approximately 10 or 12 centimeters above the adductor tubercule of the femur, placing it at the juncture of the middle and distal third of his thigh.

Mr. Specter. In lay language, Doctor, about how far is that up from the knee area?

Dr. Gregory. Five inches, 6 inches.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, can you recreate the position that you were sitting in in the automobile, as best you can recollect, at the time you think you were struck?

Governor Connally. I think, having turned to look over my right shoulder, then revolving to look over my left shoulder, I threw my right wrist over on my left leg.

Mr. Specter. And in the position you are seated now, with your right wrist on your left leg, with your little finger being an inch or two from your knee?

Governor Connally. From the knee.

Mr. Specter. And, Dr. Gregory, would that be in approximate alignment which has been characterized on Commission Exhibit——

Dr. Gregory. I think it fits reasonably well; yes, sir.

Mr. Specter. In a moment here I can get that exhibit.

Mr. Dulles. May I ask a question in the meantime?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. You turned to the right, as I recall your testimony, because you heard the sound coming from the right?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. How did you happen to turn then to the left, do you remember why that was?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; I know exactly. I turned to the right both to see, because it was an instinctive movement, because that is where the sound came from, but even more important, I immediately thought it was a rifleshot, I immediately thought of an assassination attempt, and I turned to see if I could see the President, to see if he was all right. Failing to see him over my right shoulder, I turned to look over my left shoulder.

Mr. Dulles. I see.

Governor Connally. Into the back seat, and I never completed that turn. I139 got no more than substantially looking forward, a little bit to the left of forward, when I got hit.

Representative Boggs. May I ask one of the doctors a question? What is the incidence of recovery from a wound of this type?

Dr. Gregory. I will defer the answer to Dr. Shaw. From the wrist, excellent so far as recovery is concerned. Functionally, recovery is going to be good, too, and Dr. Shaw can take on the other one.

Dr. Shaw. We never had any doubt about the Governor's recovery. We knew what we had to do and we felt he could recover. I think I indicated that to Mrs. Connally.

Governor Connally. As soon as you got into the chest and found out what it was.

Representative Boggs. But, there was a very serious wound, was there not, Doctor?

Dr. Shaw. Yes. It was both a shocking and painful wound, and the effects of the wound, the immediate effects of the wound, were very dangerous as far as Governor Connally was concerned, because he had what we call a sucking wound of the chest. This would not allow him to breathe. I think instinctively what happened, while he was riding in the car on the way to the hospital, he probably had his arm across, and he may have instinctively closed that sucking area to some extent. But they had to immediately put an occlusive dressing on it as soon as he got inside to keep him from sucking air in and out of the right chest.

Representative Boggs. Had hospitalization been delayed for about another half hour or so——

Dr. Shaw. That is speculation, but I don't think he could have maintained breathing, sufficient breathing, for a half hour with that type of wound. It is a little speculation. It would depend on how well he could protect himself. We have had instances where by putting their jackets around them like this, they could occlude this, and go for a considerable period of time. Airmen during the war instinctively protected themselves in this way.

Representative Boggs. You have no doubt about his physical ability to serve as Governor?

Dr. Shaw. None whatever. [Laughter.]

Senator Cooper. I am just trying to remember whether we asked you, Doctor, if you probed the wound in the thigh to see how deep it was.

Dr. Gregory. I did not, Senator. Dr. Tom Shires at our institution attended that wound, and I have his description to go on, what he found, what he had written, and his description is that it did not penetrate the thigh very deeply, just to the muscle, but not beyond that.

Representative Boggs. Just one other question of the Doctor. Having looked at the wound, there is no doubt in either of your minds that that bullet came from the rear, is there?

Dr. Gregory. There has never been any doubt in my mind about the origin of the missile; no.

Representative Boggs. And in yours?

Dr. Shaw. No.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, this is the exhibit which I was referring to, being 689. Was that your approximate position except—that is the alinement with your right hand being on your left leg as you have just described?

Governor Connally. No; it looks like my right hand is up on my chest. But I don't know. I can't say with any degree of certainty where my right hand was, frankly.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally——

Governor Connally. It could have been up on my chest, it could have been suspended in the air, it could have been down on my leg, it could have been anywhere. I just don't remember.

I obviously, I suppose, like anyone else, wound up the next day realizing I was hit in three places, and I was not conscious of having been hit but by one bullet, so I tried to reconstruct how I could have been hit in three places by the same bullet, and I merely, I know it penetrated from the back through the chest first.

140 I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my right hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have happened that way at all.

Mr. Specter. Were your knees higher on the jump seat than they would be on a normal chair such as you are sitting on?

Governor Connally. I would say it was not unlike this, with the exception the knees might be slightly higher, perhaps a half an inch to an inch higher.

Mr. Dulles. In this photograph you happen to have your right arm on the side of the car. I don't know whether you recall that. That is Commission Exhibit 698. That just happened to be one pose at one particular time?

Governor Connally. Yes; I don't think there is any question, Mr. Dulles, at various times we were turned in every direction. We had arms extended out of the car, on the side.

Mr. Dulles. That was taken earlier, I believe. Was that on Main Street? Where was that taken?

Representative Boggs. I wonder if I might ask a question?

The Chairman. Go right ahead.

Representative Boggs. This is a little bit off the subject, but it is pretty well established that the Governor was shot and he has recovered. Do you have any reason to believe there was any conspiracy afoot for somebody to assassinate you?

Governor Connally. None whatever.

Representative Boggs. Had you ever received any threat from Lee Harvey Oswald of any kind?

Governor Connally. No.

Representative Boggs. Did you know him?

Governor Connally. No.

Representative Boggs. Had you ever seen him?

Governor Connally. No.

Representative Boggs. Have you ever had any belief of, subsequent to the assassination of President Kennedy and your own injury, that there was a conspiracy here of any kind?

Governor Connally. None whatever.

Representative Boggs. What is your theory about what happened?

Governor Connally. Well, it is pure theory based on nothing more than what information is available to everyone, and probably less is available to me, certainly less than is available to you here on this Commission.

But I think you had an individual here with a completely warped, demented mind who, for whatever reason, wanted to do two things: First, to vent his anger, his hate, against many people and many things in a dramatic fashion that would carve for him, in however infamous a fashion, a niche in the history books of this country. And I think he deliberately set out to do just what he did, and that is the only thing that I can think of.

You ask me my theory, and that is my theory, and certainly not substantiated by any facts.

Representative Boggs. Going on again, Governor, and again using the word "theory," do you have any reason to believe that there was any connection between Oswald and Ruby?

Governor Connally. I have no reason to believe that there was; no, Congressman. By the same token, if you ask me do I have any reason not to believe it, I would have to answer the same, I don't know.

Representative Boggs. Yes.

Governor Connally. I just don't have any knowledge or any information about the background of either, and I am just not in a position to say.

Mr. Dulles. You recall your correspondence with Oswald in connection with Marine matters, when he thought you were still Secretary of the Navy?

Governor Connally. After this was all over, I do, Mr. Dulles. As I recall, he wrote me a letter asking that his dishonorable discharge be corrected. But at the time he wrote the letter, if he had any reason about it at all, or shortly thereafter, he would have recognized that I had resigned as Secretary of the Navy a month before I got the letter, so it would really take a peculiar mind,141 it seems to me, to harbor any grudge as a result of that when I had resigned as Secretary prior to the receipt of the letter.

Mr. Dulles. I think I can say without violating any confidence, that there is nothing in the record to indicate that there was—in fact, Marina, the wife, testified, in fact, to the contrary. There was no animus against you on the part of Oswald, as you——

Governor Connally. I have wondered, of course, in my own mind as to whether or not there could have conceivably been anything, and the only—I suppose like any person at that particular moment, I represented authority to him. Perhaps he was in a rebellious spirit enough to where I was as much a target as anyone else. But that is the only conceivable basis on which I can assume that he was deliberately trying to hit me.

Representative Boggs. You have no doubt about the fact that he was deliberately trying to hit you?

Governor Connally. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.

On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.

The Chairman. Have you seen the moving pictures, Governor?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Specter. Was there any point of exit on your thigh wound?

Governor Connally. No.

Mr. Specter. (to Dr. Gregory.) Would you give the precise condition of the right wrist, and cover the thigh, too?

Dr. Gregory. The present state of the wound on his wrist indicates that the linear scar made in the course of the excision is well healed; that its upper limb is about——

Governor Connally. I thinks he wants you to describe the position of it.

Mr. Specter. Yes; the position.

Dr. Gregory. I was about to do that. The upper limb of it is about 5 centimeters above the wrist joint, and curves around toward the thumb distally to about a centimeter above the wrist joint.

Mr. Specter. What is the total length of that?

Dr. Gregory. The length of that excisional scar is about 4 centimeters, an inch and a half.

Mr. Specter. What is the wound appearing to be on the palmer side?

Dr. Gregory. The wound on the palmer side of the wrist is now converted to a well-healed linear scar approximately one-half inch in length, and located about three-quarters of an inch above the distal flexion crease.

Representative Boggs. What is the prognosis for complete return of function there?

Dr. Gregory. Very good, Congressman; very good.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, I now show you the black jacket and ask you if you can identify what that jacket is, whose it is?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; that is mine.

Mr. Specter. When did you last wear that jacket?

Governor Connally. On November 22 I was wearing this, the day of the shooting.

142 Mr. Specter. I show you Commission Exhibit 683 and ask you if that is a photograph of the front side of the jacket, as it appears at the moment?

Governor Connally. Yes; it is.

Mr. Specter. I show you Exhibit 684, and ask if that is a photograph of the rear side of the jacket?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. Specter. I now show you a shirt and ask you if you can identify this as having been the shirt you wore on the day of the assassination?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; that is the shirt I had on.

Mr. Specter. I show you Exhibit 685 and ask if that is a picture of the rear side of the shirt?

Governor Connally. Yes; it is.

Mr. Specter. Exhibit 686 is shown to you, and I ask you if that is a photograph of the front side of the shirt?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. Specter. I show you a pair of black trousers and ask you if you can identify them?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; these are the trousers to the coat we looked at a moment ago. They were the trousers I was wearing on the day of the shooting.

Mr. Specter. I show you a photograph and ask you, which is Exhibit 687, if that is a photograph of the front of the trousers?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. Specter. I show you Exhibit 688 and ask you if that depicts the rear of the trousers?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. Specter. I show you a tie, and ask you if you can identify that?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; that is the tie I was wearing on the day of the shooting.

Mr. Specter. I now show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 700 and ask if that is a picture of the tie?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. Specter. What is the permanent home of these clothes at the present time when they are not on Commission business?

Governor Connally. They, the Archives of the State of Texas, asked for the clothing, and I have given the clothing to them. That is where they were sent from, I believe, here, to this Commission.

Mr. Specter. At this juncture, Mr. Chief Justice, I move for the admission in evidence of Commission Exhibits 699 and 700.

The Chairman. They may be admitted.

(The items marked Commission Exhibits 699 and 700 for identification were received in evidence.)

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, in 1963 we were informed that Lee Harvey Oswald paid a visit to Austin. Tex., and is supposed to also have visited your office. Do you have any knowledge of such a visit?

Governor Connally. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. What date did you give?

Mr. Specter. 1963.

Representative Boggs. What date in 1963?

Mr. Specter. We do not have the exact date on that.

Representative Boggs. Excuse me just a minute. Would your office records indicate such a visit?

Governor Connally. It might or might not, Congressman. We have——

Representative Boggs. That is what I would think.

Governor Connally. We have there a reception room that is open from about 9:30 to 12 and from 2 to 4 every day, and depending on the time of the year there are literally hundreds of people who come in there. There would be as high as 80 at a time that come in groups, and a tour—this is a very large reception room which, frankly, we can't use for any other purpose because it is so useful for tourists, and they literally come in by the hundreds, and some days we will have a thousand people in that room on any given day. So for143 me to say he never was in there, I couldn't do that; and he might well have been there, and no record of it in the office.

We make no attempt to keep a record of all the people who come in. If they come in small groups or if they have appointments with me, or one of my assistants, yes, we do. We keep records of people who come in and want to leave a card or leave word that they dropped by. But I have no knowledge that he ever came by.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, on your recitation of the events on the day of the assassination, you had come to the point where the shooting was concluded and the automobile had started to accelerate toward the hospital. What recollection do you have, if any, of the events on the way to the hospital from the assassination scene?

Governor Connally. None really. I think at that point I had lost consciousness because I don't have any recollection, Mr. Specter, of anything that occurred on the way to the hospital. It was a very short period of time, but I don't remember it.

Mr. Specter. Do you have any recollection of your arrival at the hospital itself, at the Parkland Hospital?

Governor Connally. Yes. I think when the car stopped the driver was obviously driving at a very rapid rate of speed, and apparently, as he threw on the brakes of the car, it brought me back to consciousness.

Again, a strange thing—strange things run through your mind and, perhaps, not so strange under the circumstances, but I immediately—the only thought that occurred to me was that I was in the jump seat next to the door, that everyone concerned, was going to be concerned with the President; that I had to get out of the way so they could get to the President. So although I was reclining, and again Mrs. Connally holding me, I suddenly lurched out of her arms and tried to stand upright to get myself out of the car.

I got—I don't really know how far I got. They tell me I got almost upright, and then just collapsed again, and someone then picked me up and put me on a stretcher. I again was very conscious because this was the first time that I had any real sensation of pain, and at this point the pain in the chest was excruciating, and I kept repeating just over and over, "My God, it hurts, it hurts," and it was hurting, it was excruciating at that point.

I was conscious then off and on during the time I was in the emergency room. I don't recall that I remember everything, but I remember quite a bit. I remember being wheeled down the passageway, I remember doctors and various people talking in the emergency room. I remember them asking me a number of questions, too, which I answered, but that was about it.

Mr. Specter. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Governor Connally. No.

Mr. Specter. Governor Connally, other than that which you have already testified to, do you know of any events or occurrences either before the trip or with the President in Texas during his trip, or after his trip, which could shed any light on the assassination itself?

Governor Connally. None whatever.

Mr. Specter. Do you know of any conversations involving anyone at all, either before the trip, during the trip, or after the trip, other than those which you have already related, which would shed any light on the facts surrounding the assassination?

Governor Connally. None whatever.

Mr. Specter. Do you have anything to add which you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Governor Connally. No, sir; Mr. Specter, I don't.

I want to express my gratitude to the Commission for hearing me so patiently, but I only wish I could have added something more that would be helpful to the Commission on arriving at the many answers to so many of these difficult problems, but I don't.

I can only say that it has taken some little time to describe the events and what happened. It is rather amazing in retrospect when you think really144 what a short period of time it took for it to occur, in a matter of seconds, and if my memory is somewhat vague about precisely which way I was looking or where my hand or arm was, I can only say I hope it is understandable in the light of the fact that this was a very sudden thing. It was a very shocking thing.

I have often wondered myself why I never had the presence of mind enough—I obviously did say something; I said, "Oh, no, no, no," and then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

I don't know why I didn't say. "Get down in the car," but I didn't. You just never know why you react the way you do and why you don't do some things you ought to do.

But I am again grateful to this Commission as a participant in this tragedy and as a citizen of this country, and I want to express, I think in behalf of millions of people, our gratitude for the time and energy and the dedication that this Commission has devoted to trying to supply the answers that people, I am sure, will be discussing for generations to come. I know it has been a difficult, long, laborious task for you, but I know that generations of the future Americans will be grateful for your efforts.

Representative Boggs. Governor, I would like to say that we have had fine cooperation from all of your Texas officials, from the attorney general of the State, and from his people and others who have worked with the Commission.

Governor Connally. Well, we are delighted, and I am very happy that the attorney general is here with us today.

Senator Cooper. May I ask one question?

The Chairman. Yes, Senator Cooper.

Senator Cooper. Governor, at the time you all passed the Texas School Book Depository, did you know that such a building was located there? Were you familiar with the building at all?

Governor Connally. Just vaguely, Senator.

Senator Cooper. But now when you heard the shot, you turned to your right because you thought, as you said, that the shot came from that direction. As you turned, was that in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; it was.

Senator Cooper. Do you remember an overpass in front of you——

Governor Connally. Yes, sir.

Senator Cooper. As you moved down?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir.

Senator Cooper. Were you aware at all of any sounds of rifleshots from the direction of the overpass, from the embankment?

Governor Connolly. No, sir; I don't believe there were such.

Senator Cooper. Well, you know, there have been stories.

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; but I don't believe that.

Senator Cooper. I wanted to ask you if you were very conscious of the fact—you were conscious of a shot behind you, you were not aware of any shot from the embankment or overpass. The answer is what?

Governor Connally. I am not aware of any shots from the overpass, Senator. Senator, I might repeat my testimony with emphasis to this extent, that I have all my life been familiar with the sound of a rifleshot, and the sound I heard I thought was a rifleshot, at the time I heard it I didn't think it was a firecracker, or blowout or anything else. I thought it was a rifleshot. I have hunted enough to think that my perception with respect to directions is very, very good, and this shot I heard came from back over my right shoulder, which was in the direction of the School Book Depository, no question about it. I heard no other. The first and third shots came from there. I heard no other sounds that would indicate to me there was any commotion or disturbance of shots or anything else on the overpass.

Senator Cooper. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?

Governor Connally. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade.

145 Senator Cooper. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?

Governor Connally. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.

Senator Cooper. That is all.

Mr. Specter. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?

Governor Connally. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.

Mr. Specter. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?

Governor Connally. We took—you are talking about the number of the slides?

Mr. Specter. Yes.

Governor Connally. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.

Mr. Specter. May I suggest to you that it was 231?

Governor Connally. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Mr. Specter. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was——

Governor Connally. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Mr. Specter. That is all.

The Chairman. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Dulles. I have one or two. Governor, were you consulted at all about the security arrangements in connection with the Dallas visit?

Governor Connally. No, sir; not really; no, sir; and let me add we normally are not.

Mr. Dulles. I realize that.

Governor Connally. Mr. Dulles, the Secret Service, as you know, comes in, they work with both our department of public safety and the various city police, and the various localities in which we are going. So far as I know, there was complete cooperation on the part of everyone concerned, but I was not consulted.

Mr. Dulles. I think you mentioned that there was a slight change in plans before the arrival in San Antonio. I don't know whether it affects our investigation at all. Do you recall that?

Governor Connally. Yes, sir; I don't know whether it—I don't think it affects the testimony at all. I was merely trying to relate some of the problems that had gone into planning a Presidential trip into four cities.

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

Governor Connally. And trying to arrange this all initially within about a 12-hour period which had been expanded into a little more than that because the President finally agreed to come the day before, and come into San Antonio on the afternoon before the Thomas dinner on Thursday night.

Mr. Dulles. That was the change you had in mind?

Governor Connally. This was the change. This gave us much more latitude because it permitted us to go into San Antonio, which is one of the major stops, which was the major stop, really, because he dedicated the Aerospace Medical Center on Thursday, which meant we did not have to crowd Thursday. But there was a change, but not significant to this investigation.

Mr. Dulles. Do you happen to recall in general when the decision was reached that the visit would include a trip to Dallas, or was that always a part?

Governor Connally. I think it was always a part.

Mr. Dulles. Of the planning?

Governor Connally. Yes; I think it was always a part. There was consideration given, if you had to leave out some place, let us leave out Dallas or let us146 leave out this one or that one, but there was no question, I don't think, in anyone's mind if we made more than one stop in the big cities that we were going to try to make them all, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth.

Mr. Dulles. You do not recall seeing anyone approach the car outside of those who were in the procession just prior to the shooting, anyone from the sidewalk or along the street there, in the park, which was on one side?

Governor Connally. No, sir; I sure don't.

Mr. Dulles. You and one other happen to be the only witnesses who have indicated that they recognized it as being a rifleshot. The other witness, like you, was a huntsman. Most of the witnesses have indicated they thought it was a backfire; the first shot was a backfire or a firecracker.

Can you distinguish, what is there that distinguishes a rifleshot from a backfire or a firecracker? Can you tell or is it just instinct?

Governor Connally. I am not sure I could accurately describe it. I don't know that I have ever attempted to. I would say a firecracker or a blowout has more of a hollow, bursting kind of sound, as if you popped a balloon, or something of this sort. A rifleshot, on the other hand, to me has more of a ring, kind of an echo to it, more of a metallic sound to it. It is a more penetrating sound than a firecracker or a blowout. It carries——

Mr. Dulles. That gives me what I had in mind. I realize that. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We are very appreciative of the help you have given us.

Senator Cooper. May I ask just one question?

The Chairman. We hate to have you review all of this sordid thing again.

Senator Cooper. May I ask a rather general question? I would like to ask, in view of all the discussion which has been had, was there any official discussion of any kind before this trip of which you were aware that there might be some act of violence against the President?

Governor Connally. No, sir.

Senator Cooper. Thank you.

Governor Connally. No; let me say that there have been several news stories——

Senator Cooper. Yes, I know.

Governor Connally. That purportedly quoted me about not wanting the President to ride in a motorcade or caravan in Dallas. That is very true. But the implication was that I had some fear of his life, which is not true.

The reason I didn't want him to do it at the time it came up was simply we were running out of time, and that, I thought, we were working him much too hard. This again was before the change, moving San Antonio to Thursday instead of having it all on one day, and I was opposed to a motorcade because they do drain energy, and it takes time to do it, and I didn't think we had the time.

But once we got San Antonio moved from Friday to Thursday afternoon, where that was his initial stop in Texas, then we had the time, and I withdrew my objections to a motorcade.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Governor.

Governor Connally. Thank you, sir.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

The Chairman. Mrs. Connally, would you mind telling us the story of this affair as you heard it, and we will be brief, and we will start right with the shooting itself, and Mr. Specter will also examine you.

Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please? Do 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?

Mrs. Connally. I do.

The Chairman. Will you sit, please?

Mr. Specter. Are you the wife of Governor John C. Connally?

Mrs. Connally. No, I am the wife of Governor John B. Connally.

147 Mr. Specter. Mrs. Connally, tell us what happened at the time of the assassination.

Mrs. Connally. We had just finished the motorcade through the downtown Dallas area, and it had been a wonderful motorcade. The people had been very responsive to the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and we were very pleased, I was very pleased.

As we got off Main Street—is that the main thoroughfare?

Mr. Specter. That is the street on which you were proceeding through the town, yes.

Mrs. Connally. In fact the receptions had been so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.

I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."

Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.

I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally. Yes; and it seemed to me there was—he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

I never again——

Mr. Dulles. To the right was into your arms more or less?

Mrs. Connally. No, he turned away from me. I was pretending that I was him. I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot. My concern was for him, and I remember that he turned to the right and then just slumped down into the seat, so that I reached over to pull him toward me. I was trying to get him down and me down. The jump seats were not very roomy, so that there were reports that he slid into the seat of the car, which he did not; that he fell over into my lap, which he did not.

I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him. So that I looked out, I mean as he was in my arms, I put my head down over his head so that his head and my head were right together, and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn't look back any more.

The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.

I thought John had been killed, and then there was some imperceptible movement, just some little something that let me know that there was still some life, and that is when I started saying to him, "It's all right. Be still."

Now, I did hear the Secret Service man say, "Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital," and then we took out very rapidly to the hospital.

Just before we got to Parkland, we made a right-hand turn, he must have been going very fast, because as he turned the weight of my husband's body almost toppled us both.

Mr. Specter. How fast do you think he was going?

Mrs. Connally. I don't know; very rapidly. The people I could see going by were just rushing. We were just rushing by very fast.

We arrived at the hospital and sat there what seemed to me like an interminable time, and from what I know was just a few minutes, but the thoughts that went through my mind were how long must I sit here with this dying man in my arms while everybody is swarming over the President whom I felt very sure was dead, and just when I thought I could sit and wait no longer, John148 just sort of heaved himself up. He did not rise up in the car, he just sort of heaved himself up, and then collapsed down into the seat.

Mr. Specter. At that time you and Governor Connally were still on the jump seats of the car?

Mrs. Connally. Yes, and they had not—the President was still—and Mrs. Kennedy were still in the back. I still had not ever looked back at the back seat after the second shot. I could hear, you know, hear them talking about how sad, and lamenting the fact that the President was in such poor shape and, of course, they didn't know whether he was—I guess they didn't know whether he was alive or dead.

Mr. Specter. Did President Kennedy say anything at all after the shooting?

Mrs. Connally. He did not say anything. Mrs. Kennedy said, the first thing I recall her saying was, after the first shot, and I heard her say, "Jack, they have killed my husband," and then there was the second shot, and then after the third shot she said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand," and she repeated that several times, and that was all the conversation.

Mr. Specter. From that point forward you say you had your eyes to the front so you did not have a chance——

Mrs. Connally. Yes, because I had him, and I really didn't think about looking back anyway, but I could just see the car rushing along, and people and things rushing past us. I remember thinking what a terrible sight this must be to those people, to see these two shot-up men, and it was a terribly horrifying thing, and I think that is about as I remember it.

Mr. Specter. What happened then after you got to the hospital?

Mrs. Connally. We got to the hospital and, like I said, John heaved himself over. They still could not seem to get Mrs. Kennedy or the President out of the back of the car, but someone scooped him up in their arms and put him on a stretcher. There were two stretchers there, and then they took him off immediately to the emergency room, and they ran down the hall with the stretcher, and I just ran along with them.

They took him into the emergency room, and right behind us came the President on a stretcher, and they took him and put him in a room to the right. There was much commotion and confusion. There were lots of what I assumed were Secret Service men rushing in with machine guns, I guess, or tommyguns. I am not real sure, they were big arms of some sort. There was no one—there were lots of people across the hall. There was no one with me and, of course, my thoughts then were, I guess like any other woman, I wondered if all the doctors were in the room on the left, and they were not taking too good care of my husband on the right. I shouldn't have worried about that, should I?

I knew no one in the hospital and I was alone. Twice I got up and opened the door into the emergency room, and I could hear John and I could see him moving, and I knew then that he was still alive.

I guess that time was short, too. It seemed endless. Somebody rushed out, I thought it was a nurse, and handed me one cuff link. I later read that it was a lady doctor.

They took him out of there very soon up to surgery, and I just left with him and waited in an office. Do you know whose office I was in? It was where you came to me.

Dr. Gregory. Dr. Jenkins' office.

Dr. Shaw. Yes. You were either in the anesthesia office or in the room that is part of the recovery room. Was it the same place where you later stayed, Mrs. Connally?

Mrs. Connally. No.

Dr. Gregory. I think it was back in Dr. Jenkins' office. That is where I believe I first saw you.

Mrs. Connally. I believe that is right.

As soon as Dr. Shaw found that he had some encouraging news, that the wounds were not as extensive as he had thought they could be or might be, he sent that word to me from the operating room, and that was good news.

I then asked if I couldn't go see Mrs. Kennedy, and they told me that she had left the hospital.

Mr. Specter. Were you visited at the hospital by Mrs. Johnson?

149 Mrs. Connally. Yes, I was. But I assume that was before, since they left together, not much of a visit. She came by and we didn't have to say much, and then they left.

Mr. Specter. Mrs. Connally, what was your impression, if any, as to the source of the shots?

Mrs. Connally. Well, I had no thought of whether they were high or low or where. They just came from the right; sounded like they were to my right.

Mr. Specter. How many did you hear in all?

Mrs. Connally. I heard three.

Mr. Specter. What is your best estimate on the time that passed from the first to the last shot?

Mrs. Connally. Very short. It seemed to me that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third.

Mr. Specter. About how fast do you think the car was going then?

Mrs. Connally. I don't really know. Not too fast. It was sort of a letdown time for us. We could relax for, we thought we could, for just a minute.

Mr. Specter. And you mean by that since the major part of the crowd had been passed?

Mrs. Connally. We had gone by them. The underpass was in sight, and I knew that as soon as we passed through the underpass that then we would be going straight to the Trade Mart for the luncheon, and I felt like we would then be moving fast and not have people on all sides of us.

Mr. Specter. Did you see the films this morning here in the Commission office?

Mrs. Connally. Yes, I did.

Mr. Specter. Did you have an opinion as to which frame it was that Governor Connally was shot?

Mrs. Connally. Yes. I was in agreement with the Governor. I am not sure I remember the numbers so correct me, but I thought at the time that it was that 229—it could have been then through the next three or four frames.

Mr. Specter. Do you have anything——

Mrs. Connally. They were blurred.

Mr. Specter. With respect to the source, you say you thought it was to the right—did you have any reaction as to whether they were from the front, rear or side?

Mrs. Connally. I thought it was from back of us.

Mr. Specter. To the rear?

Mrs. Connally. To the right; that is right.

Mr. Specter. Did you have any reaction as to the question of elevation or level?

Mrs. Connally. No, I didn't.

Mr. Specter. Do you have anything else to add which you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Mrs. Connally. I don't think so.

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? Senator, do you have any? Do you have any, Mr. Dulles?

Mr. Dulles. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the second and third than between the first and the second; is that your recollection?

Mrs. Connally. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. That is, the space between the first and the second was less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.

Mrs. Connally. You did.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Connally. Thank you.

The Chairman. Mrs. Connally, thank you very much. We hate to have you review all this in your mind's eye again, but it was necessary to have your testimony, and you were very kind to come.

Mrs. Connally. Thank you.

The Chairman. We appreciate it very much, indeed.

(Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)


150

Wednesday, April 22, 1964
TESTIMONY OF JESSE EDWARD CURRY, J. W. FRITZ, T. L. BAKER, AND J. C. DAY

The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m. on April 22, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Charles Murray, observer; Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas; and Dean Robert G. Storey, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas.

TESTIMONY OF JESSE EDWARD CURRY

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order.

Chief, we have asked you to come here this morning, you and some of your officers, for the purpose of taking their testimony concerning the matters surrounding the arrest and the death of Lee Oswald at the time of the assassination of the President.

I think we will take the testimony of you, Captain Fritz, Lieutenant Day, and Lieutenant Baker. I want to say to you, Chief, before I leave, I will have to leave after an hour or so in order to sit on some cases we are hearing in the Supreme Court but I want to say to you beforehand that our staff was very much pleased with the cooperation that it received from your people when they were down in Dallas, and from the help that you personally gave to them, and made it very helpful, they were very helpful, and we did need to have speed at that particular time, because, as you know, we were obliged to wait until the Ruby trial was over before we could come down there at all.

So, we appreciate the assistance that your people gave us throughout that proceeding.

Now, would you please rise, Chief, and raise your right hand to be sworn.

Do 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. Curry. I do.

The Chairman. Mr. Rankin, our Chief Counsel, will interrogate you, Chief. Mr. Rankin, will you proceed?

Mr. Rankin. Yes; Mr. Chief Justice. Chief Curry, you gave a deposition for the Commission recently, did you not?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I did, sir.

Mr. Rankin. That was about April 15, 1964?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. And that was down in Dallas that you gave it?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; it was.

Mr. Rankin. And Mr. Hubert examined you?

Mr. Curry. That is true.

Mr. Rankin. That was taken down by a court reporter?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have anything to add to what you said at that time or wish to correct it in any way?

Mr. Curry. I can't recall of anything that I should correct or add to.

Mr. Rankin. I ask you those questions in a general way, we will go back to certain parts of that but I would like to proceed at this time in view of the fact that the Chief Justice and possibly other members of the Commission who will come may not be able to be here all the time that you are being examined and I would like to get to certain crucial matters if I may.

When did you learn of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald?

151 Mr. Curry. While I was out at Parkland Hospital.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know about what time that was, the day?

Mr. Curry. It was on the 22d and the best I recall it was around 1 o'clock or maybe a little after 1 o'clock.

Mr. Rankin. How did that come to your attention?

Mr. Curry. Some of my officers came to me and said they had arrested a suspect in the shooting of our Officer Tippit.

Mr. Rankin. What else did they say?

Mr. Curry. They also told me a little later, I believe, that he was a suspect also in the assassination of the President.

Mr. Rankin. What did you do then?

Mr. Curry. I didn't do anything at the time. I was at the hospital, and I remained at the hospital until some of the Secret Service asked me to prepare two cars that we were informed that President Kennedy had expired and we were requested to furnish two cars for President Johnson and some of his staff to return to Love Field.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do that?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I did.

Mr. Rankin. What else—what did you do after that?

Mr. Curry. After the planes departed from Love Field, I was there for the inauguration of the President, and then we left the plane, and Judge Sarah Hughes and myself, and I remained at Love for some, I guess perhaps an hour.

Mr. Rankin. By inauguration, you mean the swearing in of the President?

Mr. Curry. That is right, sir.

Mr. Rankin. On the plane?

Mr. Curry. On the plane; yes.

Mr. Rankin. And then you left Love Field?

Mr. Curry. I talked to Mayor Cabell and his wife for a little while and after the plane left Love Field then I left Love Field.

Mr. Rankin. Did you go with Judge Hughes or she go with you?

Mr. Curry. No; she was in her own car.

Mr. Rankin. I see.

Mr. Curry. And I returned to the city hall.

Mr. Dulles. Did I understand correctly, how long were you at Love Field after the plane of the President left?

Mr. Curry. As I recall it was approximately an hour.

Mr. Dulles. That is what I thought.

Mr. Curry. We waited there until the casket bearing the President, and then the cars bearing Mrs. Kennedy arrived, and it was, I would judge an hour perhaps.

Mr. Rankin. Then what did you do?

Mr. Curry. I returned to my office at city hall.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do anything about Lee Harvey Oswald at that time?

Mr. Curry. No. As I went into the city hall it was overrun with the news media.

Mr. Rankin. What did you do about that?

Mr. Curry. I didn't do anything. They were jammed into the north hall of the third floor, which are the offices of the criminal investigation division. The television trucks, there were several of them around the city hall. I went into my administrative offices, I saw cables coming through the administrative assistant office and through the deputy chief of traffic through his office, and running through the hall they had a live TV set up on the third floor, and it was a bedlam of confusion.

Mr. Rankin. Did anyone of the police department give them permission to do this?

Mr. Curry. I noticed—well, I don't know who gave them permission because I wasn't there. When I returned they were up there.

Mr. Rankin. Did you inquire about whether permission had been given?

Mr. Curry. No; I didn't. We had in the past had always permitted free movement of the press around the city hall but we had never been faced with anything like this before where we had national and international news media descending upon us in this manner.

152 Mr. Rankin. Could you describe to the Commission the difference this time as compared with the ordinary case that you have handled?

Mr. Curry. Well, the ordinary case, perhaps we have two or three or maybe a half dozen reporters, we have a room for them on the third floor where they normally on assignment at city hall they stay in this room.

As prisoners are brought to and from the interrogation offices, it is necessary to bring them down the main corridor, and they usually are waiting there where they take pictures of them as they enter and as they leave and they sometimes try to ask them questions.

Mr. Rankin. Now, how was this different?

Mr. Curry. That there was such total confusion here. We had to post men on the door to keep them actually from going into the office where they were interrogating. We had some men, police reserves and a sergeant, I noticed on the third floor when I come off the elevator.

They were stationed there, and they were screening people to see whether or not they had business on the third floor because we did have to carry on our other normal business, the burglary and theft and the juvenile bureau and the auto theft bureau, the forgery bureau all of these are on the third floor in this wing.

The Chairman. Chief, is this building just a police building or a municipal building, general purposes?

Mr. Curry. It is a section of the municipal building.

The Chairman. A section of it. Is it isolated from the rest of it?

Mr. Curry. No; it is connected.

The Chairman. Connected?

Mr. Curry. Yes. And on the first floor we have the courts and the traffic violations bureau.

In the basement it is principally police offices. On the second floor we have the city planning commission, and we have part of our traffic division and special service bureau on the second floor.

Then on the third floor we have the criminal investigation division. We have the police dispatcher's office, and we have the administrative offices and we have the personnel offices.

The Chairman. I see.

Mr. Curry. But all these are connected with the municipal building, each floor is.

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Did you have anything to do with the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I did not. I was in the office once or twice while he was being interrogated but I never asked him any question myself.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know who did?

Mr. Curry. Captain Fritz principally interrogated him, I believe.

Mr. Rankin. Was that his responsibility?

Mr. Curry. Yes; it was. There were several people in the office. It seems to me we were violating every principle of interrogation, the method by which we had to interrogate.

Mr. Rankin. Will you explain to the Commission what you mean by that?

Mr. Curry. Ordinarily an interrogator in interrogating a suspect will have him in a quiet room alone or perhaps with one person there.

Mr. Rankin. Is that your regular practice?

Mr. Curry. That is the regular practice.

Mr. Rankin. Tell us how this was done?

Mr. Curry. This we had representatives from the Secret Service, we had representatives from the FBI, we had representatives from the Ranger Force, and they were—and then one or two detectives from the homicide bureau. This was, well, it was just against all principles of good interrogation practice.

Mr. Rankin. By representatives can you tell us how many were from each of these agencies that you describe?

Mr. Curry. I can't be sure. I recall I believe two from the FBI, one or two, Inspector Kelley was there from Secret Service, and I believe another one153 of his men was there. There was one, I recall seeing one man from the Rangers. I don't recall who he was. I just remember now that there was one.

Captain Fritz, and one or two of his detectives—this was in a small office.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do anything about this when you found out there were so many, did you give any instructions about it?

Mr. Curry. No; I didn't. This was an unusual case. In fact, I had received a call from the FBI requesting that they have a representative from there in the hearing room. And we were trying to cooperate with all agencies concerned in this, and I called Captain Fritz and asked him to permit a representative of the FBI to come in.

Mr. Dulles. Who was directing the interrogation, Captain Fritz?

Mr. Curry. Captain Fritz.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know how Lee Harvey Oswald was treated by the police department?

Mr. Curry. So far as I know he was treated as any other prisoner is treated. He was not handled in any manner any different from any other prisoner. He had a scratch or two on his face which he received when he was wrestling with the police over in this theater in Oak Cliff. Other than that he had no marks on him.

Mr. Rankin. Did he ever complain that you know of about his treatment while he was there?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; he did not.

Mr. Rankin. Did you give any instructions about the security or how he should be protected during this time?

Mr. Curry. No; I personally didn't. Deputy Chief Lumpkin, who has charge of the service division which is the jail security, he told me that he had ordered that two guards be placed on him right outside his cell and kept there 24 hours a day as long as we had him.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know what was done about that?

Mr Curry. It was carried out. He told me that this was carried out.

Mr. Rankin. Did you have any further difficulty with the media, the various press and radio and television representatives during this time?

Mr. Curry. Well, every time we would walk out of the office they would besiege you with questions and wanting statements and asking what we had found out, and did we think this was the right man, and they almost ran over you.

Mr. Rankin. What did you do about that?

Mr. Curry. I tried to maintain some order. I didn't order them out of the building, which if I had it to do over I would. In the past like I say, we had always maintained very good relations with our press, and they had always respected us, and this was something, the first time we experienced anything like this, to this degree.

Mr. Rankin. Did you have any tape recordings of the interviews with Mr. Oswald?

Mr. Curry. I do not have.

Mr. Rankin. Did anyone?

Mr. Curry. Not to my knowledge. Unless someone from the FBI or the Secret Service, if they recorded it, I don't know.

Mr. Rankin. How many times was he interrogated, do you know?

Mr. Curry. No; I do not know that.

Mr. Rankin. You never examined him yourself at any time?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Rankin. Will you describe the place where he was kept while he was there in the jail?

Mr. Curry. Well, it is in one of our maximum security cells, much the same as any other jail. But he was isolated away from the other prisoners, and there was two jail guards set immediately outside his cell.

Mr. Rankin. Did you isolate him or was that in accordance with your instructions?

Mr. Curry. No; this is customary with a prisoner of this type and Chief Lumpkin in charge of the service division had issued these orders.

154 Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by maximum security in your prison?

Mr. Curry. Well, we have some cells where they have cells that are locked and then you come out of the cell into a corridor and that is locked, and these are maintained from a master control box. That is a maximum security cell. Some of the others they just have a lock on the door and it opens out into the hallway.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do anything about furnishing him clothing?

Mr. Curry. We removed his clothing except for his underwear in order that he couldn't harm himself. When he was removed from the cell, of course, his clothes were given to him.

Mr. Rankin. Was he allowed to shower and clean up.

Mr. Curry. I don't think he ever asked for a shower while he was there. Had he asked for one he would have been permitted to shower and he would have been permitted to shave.

Mr. Rankin. Was he treated any differently in any way that you know of than other prisoners?

Mr. Curry. Except perhaps a little more security placed on him, a constant security. Ordinarily we wouldn't, except in unusual cases would we have a constant surveillance on a prisoner, and this is usually, if we felt like he might try to harm himself we would have someone there to immediately prevent it.

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask a question?

What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?

Mr. Curry. The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very—he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.

I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.

Mr. Rankin. Did it ever come to your attention that he ever asked for or inquired about counsel?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I heard him say something. I asked if he had had an opportunity to use the phone and Captain Fritz told me they were giving him an opportunity to use the phone.

Mr. Rankin. What did he say about counsel?

Mr. Curry. As I recall he said he wanted to try to get in touch with John Abt.

Mr. Rankin. A-b-t?

Mr. Curry. A-b-t, I believe an attorney in New York, to handle his case and then if he couldn't get him he said he wanted to get someone from Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Rankin. What did you do about that?

Mr. Curry. I told them to let him talk to them in an attempt to get his attorney and in an attempt to get some of his relatives so they could arrange for it.

Mr. Rankin. Will you describe how it was handled for him to be able to talk on the telephone?

Mr. Curry. We take them from their cells and we have two telephones that they are taken to, and they are put on these telephones and they are locked in, and a guard stands by while they make their calls.

Mr. Rankin. Is that call secret or is there any listening in on it?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; it is not supposed to be secret. I mean it is supposed to be secret. It is privileged communication as far as we are concerned, we don't have a tap on the phone or anything.

Mr. Dulles. Did he use this?

Mr. Curry. Yes; he did.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether an attorney from Dallas was offered to him and came to the jail?

Mr. Curry. There were some members of the Civil Liberties Union came to155 see us that night, and they said they were concerned with whether or not he was being permitted legal counsel.

Mr. Rankin. Did they talk to you?

Mr. Curry. No; they didn't talk to me. They talked to Professor Webster.

Mr. Rankin. How did this come to your attention?

Mr. Curry. He told me.

Mr. Rankin. I see. Now, tell us what he said.

Mr. Curry. He said that they had come down to see whether or not he was being permitted legal counsel, and Professor Webster is in the law school out at Southern Methodist University and he told them he thought he was being given an opportunity to get in touch with legal counsel, and they seemed satisfied then about it. We also got Mr. Nichols.

Mr. Rankin. Who is he?

Mr. Curry. He was president of the Dallas Bar Association or criminal bar. I don't know which, Louis Nichols, and——

Mr. Rankin. What did he do?

Mr. Curry. He came down, he said he had heard that he was not being allowed the right to counsel, and they wanted to see and so I took him myself up to Lee Harvey Oswald's cell and let him go in the cell and talk to Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Chairman. Who was Mr. Nichols, did you say?

Mr. Curry. Louis Nichols. He was president either of the Dallas——

Dean Storey. Pardon me, it is Dallas Bar Association.

Mr. Curry. Dallas Bar Association.

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Curry. He went in to talk to him and to see whether or not he was getting an opportunity to receive counsel and he seemed pleased, I mean he had no complaints. He told him if he didn't get John Abt then he wanted someone from the Civil Liberties Union to come up and talk to him. Then Mr. Nichols then went out in front of the television cameras, I believe and made a statement to the effect that he had talked to him and he was satisfied that he was being given the opportunity for legal counsel.

The Chairman. On what day was this?

Mr. Curry. That was on the same day we arrested him?

The Chairman. That was Friday?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether Mr. Oswald ever did obtain counsel?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe he did. But I do know he made some telephone contacts.

Mr. Rankin. Did the police department so far as you know interfere in any way with his obtaining counsel?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know when Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned?

Mr. Curry. It was about 1:30 in the morning. That would be on the morning of the 23d, I believe.

Mr. Rankin. How long did he—how long had he been in your custody then?

Mr. Curry. About 11 hours. That was on the Tippit; yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. When you say that he was arraigned the following day early in the morning, did you mean for the Tippit murder or for the assassination?

Mr. Curry. No; that was for the assassination of the President.

Mr. Rankin. All right, will you tell us when he was arraigned for the Tippit murder?

Mr. Curry. I was not present but I believe it was about 7:30.

Mr. Rankin. That same evening?

Mr. Curry. Yes; that would be about 5 hours afterwards.

Mr. Rankin. Do you recall whether he was arrested first for the assassination or for the Tippit murder?

Mr. Curry. For the Tippit murder. There were some witnesses to this murder and they had observed him as he left the scene, and this was what he was arrested for.

The Chairman. May I interrupt just to ask the chief a question?

156 Chief, on your arraignments does the magistrate advise the petitioner as to his right to counsel?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; he does.

The Chairman. Does he ask him if he has counsel?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall him doing that. I am not customarily present when a person is arraigned.

The Chairman. You were not present at the arraignment?

Mr. Curry. I was present when he was arraigned for the assassination of the President. I was not present when he was arraigned for the murder of Tippit.

The Chairman. I suppose they make a stenographic record of that, do they not?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; I am sure they do.

The Chairman. That is all I have.

Mr. Rankin. Chief, our people made an inquiry whether there was a stenographic record. They don't believe there was any.

Mr. Curry. I am not sure of that. I know at the time he was arraigned for the assassination of the President I was present there at the time. It was decided that we should, district attorney was there at the city hall. He was there during most of the evening.

Mr. Rankin. Will you just describe for the Commission what happened during the arraignment for the assassination, who was present, what you saw.

Mr. Curry. As I recall, I know the Justice of the Peace David John Stone was there. It seemed like Sergeant Warren, but I couldn't be positive but some of the jail personnel brought him out into the identification bureau.

Mr. Rankin. How was he taken out? Were there several people around him, what was the security arrangements?

Mr. Curry. At that time there was only, we were inside the offices of the criminal identification section. He was brought out through a door that opens from the jail into the criminal identification section. There was only about a half dozen of us altogether there, I don't recall who all was there.

Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by the criminal identification section. Could you describe what that is?

Mr. Curry. That is the identification bureau.

Mr. Rankin. Does that have a room that this meeting occurred in?

Mr. Curry. It is not a room such as this. It was in the little foyer or lobby, and it is separated from the jail lobby.

Mr. Rankin. Did the justice of the peace sit or stand or what?

Mr. Curry. He stood. He stood on one side of the counter and Oswald on the other side of the counter.

Mr. Rankin. What floor is this on?

Mr. Curry. The fourth floor.

Mr. Rankin. That is nearest the place where there are some filing cabinets?

Mr. Curry. Yes; it is.

Mr. Rankin. And besides the people that you have described, I assume that you yourself were there as you have said?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I was.

Mr. Rankin. Was there anyone else that you recall?

Mr. Curry. Not that I recall, other than the justice of the peace.

Mr. Rankin. Will you describe what happened?

Mr. Curry. Lee Harvey Oswald was brought in and the complaint was read to him, and here again he was very arrogant and he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. That is the deal, is it," and such remarks as this, and the justice of the peace very patiently and courteously explained to him what the procedure was and why it was.

Mr. Rankin. What did he say about that?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall his exact words.

Mr. Rankin. Just tell us in substance.

Mr. Curry. He didn't—as I recall, he didn't think much of it. He just said, "I don't know what you are talking about."

Mr. Rankin. What did the justice of the peace say about the procedure and any rights and so forth?

157 Mr. Curry. As I recall it, he read to him the fact that he was being charged with the assassination of the President of the United States, John Kennedy on such and such day at such and such time.

Mr. Rankin. Did he say anything about his right to plead?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Did he say anything about counsel?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall whether he did or not.

Mr. Rankin. What else happened at that time that you recall?

Mr. Curry. That is about all. After it was read to him, he was taken back to his cell.

Mr. Rankin. Did you go back with him to the cell?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Rankin. Who took him back to the cell?

Mr. Curry. The jailer and assistant jailer or jail guard.

Mr. Rankin. What came to your attention after that about Lee Harvey Oswald, that you can recall, what was the next thing that happened that you know of?

Mr. Curry. The next thing that I know of, was the next morning.

Mr. Rankin. What happened then?

Mr. Curry. The interrogation of Lee Harvey continued on and off through the day. No; I had asked the captain during the afternoon if he was being given rest periods and if he was being fed properly so that he wouldn't have reason to complain that we were mistreating him in any way.

Mr. Rankin. What captain did you ask that?

Mr. Curry. Fritz.

Mr. Rankin. What did he say?

Mr. Curry. He said he was. He said he was not interrogating him on long drawn-out extended periods, he was letting him rest and he was being fed.

Mr. Dulles. Did the interrogation continue into the night or did it stop, do you know?

Mr. Curry. I don't know what—well, it did continue into that first night, I know. But I don't know what time they discontinued the interrogation.

Mr. Rankin. They stopped?

Mr. Curry. I was not in the offices all the time. I was there two or three times.

Mr. Rankin. Captain Fritz tell you anything about the interrogation, how it was going, what was said?

Mr. Curry. He told me about, oh, late in the afternoon or early in the evening that he felt that he had enough evidence to file on him for the murder of the officer, and he told me, he said, "I strongly suspect that he was the assassin of the President."

Mr. Rankin. Do you know what time of day it was?

Mr. Curry. It seemed to me like it was 6 or 7 o'clock on the day of the 22d.

Mr. Rankin. Can you describe the situation in the police headquarters with regard to the media. Were they continuing to be there?

Mr. Curry. They remained there. You could hardly get down the hall, and it was necessary, when we would take the prisoner back to the jail to bring him out of the office, and down this hallway and put him on a special elevator just for prisoners.

Mr. Rankin. What office do you mean when you say that?

Mr. Curry. From the homicide office.

Mr. Rankin. Yes. You took him down what hallway?

Mr. Curry. The third floor hallway. The offices run like this in the building. The homicide office is right along here, perhaps 25 feet. The elevator is right here, this is a special elevator that runs to the jail.

Mr. Rankin. Will you mark that homicide office with an "H" on to indicate it?

Mr. Curry. This extends up here a little more perhaps.

Mr. Rankin. Will you mark the elevator with "EL."

The Chairman. There is a lot of other writing on this paper a lot of doodling that someone else has done and I think the chief had better have a new piece of paper.

158 Gentlemen, before you get into a discussion of this diagram with the chief, Mr. Rankin, I must leave now for a session of the Court, and Mr. Dulles, will you preside in my absence?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I will be back immediately at the conclusion of our session today.

(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)

Mr. Rankin. Chief, have you marked on a yellow sheet of paper a diagram of the third floor of the police headquarters?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I have, principally the north end of it.

Mr. Rankin. We will call that Exhibit 701. Will you describe briefly for the Commission just what you have marked on there now?

Mr. Curry. I have a rough layout of the north end of the third floor of the police and courts building in Dallas, Tex.

Now, this shows the public elevators, the lobby way in front of the elevators, and then a hall that extends the length of the third floor from north to south.

In the extreme north end there is a small press room where ordinarily the news media stay from early morning until late at night to cover police events.

I have also marked off the other bureaus that are located on this floor, the burglary and theft bureau would be on the west side, and in the northwest corner is the juvenile bureau.

The northeast corner is the auto theft bureau, the next going south would be the forgery bureau, and then would be the homicide office or homicide bureau, which is adjacent to a hallway, the north-south hallway, and also the rear office is adjacent to the hall going over to the municipal building which is immediately east of the police and courts building.

The entrance to the homicide office is approximately 20 or 25 feet to the entrance to this jail elevator, and it is necessary to bring a prisoner down this hall in order to get him into this jail elevator. Each time we—that I observed them move Oswald, they were almost overrun by news media.

Mr. Rankin. By overrun, what do you mean?

Could you describe with a little more definiteness, are you talking about 4 or 5 or 10?

Mr. Curry. I will say probably a hundred, at least a hundred that were jammed into this hallway.

(At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)

Mr. Rankin. Were some of them—I will withdraw that question.

Were some of these people from the news media from the press and others from the radio and others from the television?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; that is true, sir.

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

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Curry. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on Saturday.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Rankin. Back on the record.

In regard to Mr. Nichols, did you know whether or not he offered to represent or provide counsel?

Mr. Curry. Yes; he did.

Mr. Rankin. What did he say about that?

Mr. Curry. He said he didn't care to at this time.

Mr. Rankin. What did Mr. Nichols say about providing counsel?

Mr. Curry. He said the Dallas Bar would provide counsel if he desired counsel.

Mr. Rankin. That is to Mr. Oswald?

Mr. Curry. Oswald.

Mr. Rankin. What did Mr. Oswald say?

Mr. Curry. He said, "I don't at this time," he said, "If I can't get Mr. Abt to represent me or someone from Civil Liberties Union I will call on you later."

Representative Ford. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another?

159 Mr. Curry. Yes; he was taken to see Oswald and he talked to him.

Mr. Rankin. And this all occurred at the meeting you have already described?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Between Mr. Nichols and Mr. Oswald?

Mr. Curry. That is correct.

Mr. Rankin. When you had so many people of the news media in all of your corridors and throughout your police headquarters, did you discuss that with the mayor or any of the other authorities?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall that I specifically discussed this condition.

Mr. Rankin. Did you ask for any instructions or advice?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do anything about it that you have not already described?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Dulles. Did it worry you?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; it did. I was concerned about it.

Mr. McCloy. Did you have a definite system of checking credentials of these people as they came in?

Mr. Curry. On a particular incident that had occurred previous to this, such as the school integration, we had a plane to fall there one time and we have a regular set up for disaster, whereby the press identify themselves in order to get into a certain area, and their credentials were being checked.

Now, I have heard it said, not to my knowledge can I tell you this, that Jack Ruby at one time or sometime during these preceding days, had been seen there and apparently had some press credentials but I was never able to establish that.

Mr. Rankin. You have checked into it?

Mr. Curry. I have inquired into it or had it inquired into.

Mr. Rankin. What did you find out in that regard?

Mr. Curry. I couldn't find out where he had received press credentials from anybody.

Representative Ford. Were any press credentials found in his effects?

Mr. Curry. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. Rankin. When you were having the difficulty with the media that you have described, did you do anything about adding additional guards or anything about additional security?

Mr. Curry. No; we had two men, two uniformed officers right at the homicide door to keep anyone from going in there.

As I recall, there was a sergeant, and a couple of reserve officers at the public elevators here, and there were a couple of reservists at this end of the hall to keep them from overrunning into the administrative offices.

Mr. Rankin. I offer in evidence Exhibit 701, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dulles. Is that the chart?

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted. This is a chart of the third floor.

Mr. Curry. Of the police and courts building.

Mr. Dulles. What is the other word?

Mr. Curry. Police and courts building.

Mr. Dulles. It will be accepted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 701 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Rankin. Have you done anything to change your procedures in regard to security or how you would handle prisoners in light of this difficulty you had with the media?

Mr. Curry. The city manager and I have discussed the possibility that we are going to in the near future build a new police building.

Mr. Rankin. Who is the city manager?

Mr. Curry. Elgin Crull. He made this statement that when and if we build another building, it will be so designed that the prisoners will not have to be brought through where the general public are permitted or where the press would be permitted. That there will be two sets of halls or hallways where they will160 be brought down in the rear hallways and admitted into the offices for interrogation.

Mr. Rankin. What did you say about that?

Mr. Curry. I heartily agreed with him.

Mr. Rankin. Have you made any other plans for change of security?

Mr. Curry. I have talked to my staff and said if we were ever faced with a thing of such magnitude again that we would not permit the press to come into the building. We would designate a place outside for them and we would just have to take the heat that was given to us by the press for not permitting them in there, but in view of what had happened that we would never permit this to occur again.

That we would permit them to have representatives but they would be required to choose their representatives to be present, say, in these hallways or inside the buildings, and the rest of them would be excluded.

And regardless of how they treated us in the press for this decision, that is the way it would be in the future.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do anything about appearing on television during this time?

Mr. Curry. They had these cameras set up in the hallway, if I can have the exhibit I will show it to you.

Mr. Rankin. Yes. That is Exhibit 701.

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. They had cameras set up right here, two or three cameras.

Mr. Rankin. Have you marked that with the word "cameras"?

Mr. Curry. Yes. And on an occasion or two as I was walking from the homicide office back to my office they would stop me here and try to interrogate me or interview me and they would have the cameras turned on me.

Mr. Rankin. What would you do?

Mr. Curry. They would besiege me with questions about how the investigation was proceeding, and I would on occasion or two I told them I thought it was proceeding very well, that we were obtaining good evidence to substantiate our suspicions, that this was the man that was guilty of the assassination.

Mr. Rankin. Did you tell them what evidence you had?

Mr. Curry. I told them on one occasion we had a rifle that had been partially identified by his, as belonging to him.

Mr. Rankin. When did you do that?

Mr. Curry. I believe that was on Saturday, I think.

Mr. Rankin. About what time of the day?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall exactly. I think it was in the afternoon. It might have been Friday night.

Mr. Rankin. Did you tell them about any other evidence that you had?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall, sir, whether I did or not. There was so much confusion that I can't recall exactly the times and exactly what was said. I think this is documented, perhaps.

Mr. Rankin. Where?

Mr. Curry. On the TV film.

Mr. Rankin. I see. Did you give out any interviews to the newspapers?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall giving any interviews to newspapers.

Mr. Rankin. Any news releases?

Mr. Curry. Not that I recall.

Mr. Dulles. Do you recall having told them that you had sent a radio order out to surround the book depository?

Mr. Curry. I didn't do that, sir. That was one of my inspectors, I believe that gave that order. I was riding in the Presidential parade and approximately a hundred feet, I guess, ahead of the President's car, and when we heard this first report, I couldn't tell exactly where it was coming from.

Representative Ford. What report are you talking about now?

Mr. Curry. A sharp report as a firecracker or as it was it was the report of this rifle.

We were just approaching an underpass, and there were some people around161 on each side of the underpass, up in the railroad yards, and I thought at first that perhaps this was a railroad torpedo, it was a sharp crack.

Inspector—no, it wasn't Inspector, it was Lawson of the Secret Service and Mr. Sorrels of the Dallas office of the Secret Service, and Sheriff Bill Decker and myself were in this car.

Mr. Dulles. I may be anticipating.

Mr. Rankin. That is all right, go right ahead.

Mr. Curry. I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone said this. I don't recall whether it was me or someone else, and from the report I couldn't tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said, "Get someone up in the railroad yard and check."

And then about this time. I believe it was motorcycle Officer Chaney rode up beside of me and looking back in the rear view mirror I could see some commotion in the President's car and after this there had been two more reports, but these other two reports I could tell were coming behind instead of from the railroad yards.

Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by reports?

Mr. Curry. Sharp reports as a rifle or a firecracker, and looking in the rear view mirror then I could see some commotion in President Kennedy's car.

Mr. Rankin. You could distinctly hear and tell that the two later reports were from behind?

Mr. Curry. Behind.

Mr. Rankin. Rather than front?

Mr. Curry. That is right.

Mr. Rankin. You weren't sure whether the first one was from behind or in front?

Mr. Curry. I couldn't tell because perhaps of the echo or the——

Representative Ford. Where were you sitting in the car, sir?

Mr. Curry. I was driving.

Representative Ford. You were driving?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. When you heard the first report, did you grab a communications set and give this order?

Mr. Curry. Almost immediately.

Representative Ford. What was the order that you gave?

Mr. Curry. As I recall it, "Get someone up in the railroad yard to check those people." There was already an officer up there.

Mr. Rankin. How do you know that?

Mr. Curry. They assigned officers to every overpass.

We went with the Secret Service, Batchelor and Chief Lunday had went over this route with Secret Service agents Lawson and Sorrels and they had run the route 2 or 3 days prior to this and pointed out every place where they wanted security officers, and we placed them there where they asked for them.

Mr. Rankin. Did you see an officer there when you looked up?

Mr. Curry. I couldn't recognize him, but I could see an officer whoever it was.

Representative Ford. Did you get this order over the PA system before the second and third shots?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe so, I am not sure. I am not positive. Because they were in pretty rapid succession. But after I noticed some commotion in the President's car and a motorcycle officer ran up aside of me and I asked him what had happened and he said shots had been fired, and I said, "Has the President been hit or has the President's party been hit?

And he said, "I am sure they have."

I said, "Take us to the hospital immediately," and I got on the radio and I told them to notify Parkland Hospital to stand by for an emergency, and this is approximately, I would say, perhaps a couple of miles or so to Parkland Hospital from this, and we went to Parkland and I notified them to have them to be standing by for an emergency, and we went out there under siren escort and went into the emergency entrance.

As I recall, I got out of the car and rushed to the emergency entrance and told them to bring the stretchers out, and they loaded the President, President162 Kennedy and Governor Connally onto stretchers and took them into the hospital.

Mrs. Kennedy, I went into the hospital, and I know she was outside the door of where they were working with the President, and someone suggested to her that she sit down and she was very calm, and she said, "I am all right. Some of your people need to sit down more than I do."

But everyone was very concerned. I remained around the hospital. I was contacted by some of the special sergeants who asked me to stand by in my car and get another car and take the President, then Vice President Johnson to Love Field.

Mr. Rankin. You have told us about that, haven't you?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I have told you about that.

Mr. Rankin. And you told us you attended the swearing in of President Johnson?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I did.

Mr. Rankin. And that you waited until the plane left and then you came back?

Mr. Curry. To my offices.

Mr. Rankin. And Judge Hughes left at the same time?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Now, did you do anything about the assassination after this or at some time?

Mr. Curry. No. I left this to be handled by Captain Fritz who is in charge of all homicide investigations.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether anything was done, did you make inquiry?

Mr. Curry. Yes; he told me they were interrogating him, Oswald about the assassination and trying to check on the movements of Oswald, and they obtained, I understand, some search warrants to go out and search, they found out where he had been staying.

Mr. Rankin. What about the building immediately after the occasion?

Mr. Curry. It was sealed off, Inspector Sawyer who is a uniformed police inspector, I think was the first ranking officer to the School Depository Building. He would have had to come perhaps 10 blocks. I believe he told me that he was about at Akard and Maine when this came on the air that we had had some trouble down there.

Mr. Rankin. You say you imagine. Is this something that they reported to you?

Mr. Curry. Yes. He told me later that he did immediately go to the scene of the Texas—of where the shots were fired from.

Mr. Rankin. What did he tell you he did then?

Mr. Curry. He took charge of the investigation.

Mr. Rankin. What did he do about the building?

Mr. Curry. He had it sealed off. This perhaps would have been perhaps, 5, 8, 10 minutes after the original——

Mr. Rankin. About what time?

Mr. Curry. I would say perhaps 12:40.

Mr. Rankin. And was that before or after a description of Lee Oswald was put on the radio?

Mr. Curry. I couldn't say whether it was before or after.

Mr. Rankin. What else happened?

Mr. Curry. I think he perhaps was the one who gave that description, I am not sure.

A deputy chief of services who was in the pilot car ahead of us, was at Love Field, and he had some more Secret Service men with him, I believe.

Mr. Rankin. Who is that?

Mr. Curry. George Lumpkin. George L. Lumpkin. He asked me at the hospital if I didn't want him to go back to the Texas School Book Depository and assist in the search of the building and I told him yes, and he did go back, and took over on the search of the building then.

Mr. Rankin. Did he report to you later what he did about that?

Mr. Curry. Yes, he did. He told me that he had sealed it off and he appointed163 two search teams to search the building from top to bottom, starting at the bottom and going to the top and starting at the top and going to the bottom.

Mr. McCloy. Who was this man?

Mr. Curry. George L. Lumpkin.

Mr. McCloy. Secret Service?

Mr. Curry. No.

Mr. McCloy. On your staff?

Mr. Curry. No; he is a police officer.

Mr. Rankin. Was he an assistant chief?

Mr. Curry. He is not an assistant chief. Each of the divisions have a deputy chief in charge of them. I have one assistant chief and four deputy chiefs.

Mr. Rankin. And this was a deputy chief?

Mr. Curry. A deputy chief; yes.

Mr. Rankin. Under your system the highest civil service status is inspector, is it?

Mr. Curry. That is correct.

Mr. Rankin. And the other officers are appointed?

Mr. Curry. Appointed, yes.

Mr. Rankin. By you?

Mr. Curry. By me, yes.

Mr. Rankin. Now, these two teams that you referred to that the deputy chief appointed to search the building, do you know how many officers were in those teams?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether the search was made?

Mr. Curry. They reported to me that it was made, yes.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know what else happened in regard to the building or the search for the assassin?

Mr. Curry. After it was searched I understand it was sealed off and they were asked not to let anybody come or go from the building until further orders.

Mr. Rankin. Then what happened after that?

Mr. Dulles. Could I inquire there. I thought it was sealed off previous to the search according to your previous testimony.

Mr. Curry. It was. But after they searched it and all of the investigators left there, they asked Mr. Truly, I believe, the building manager, not to let anybody come and go.

Mr. Dulles. Was that supplemented, though, by the police?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I believe we had officers there.

Mr. Dulles. Then there were in a way two sealings off. One that you gave the order was given 8 or 10 minutes——

Mr. Curry. Almost immediately, yes.

Mr. Dulles. After the assassination, and then the other one was after this search had been made.

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. There is one element I am not clear on, I may be anticipating, Mr. Rankin. But I believe we have had some testimony heretofore, that Mr.—an officer went in with Mr. Truly into the building.

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. And started to go upstairs, and they ran into Oswald on the second floor. Was that before the inspector got there?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; I am sure it was, because this officer was there at the scene.

Mr. McCloy. Do you remember that officer's name?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I don't. It is in the record.

Mr. Belin. It is officer M. L. Baker. He was in the motorcade.

Mr. McCloy. Did M. L. Baker purport to seal off the building?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; he didn't. The first officers in there were rushing up to the upper floors.

Mr. McCloy. The first man who sealed the building was——

Mr. Curry. I believe will be Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. McCloy. Inspector Sawyer?

164 Mr. Curry. I believe he would be the first to issue orders. I could be mistaken on that but as I recall he was the first officer.

Mr. Dulles. You did not give those orders yourself?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; not myself.

Representative Ford. How many men participated in the search of the building?

Mr. Curry. I would just have to guess but I would suggest probably 20 people.

Representative Ford. Did you check with those who went through this process?

Mr. Curry. No; I didn't check with each individual officer.

Representative Ford. Did you get a report?

Mr. Curry. I got a report from Inspector Sawyer, and also from Chief Lumpkin as to the manner in which it was searched.

Representative Ford. How long did it take them, do you have any idea?

Mr. Curry. I believe they were, perhaps, maybe a couple of hours altogether, searching that building.

Representative Ford. Did they give you an oral or written report on what they found or didn't find?

Mr. Curry. I believe there were some written reports made. I don't recall now.

Representative Ford. If there are written reports could we have them?

Mr. Curry. I think——

Mr. Rankin. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative Ford. Back on the record.

Are you familiar with any written report, Chief, on what transpired during the search of the building?

Mr. Curry. Only what Deputy Chief Lumpkin in his report here in a chronological report that we made, and you have this, as best we could, after this occurred, the deputy chiefs and myself all sat down together went over this from the time we received notice that the President would visit Dallas until the shooting of Oswald, and step by step we tried to go through this as to what we did, and this is what we call a chronological report.

Representative Ford. If there is a report in anybody's files in the Dallas Police department on what transpired during this investigation of the building, there would be no reason why that report couldn't be made available?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; if we have one it certainly would be made available.

Representative Ford. Will you check the files of the department and if there is a report available will you submit it to the Commission, please?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; I was trying to.

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, I think that your chronological report does not purport to go into the detail of how the search was made and so forth.

Mr. Curry. No, sir; it just states in here how Chief Lumpkin, how he formed the search and it tells something about while he was there.

Mr. McCloy. The chronological report part of our record yet?

Mr. Belin. We have a chronological report, yes.

Mr. McCloy. Is this the same one as the Chief is looking at?

Mr. Rankin. We will check that.

Mr. Dulles. It is not yet an exhibit, is it?

Mr. Rankin. No; we have, and we were discussing yesterday, a number of items in the form of affidavits and other evidence that we will have to introduce into the record of the Commission before we get through which has been examined by the staff and in some cases called to the Commission's attention but is not formally a matter of record and we will have to complete that before we can complete our report.

Mr. McCloy. Is that the same chronological report that the Chief has?

Mr. Curry. If it isn't I can leave you these copies but they were submitted to Attorney General Carr, two copies. This is what is in this report. "Upon arrival,"—this is Chief Lumpkin—"Upon arrival at the Texas School Book Depository we found Inspector Sawyer was in front of the building and with the assistance of other officers was in the process of detaining anyone or everyone who had any knowledge whatsoever of the shooting. This was discussed with Sawyer. We decided that we would get all persons in that category away165 from the crowd by sending them to Sheriff Decker's office"—which is about a half block from here—"at Main and Houston to be held for further interrogation. Homicide Detective Turner was sent to the sheriff's office to represent the homicide bureau of our department and interrogating these witnesses."

Mr. Dulles. That is where the sheriff's office was?

Mr. Curry. Main and Houston, it runs.

"Detective Senkel was released back to Captain Fritz to assist in the investigation. He had come down. Sawyer had placed guards on the building to prevent anyone from going or coming. Sawyer organized a detail to check all persons and automobiles on the parking lot surrounding the Texas School Book Depository Building, taking their names, telephone numbers, addresses, places of employment, and later on in the afternoon those vehicles that were not taken out were checked by license number. Several of the U.S. Alcohol Tax units assisted in the search.

"At that time Lumpkin entered the building and instructed that it be completely sealed off and that no one be allowed to leave or enter."

This probably was some, I would say, some 30 or 40 minutes after the original shots were fired. He had gone on to Parkland Hospital to me and I told him there to return to assist in the handling of this matter.

Mr. McCloy. In your judgment is that the first sealing off of the building that took place?

Mr. Curry. No; I think Inspector Sawyer, when he arrived he took some steps to seal off the building.

Mr. Rankin. You have already testified about Inspector Sawyer and you said you thought he was about 10 or 12 blocks away.

Mr. Curry. I believe so. I believe he was about at Main and Akard Streets which would be about 10 blocks away when he heard of this incident occurring and he immediately went down there.

Mr. Dulles. And the first order to seal off was given some 10 minutes, I think you testified, in that neighborhood?

Mr. Curry. To the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Dulles. After the assassination?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. You don't know just what he did about sealing the building, did you?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I don't. I imagine he placed men on the front and back doors and asked them not to let anyone come or go without finding out who they were.

Mr. Dulles. Who would know that fact as to when that order was given, that would be Sawyer?

Mr. Rankin. Officer Sawyer would be the one who would really know that fact?

Mr. Curry. I believe so.

Mr. Rankin. And whatever he would say about it you think would be correct?

Mr. Curry. I do. Because we already have a deposition from him that tells about the sealing of the building, and it was not done immediately when he came.

Representative Ford. Would it be appropriate at this time to put that deposition in the record at this point?

Mr. Rankin. I wonder if it would be satisfactory to the Commission, in view of the inquiry by Commissioner Ford, if we would, the staff would, tender at this point the portion of the deposition that relates to how the building was sealed, and then have a reference to this point in the place where it is offered in evidence in regular course.

Representative Ford. That would be satisfactory to me as far as the particular point we are discussing at the moment.

Mr. Rankin. We will do that then.

Now, Chief, would you tell us the next thing that you know of that happened about the search for the assassin, after the search of the depository building that you described?

Mr. Curry. The next thing I can tell you about, I remained out, as I say, at Love Field until the planes departed. I went back to the office.

Mr. Dulles. At about what time would you place that?

166 Mr. Curry. I believe it was about 4 o'clock I believe when I returned to the office.

Mr. Dulles. It was 4 o'clock when you returned to the office from Love Field?

Mr. Curry. I believe so, I am not positive.

When I arrived they were in the process of, Captain Fritz and his men, were in the process of investigating this murder of Tippit and also the assassination of the President.

Mr. Rankin. Did you make an inquiry in regard to the progress?

Mr. Curry. I think I did. I asked him how he was coming along and he said they were making good progress.

Mr. Rankin. Then what happened after that?

Mr. Curry. They had had a couple of showups with Oswald so witnesses could attempt to identify him.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether they had gone out to Beckley Street to the place where he had stayed?

Mr. Curry. I understood they had and I understood they went back the next day.

Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by a showup?

Mr. Curry. Well, it is customary when you have suspects in a crime where you have witnesses, that they be taken into a room and allowed, the witnesses, to observe them in the presence of other people.

Mr. Rankin. You have a room for this purpose?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; we do.

Mr. Rankin. Will you describe briefly what that room is like?

Mr. Curry. It is a police assemblyroom where we hold our regular rollcalls. They have a stage whereby prisoners are brought up on this stage.

Mr. Rankin. How large is the room?

Mr. Curry. The room, I would say, is perhaps 50 feet long and 20 feet wide.

Mr. Rankin. Who was allowed in the room at the time of this showup?

Mr. Curry. Presumably only the news media and police officers. I have been told that Jack Ruby was seen in this showuproom also.

Mr. Rankin. About what time of the day was that?

Mr. Curry. As I recall, this was fairly late Friday night, I believe.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know who was there to try to identify Lee Oswald?

Mr. Curry. No, I don't. The news media, a number of them, had continued to say, "Let us see him. What are you doing to him? How does he look?"

I think one broadcaster that I had heard or someone had told me about, said that Lee Harvey Oswald is in custody of the police department, and that something about he looked all right when he went in there, they wouldn't guarantee how he would look after he had been in custody of the Dallas police for a couple of hours, which intimated to me that when I heard this that they thought we were mistreating the prisoner.

Mr. Rankin. Did you do anything about that?

Mr. Curry. I offered then at that time—they wanted to see him and they wanted to know why they couldn't see him and I said we had no objection to anybody seeing him.

And when he was being moved down the hall to go back up in the jail they would crowd on him and we just had to surround him by officers to get to take him to the jail elevator to take him back upstairs, to let him rest from the interrogation.

Mr. Rankin. And this showup, how many people attended?

Mr. Curry. I would think perhaps 75 people. I am just making an estimate. I told them if they would not try to overrun the prisoner and not try to interrogate him we would bring him to the showup room. There was—this, thinking also that these newspaper people had been all over Love Field, and had been down at the assassination scene, and we didn't know but what some of them might recognize him as being present, they might have seen him around some of these places.

Now, Mr. Wade, the district attorney, was present, at this time and his assistant was present, and as I recall, I asked Mr. Wade, I said, "Do you think this will be all right?" And he said, "I don't see anything wrong with it."

Mr. Rankin. Did you find out where Jack Ruby was during this showup?

167 Mr. Curry. I didn't know Jack Ruby. Actually the first time I saw Jack Ruby to know Jack Ruby was in a bond hearing or I believe it was a bond hearing, and I recognized him sitting at counsel's table.

The impression has been given that a great many of the Dallas Police Department knew Jack Ruby.

Mr. Rankin. What is the fact in that regard?

Mr. Curry. The fact of that as far as I know there are a very small percentage of the Dallas Police Department that knows Jack Ruby.

Mr. Rankin. Did you make an inquiry to find out?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I did, yes, sir. And so far as I know most of the men who knew Jack Ruby are men who were assigned to the vice squad of the police department or who had worked the radio patrol district where he had places and in the course——

Mr. Rankin. How many men would that be?

Mr. Curry. I am guessing, perhaps 25 men. This is merely a guess on my part.

Mr. Rankin. How large is your police force?

Mr. Curry. Approximately 1,200. I would say 1,175 people. I would say less, I believe less than 50 people knew him. From what I have found out since then that he is the type that if he saw a policeman, or he came to his place of business he would probably run up and make himself acquainted with him.

I also have learned since this time he tried to ingratiate himself with any of the news media or any of the reporters who had anything to do, he was always constantly trying to get publicity for his clubs or for himself.

Mr. Rankin. Now, at this showup, is there some screen between the person in custody?

Mr. Curry. There is a time—there wasn't at this time.

Mr. Rankin. Why not?

Mr. Curry. No particular reason. They just, a lot of the news media say they didn't think they could see him up there or couldn't get pictures of him up there and we brought him in there in front of the screen and kept him there as I recall only about 4 or 5 minutes and shoving up close to him and taking shots of him and took him upstairs and I believe the district attorney and his assistant stayed down and perhaps talked to the news media for several minutes.

But we took Harvey Oswald back upstairs and I think I went back to my office.

Mr. Dulles. This was the evening of Friday, was it not?

Mr. Curry. I believe so, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Did you say Ruby was present that evening?

Mr. Curry. I have understood he was. But to my own knowledge, I wouldn't have known him because I didn't know him.

Mr. McCloy. You said you first saw Ruby when?

Mr. Curry. In a trial. I believe it was for a bond hearing where they were attempting to get bond for him. And I saw him sitting at a counsel table and recognized him from pictures I had seen of him in the paper.

Mr. Dulles. This is some time before the assassination?

Mr. McCloy. This is the trial incident to the trial of Ruby, as I understand it?

Mr. Dulles. You had not seen him before?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. McCloy. It was a bond hearing incident to the trial?

Mr. Curry. If I had seen him I wouldn't have known him.

Mr. McCloy. I don't want to again interrupt but I don't know whether we have passed by all of the questions you wanted to ask the chief in regard to the motorcade and the time of the assassination.

I thought maybe we might ask him whether or what was his estimate of the speed of the motorcade, for example.

Mr. Rankin. We haven't covered that period because of the way we started, and I think we could go back, Chief, if you will, to, say, at the point the motorcade left Main Street and started down Houston, and then down Elm up to the time of the shots.

Will you describe that, where you and what the motorcade consisted of?

168 Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; I was—there was a pilot car ahead of us with Deputy Chief Lumpkin that was perhaps two or three blocks ahead of us and had been preceding us all the way from Love Field to see that the route was open and reporting back by radio to us, and this was for the purpose, if we had any wrecks or congestion to where it looked like the motorcade could be stopped that we could change our routes and get around them and also to let us know how the crowd was.

He had been preceding us all this way. There has been some question as to why this motorcade would not proceed on down Main Street.

Mr. Rankin. Will you explain that to the Commission?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; I can. I will make another diagram here, if you wish me to.

Mr. Rankin. Mr. McCloy asked about whether the chronological report that Chief Curry was examining during part of his testimony was available to the Commission. We have now searched the Commission files and we find that a copy of that exact report has been available to the Commission and we have it here. It is a Commission document——

Mr. Redlich. It is in Commission Document 81.1.

Representative Ford. Will this report be made a part of the record?

Mr. Rankin. We haven't decided that question but we will examine it and report to the Commission later if it is not made a part of the record, why we recommend that it not be. It may very well be amongst the documents that would be made part of the record in regular course when we examine all of the material for that purpose. Is that a satisfactory handling of it?

Representative Ford. I think it is. I haven't had an opportunity to examine it. But if it is a part of the record, I suspect it ought to be made a part at this point since it has been referred to by the testimony of the chief. But it is something that could be discussed later, and if it should be, it could be put into the record at this point.

Mr. Rankin. I would like to ask leave of the Chairman then to examine it with greater care after the testimony of the chief is taken and be able to make it a part of the record at this point unless I report back to the Commission that for some reason it would not be desirable.

Mr. Dulles. That would be we would proceed in regard to this chronological report we would proceed in the same way as we have suggested we would with regard to the other depositions that were taken in Dallas.

Mr. Rankin. Except my offer before, Mr. Chairman, was that the portion of the deposition that would relate to the matters described, that is the sealing of the building, would, in fact, be incorporated into this record at that point. And that the balance of it would be offered at some later date as a part of the record of the Commission.

Here I wanted to reserve the question as to whether it should be a part of the record because of my desire first to examine it in detail and see if there is any reason why it should not and then report back to the Commission.

Mr. Dulles. You will report back to the Commission. It will not be excluded unless you so report to the Commission.

Mr. Rankin. That is right.

Mr. Dulles. And the reason therefor?

Mr. Curry. This sketch.

Mr. Rankin. Will you mark that sketch you have just made Exhibit 702 please, and 703?

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 702 and 703 were marked for identification.)

Mr. Curry. In the diagram, 702, Exhibit 702, the motorcade was going west on Main Street, there is a triple underpass there. There are three streets and they converge into one wide street down through a triple underpass, what we call a triple underpass.

Mr. Rankin. Where you are talking about the underpass is that underpass on Main Street?

Mr. Curry. It is just west of Houston Street and runs parallel with Houston Street. And Main Street—now Houston Street runs in a north-south direction, Main Street, Elm Street, and Commerce Street the three principal streets that169 empty into this triple underpass are east-west, Elm Street is a one-way street west, Commerce is one-way east, Main Street is a two-way street going east and west. We had——

Mr. Rankin. You were going to explain why you couldn't continue right down Main.

Mr. Curry. We would—we left the parade route up to the host committee. They chose the route, asking that we go down Main Street, and then we would go on to what is known as the triple, through the triple underpass onto Stemmons Expressway. It was necessary to get on this expressway to get to the Trade Mart, the building where the dinner or luncheon would be held.

But had we proceeded on down Main Street, we could not have gotten onto Stemmons Expressway unless we had had public works to come in and remove some curbing and build some barricades over it.

So, in talking with the Secret Service people they suggested we come to Main Street to Elm Street, turn one block north and turn back west and go through the triple underpass on the Elm Street side and at this place Elm Street is two-way.

So that was the reason that it was necessary to take this motorcade one block north, and then turn west again in order that we could get on the triple, through the triple underpass onto the Stemmons Expressway without coming down and removing some curbing or building over the curbing and disturbing the regular flow of traffic.

Mr. Rankin. Was there any consideration given prior to establishing the parade route to removing this curbing and going——

Mr. Curry. No, sir; nothing was said about it at all. In fact, when they were choosing the routes for this parade, we left it entirely up to the host committee and to the Secret Service.

They asked us what we thought about certain routes. We told them what we thought would be the most direct routes, and they chose to come through the downtown area, I think for the purpose they wanted the President to see as much of the people as possible and wanted the people to have an opportunity to see him.

Mr. Rankin. Going to the Trade Mart building would be assumed that you would go by the Texas Depository Building?

Mr. Curry. If we went on Stemmons Expressway and that is the way they wanted to go. The only other way we could have gone. We could have continued down Main Street passed through the underpass about a block past there to Industrial Boulevard and then we would have gone Industrial Boulevard and made an entrance from the Trade Mart, from the north side of the Trade Mart there. But it was decided with the Secret Service people that we would go Main to Houston, Houston to Elm, Elm through to triple underpass onto the expressway and the expressway to the Trade Mart where they would come off and had parking facilities reserved and had a security setup.

Mr. Rankin. Will you describe the cars of the——

Mr. McCloy. Just before that, how far before November 22 was that route decided on?

Mr. Curry. Approximately 2 days or so, I believe. That is in this chronological record.

Mr. Dulles. When was this route published?

Mr. McCloy. That route was published.

Mr. Curry. It was published perhaps 2 days before, a day or two before.

Mr. Rankin. Is the Elm Street route a shorter route than to go by Industrial Boulevard?

Mr. Curry. It's a more scenic route. The Stemmons Expressway was and it was easier to travel, traffic is easier to control on it, it is a 10-lane highway, and the Industrial Highway is heavily traveled by commercial vehicles and goes through a commercial section of the industrial area. And there was a more scenic route and traffic was more—a freer flow of traffic anyway.

Mr. Rankin. Were you involved in the discussion about the choice of route?

Mr. Curry. Not particularly. Chief Batchelor, my assistant chief, and Chief170 Lunday. I discussed this some with the Secret Service Agent Sorrels, and Lawson in a staff meeting at city hall.

Mr. Rankin. What was that discussion?

Mr. Curry. Well, we, when I say we, I mean my staff and I, we told them what we thought would be the most direct route.

Mr. Rankin. What did you say that would have been?

Mr. Curry. It would have been to come into Lemmon Avenue, to Central Expressway if they were coming through town and over that route.

Now, if they were going directly to the Trade Mart it would have been to come in Lemmon to Inwood Road and down Inwood to Hines, and Hines to Industrial and Industrial into—but this would not have taken them through the downtown area.

Mr. Rankin. Then if they were going to go through the downtown area what did you say about the route that should be taken for that?

Mr. Curry. This was probably the most direct route that they chose except they could have come in what we term the Central Expressway to Main Street, and then west on Main Street right down the route that was taken.

They chose rather to come in on Lemmon Avenue to Turtle Creek, and here again this is a more scenic route and more people would have an opportunity to see the motorcade. And followed Turtle Creek into Cedar Springs, to Harwood and south on Harwood to Main Street, west on Main to Houston, north on Houston to Elm and west on Elm to Stemmons Expressway.

Mr. Rankin. Have you described the cars in the motorcade? Their positions?

Mr. Curry. I have them listed here, I couldn't tell you other than the front part of the motorcade but they are in this report.

Mr. Rankin. Yes. Tell us the front part that you recall.

Mr. Curry. I had Deputy Chief Lumpkin, and he had two Secret Service men with him, I believe, out of Washington, and a Colonel Wiedemeyer who is the East Texas Section Commander of the Army Reserve in the area, he was with him. They were out about, they were supposed to stay about a quarter of a mile ahead of us and I was in the lead car.

Mr. Rankin. Who was with you?

Mr. Curry. Inspector, not inspector, but Sheriff Bill Decker, Sorrels of the Secret Service, and Mr. Lawson, I believe he was out of the Washington office of the Secret Service. And immediately behind us then was the President's car.

Mr. Rankin. You were driving your car?

Mr. Curry. I was driving my car.

Mr. Rankin. You had radio communication in that?

Mr. Curry. Yes; I had radio communication with my motorcycle officers, with my downtown office, and Secret Service had a portable radio that they had radio contact with their people.

Mr. Rankin. Yes. Now, what was in the next car.

Mr. Curry. The President's party was in that car. Then following him was the Secret Service vehicle and then I understand was the Vice President's car, and then behind him was a Secret Service car. And then they had cars lined up as listed in this report here, how they were lined up after that.

Mr. Rankin. Now, after you turned the corner off of Main going onto Houston, will you describe what happened as you recall it?

Mr. Curry. Nothing unusual occurred. We were, I would say traveling perhaps 10 miles an hour, would be the ordinary speed to make a turn, and probably was making that speed after we made a turn from north, going north on Houston to west on Elm Street, and——

Mr. Rankin. Did you slow down for the turn onto Elm?

Mr. Curry. Perhaps just a little. I would say we were probably going 8 to 10 miles an hour. And as we were moving downward the triple underpass which is about an ordinary block we were beginning to pick up a little speed.

Mr. Rankin. How much of a descent is there between where the Depository Building is and the place in the underpass?

Mr. Curry. It is a pretty good little drop. Within the space of a block it drops down enough to go under an underpass.

171 Mr. Rankin. It would be more than the height of a car?

Mr. Curry. Yes; two heights.

Mr. Rankin. Two heights.

Mr. Curry. I think it is a 13- or 14-foot clearance.

Mr. Rankin. Trucks could get under that?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Then what happened?

Mr. Curry. Then we heard this report.

Mr. Rankin. Now, how far along from the corner of Elm and Houston were you at the time of that?

Mr. Curry. I think we were perhaps a couple of hundred feet or so.

Mr. Rankin. How fast were you going then?

Mr. Curry. I think we were going between 10 or 12 miles an hour, maybe up to 15 miles an hour.

Mr. Rankin. Then what happened?

Mr. Curry. We heard this report, and then all of the tension that followed I have told you.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. What was the distance between your car and the President's car approximately?

Mr. Curry. Mr. Dulles, I believe to the best of my knowledge it would have been 100, 125 feet.

Mr. Dulles. Between your car and the President's car?

Mr. Curry. Yes, we stayed pretty close to them. In the planning of this motorcade, we had had more motorcycles lined up to be with the President's car, but the Secret Service didn't want that many.

Mr. Rankin. Did they tell you why?

Mr. Curry. We actually had two on each side but we wanted four on each side and they asked us to drop out some of them and back down the motorcade, along the motorcade, which we did.

Mr. Rankin. How many motorcycles did you have?

Mr. Curry. I think we had four on each side of him.

Mr. Rankin. How many did you want to have?

Mr. Curry. We actually had two on each side side but we wanted four on each side and they asked us to drop out some of them and back down the motorcade, along the motorcade, which we did.

Mr. Rankin. So that you in fact only had two on each side of his car?

Mr. Curry. Two on each side and they asked them to remain at the rear fender so if the crowd moved in on him they could move in to protect him from the crowd.

Mr. Rankin. Who asked him to stay at the rear fender?

Mr. Curry. I believe Mr. Lawson.

Mr. Rankin. The Secret Service man?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. Also we had planned to have Captain Fritz and some of his homicide detectives immediately following the President's car which we have in the past, we have always done this.

Mr. Rankin. Now, would that be between the President's car and the Secret Service?

Mr. Curry. And the Secret Service. We have in past done this. We have been immediately behind the President's car.

Mr. Rankin. Did you propose that to someone?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Who did you propose it to?

Mr. Curry. To Mr. Lawson and Mr. Sellers.

Mr. Rankin. What did they say about that?

Mr. Curry. They didn't want it.

Mr. Rankin. Did they tell you why?

Mr. Curry. They said the Secret Service would be there.

Mr. Rankin. And then?

Mr. Curry. They said we can put this vehicle in between Captain Fritz and his detectives immediately at the end of the motorcade. They said, "No, we172 want a white or marked car there bringing up the rear," so Fritz and his men were not in the motorcade.

Mr. Dulles. What do you mean in the past when there have been previous Presidents visiting Dallas or other dignitaries?

Mr. Curry. Yes; that is right; other dignitaries. Yes; our thinking along this was that in the past there have been this. Captain Fritz, he is a very experienced homicide man so are his detectives. They know the city very well. They have been there very, Captain Fritz to my knowledge, over 40 years.

It is customary that they in trying to protect a person if they are in the immediate vicinity, and Captain Fritz told me later, he said, "I believe that had we been there we might possibly have got that man before he got out of that building or we would have maybe had the opportunity of firing at him while he was still firing" because they were equipped, would have been equipped with high-powered rifles and machineguns, submachine guns.

Representative Ford. Where were they instead of being at the motorcade.

Mr. Curry. Actually they were not in the motorcade at all. They followed up the motorcade.

Representative Ford. Were they in a car following up the motorcade?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; they were in a car.

Representative Ford. How far away would they have been?

Mr. Curry. I think they would have been at the rear, I believe.

Representative Ford. Captain Fritz is going to be here later.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Representative Ford. And fill in what he did at that time?

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Curry. But we tried to do what the Secret Service asked us to do, and we didn't try to override them because we didn't feel it was our responsibility, that it was their responsibility to tell us what they wanted and we would try to provide it.

Mr. Rankin. Did you refuse to do anything that they asked you to do?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; not to my knowledge we don't—we didn't refuse them to do anything.

Mr. Dulles. You considered them to be the boss in this particular situation?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; the Secret Service; yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know or can you tell us approximately where the President's car was at the time of the first shot that you heard?

Mr. Curry. To the best of my knowledge, I would say it was approximately halfway between Houston Street and the underpass, which would be, I would say probably 125–150 feet west of Houston Street.

Mr. Rankin. Can you give us the approximate location of where it was when you heard the second shot?

Mr. Curry. Well, it would have been just a few feet further because these shots were in fairly rapid succession.

Mr. Rankin. How many feet do you mean?

Mr. Curry. I would say perhaps, and this is just an estimate on my part, perhaps 25 or 30 feet further along.

Mr. Rankin. Then at the time of the third shot?

Mr. Curry. A few feet further, perhaps 15–20 feet further.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have an opinion as to the time that expired between the first shot and the third shot?

Mr. Curry. This is just an opinion on my part but I would think perhaps 5 or 6 seconds.

Mr. Rankin. Did you hear any more than three shots?

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

Mr. Rankin. Are you sure of that?

Mr. Curry. I am positive of that. I heard three shots. I will never forget it.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have something, Mr. McCloy?

Mr. McCloy. I was going to ask you, chief, as you were approaching the underpass you were looking toward the underpass presumably?

Mr. Curry. That is right.

Mr. McCloy. Was the underpass bare of people or were there people on it?

Mr. Curry. No; I could see some people on each side but not immediately over,173 but there were some people up in the railroad yard. I also could see an officer up there. I don't know who the officer was.

Mr. McCloy. You could recognize an officer on the top of the underpass?

Mr. Curry. Yes; their instructions had been to place officers on every overpass and in every underpass.

Mr. McCloy. How close were you then to the underpass when you first heard that shot?

Mr. Curry. Oh, perhaps 150 feet or 100 feet or so.

Mr. McCloy. So you are convinced that the shot could not come from the overpass?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe it did; no, sir.

Mr. McCloy. Then——

Mr. Curry. Because there didn't seem to be any commotion going on over there. This seemed to be people that I could see, they didn't seem to run or anything. They just seemed to be there.

Mr. McCloy. You spoke of the railroad yard. Just where is that railroad yard in relation to the underpass? We will see that.

Mr. Curry. It is over——

Mr. McCloy. It is on the other side.

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. You see these tracks.

Mr. Rankin. Mark that as Exhibit 703 and you can refer to.

Mr. Curry. Yes; here is the School Book Depository. The railroad goes over.

Mr. Dulles. This aerial view of the Elm Street there, isn't it of the underpass, will be admitted as 704.

(Commission Exhibit No. 704 was marked for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. McCloy. Do you call that the railroad yards?

Mr. Curry. Yes; that is true.

Mr. McCloy. Above the underpass?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. Did you see a number of people in the railroad yard?

Mr. Curry. I would estimate maybe a half dozen.

Mr. Dulles. They were spectators or were they workmen. They were spectators?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; as well as I was able to tell. They might have been workmen, too, but I presume it was people who were in the area and as the motorcade approached they got into position where they perhaps could have seen it.

Mr. McCloy. Did you recognize any officer amongst them?

Mr. Curry. I seemed to recall seeing a uniformed police officer up there.

Mr. McCloy. In the railroad yard, and there was no commotion amongst the railroad yard people?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe so.

Representative Ford. Do you know who the officer was?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; but I believe by looking at the assignments we could determine what officer was up there.

There is an assignment of personnel which has been submitted for the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. Rankin. On the record, we will supply for the purposes of this record the name of the officer and check it with Chief Curry, who was on the underpass or really the over part of the pass.

Mr. Curry. Really over.

Mr. Rankin. At the time of the motorcade.

Representative Ford. Who determined there should be one, not more officers at an overpass?

Mr. Curry. Deputy Chief Lunday and Assistant Chief Batchelor went over this route with Sorrels, and I believe Lawson was with them. And they were the ones who determined how many men would be placed at each location.

Mr. Rankin. The inquiry I think particularly is did the Secret Service decide it would be one or did you decide it would be one?

Mr. Curry. No; it would be the Secret Service because we just let them tell us how many men they wanted. The only deviation we made from that was in174 the security of the Trade Mart. I believe they requested 143 men, as I recall to secure the Trade Mart, and I believe we supplied them with 193 or 194 men, somewhat in excess of what they asked for at this location.

I called the State police, and they furnished a number of men, about 30 men, and Sheriff Decker furnished about 15, and I think we furnished from our department everybody that they asked for really, so we had a surplus.

Representative Ford. But the details as to how many men should be placed where were determined by Lawson and Sorrels of the Secret Service?

Mr. Curry. That is right, sir; yes, sir.

(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. McCloy. May I ask one question?

As you were leading this or just ahead of the President's car, as you came around past the School Depository Building, was there anything that attracted your attention to the building at all as you went by?

Mr. Curry. Not at all.

Mr. McCloy. There was no movement or anything?

Mr. Curry. Not at all.

Mr. McCloy. You weren't conscious of looking up at the windows?

Mr. Curry. Not at all.

Mr. McCloy. You had Secret Service men in that car with you?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. Were they inspecting the windows as they went by?

Mr. Curry. It seemed that Sorrels, he was looking around a whole lot and so was Lawson. I know comments were being made along the route as to first one thing and then another.

Mr. Dulles. If you had had the other Car with police officers in it to which you referred and which I gathered you recommended what would have been the function and duties of the officers in that particular car?

Mr. Curry. It would have been, of course, to guard the President, but in the event that anything happened they would have immediately dropped out of their car with rifles and submachine guns. That was what we had planned.

Mr. Rankin. Now, as a part of the plans for the motorcade, was there anything said about the inspection of buildings along the route?

Mr. Curry. The comment was made that in a city like this how in the world could you inspect or put somebody in every window of every building.

Mr. Rankin. Who said that?

Mr. Curry. This was in a discussion with the Secret Service. I don't recall exactly who said this.

Mr. Rankin. Was it the Secret Service people or your people?

Mr. Curry. I don't know whether it was us or Secret Service. But this was discussed. I think it was Secret Service who told us how they always dreaded having to go through a downtown area where there were these skyscraper buildings.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know of any effort that was made to search any of the buildings?

Mr. Curry. Not to my knowledge. We did put some extra men from the special service bureau in the downtown area to work in midblocks to watch the crowd and they were not specifically told to watch buildings but they were told to watch everything.

Mr. Rankin. Where were they located?

Mr. Curry. On the route down Main Street. We didn't have any between Elm Street and the railroad yard.

Mr. Rankin. But you say in midblock?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; especially midblock along the route through the downtown area.

Mr. Rankin. Where would the downtown area be?

Mr. Curry. It would be from Harwood Street down to Houston Street.

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, do you know whether Officers Foster and White were on the underpass?

Mr. Curry. I would have to look at the assignment sheet to determine that, sir.

Mr. McCloy. May I ask at this point, unless I may be interfering with your175 examination, but was it usual for the representatives of the news media to attend showups in the police headquarters apart from this incident?

Mr. Curry. It was not unusual. This was not setting a precedent.

Mr. McCloy. It was not unusual.

Representative Ford. In such a showup where they are present, are they shielded from the person brought in for identification?

Mr. Curry. Are they shielded from——

Representative Ford. From the person who is brought up for identification?

Mr. Curry. Ordinarily the person who is brought up for identification would be behind the screen, behind this silk screen. This is for the purpose of protecting the person who is going to try to identify him more than trying to protect the person who is being shown up because witnesses ofttimes have a fear of facing someone that they are asked to identify.

For this reason this screen was provided where the prisoner could not see out, but the people can see in. It is much like a one-way glass.

Representative Ford. That was used in this case?

Mr. Curry. No; this was not used. We just brought him in front of it.

Representative Ford. Any particular reason why he was put in front of it?

Mr. Curry. They asked us if we wouldn't bring him out there, they didn't think their cameras would show through the screen. And as I repeated, when this was brought up, I asked Mr. Wade, the district attorney, if he saw anything wrong with this and he said "No; I don't see anything wrong with this," so we agreed to do this.

Representative Ford. Who was in charge of the actual showup operation?

Mr. Curry. The jail personnel would have brought him down from downstairs and brought him into the room and then removed him.

Representative Ford. Who handled the actual process of identification or attempted identification by various witnesses?

Mr. Curry. Usually Captain Fritz or some of his homicide detectives are present. I know when they were having a showup for a little lady, I don't know her name but she was a waitress who observed the shooting of the officer, I just—I wasn't there during the entire showup but I was present part of the showup and Captain Fritz was asking her to observe these people and see if she could pick out the man she saw who shot the officer and she didn't identify Oswald at that time.

Representative Ford. Did you say the actual process that was—that took place in these several showups was similar to or different from the showups in other cases?

Mr. Curry. The only one where we didn't have any particular witnesses to show him up to, but the number of the news media had asked if they couldn't see him and it was almost impossible for all of them to see him up in this hallway and we decided that the best thing to do, if we were going to let them see him at all would be to take them and get them into a room, and then there was utter confusion after we did that because they tried to overrun him after we got him there and we immediately removed him and took him back upstairs.

Representative Ford. You mentioned earlier there had been some allegations to the effect that Oswald had been badly treated.

Mr. Curry. There was—I didn't hear this myself but someone told me, I don't recall who it was, that some of the news media, I understood this was broadcast over the radio and TV.

Representative Ford. Did you investigate that rumor?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. What did you find out?

Mr. Curry. I found he had not been mistreated.

Representative Ford. You checked with all the police personnel who had anything to do with it?

Mr. Curry. Everyone I knew about and the only marks on him was, that I could see there was a slight mark on his face up here, and this was received when he was fighting the officers in that theatre, and they had to subdue him and in the scuffle, this episode in the theatre, he apparently received a couple of marks on his face.

But he didn't complain to me about it. I think he—one of the times he was176 coming down the hall someone asked him what was the matter with his eye and he said, "A cop hit me," I believe, or "A policeman hit me."

Representative Ford. Did you ask Oswald whether he had been mistreated?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe I did, sir.

Representative Ford. But you talked to Oswald on one or more occasions?

Mr. Curry. I don't know that I ever asked him any questions at all. I was present during the interrogation, but he was very sullen and arrogant and he didn't have much to say to anybody. Fritz, I think did more talking to him than anybody else.

Representative Ford. But not in your presence did he object to any treatment he received from the Dallas police force?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I would like to say for the record that we are very strict on our officers in the treatment of prisoners, and we have a personnel section setup that any person who complains that they have been mistreated by the police officer, a thorough investigation is made, and if it is determined that he has been mistreated in any way, disciplinary action is taken, and on occasion we have, not frequently, but on occasion where we have found that this has been true we have dismissed personnel for mistreating a prisoner, so our personnel know positively this is not tolerated regardless of who it is.

Mr. Rankin. Chief, you have described a showup, and you have also described the general practice. You have also described showups in regard to Oswald and you said there were several of them.

Mr. Curry. When I said several, to the best of my knowledge there were perhaps three altogether.

Mr. Rankin. Yes, one you were describing when the screen was not used was not for the purpose of identification, is that right?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; unless some of the news media had come forward and said, "We saw that man"; you see a lot of that news media, that was present, were with the Presidential party and there is a possibility that some of them might have said we saw this man to leave the scene.

Mr. Rankin. So the principal reason was to allow the news media?

Mr. Curry. The principal reason was at their request that they be allowed to see the prisoner.

Mr. Rankin. And he wasn't placed back of the screen at that time?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; he was not.

Mr. Rankin. And whatever identification there would be would be under the hope that they might have seen him?

Mr. Curry. They might have seen him because a great number of the news media were at the scene of the shooting or in the immediate area.

Mr. Rankin. And that is the particular showup when you learned later Jack Ruby was supposed to have been present?

Mr. Curry. I was told that he was present. That someone had seen him back in this room. He easily could have been there as far as I was concerned because I wouldn't have known him from anyone else.

Mr. Rankin. At the other showups, were witnesses there to try to identify Oswald?

Mr. Curry. Yes, there were.

Mr. Rankin. How were those handled, do you know?

Mr. Curry. Exactly the same manner except that he was brought in behind the screen, and was handcuffed to some police officers or other prisoners.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know who was there to try to identify him?

Mr. Curry. Only on one occasion. This was a little lady that was a waitress.

Mr. Rankin. Mrs. Markham?

Mr. Curry. I believe her name was Mrs. Markham.

Mr. Rankin. Do you believe whether she was able to identify him?

Mr. Curry. Yes, I heard her tell Captain Fritz that was the man she saw shoot the officer.

Mr. Rankin. And that was Officer Tippit?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. What kind of a reputation did Officer Tippit have with the police force?

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question before that. Were you present when177 any members of Oswald's family, his wife, his mother, saw him or talked with him?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. Dulles. Do you know whether any of your officers were?

Mr. Curry. I understood they were brought to the third floor of the city hall and were placed in a room, and that if any of them were present it probably would have been Captain Fritz.

Mr. Dulles. He would know about it?

Mr. Curry. I believe he would, yes.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you.

Mr. Rankin. Will you tell us what Officer Tippit's reputation was with your police force?

Mr. Curry. He had a reputation of being a very fine, dedicated officer.

Mr. Rankin. How long had he been with you?

Mr. Curry. I believe he came to work for us in 1952, after he had had service in the paratroopers, I believe, and he had made several jumps into Europe. He was raised in a rural community, and he was very well thought of by the people in the community where he grew up. He was a rather quiet, serious minded young man. He seemed to be very devoted to his family, and he was an active church man.

Mr. Rankin. What was his rank?

Mr. Curry. Patrolman. He was not a real aggressive type officer. In fact, he seemed to be just a little bit shy, if you were to meet him, I believe, shy, retiring type, but certainly not afraid of anything. I think in his personnel investigation it showed that during, as he was growing up, sometimes his shyness was mistaken for perhaps fear, but that it only took a time or two for someone to exploit this to find out it wasn't fear. It was merely a quiet, shy-type individual.

Mr. Rankin. Was there any record in the police department of any disciplinary action toward him?

Mr. Curry. The only disciplinary action ever taken was he was given a day off one time because he had missed court on two occasions.

Mr. Dulles. Missed what?

Mr. Curry. Missed court.

Mr. Rankin. He had been unable to testify or something?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; in city court they have to appear 1 day a week. They are notified each week to appear but they are told on one day will be their court day and if any cases coming up it would be that time. And on two occasions he failed to appear. I think one time he forgot it and I think another time he said he was tied up on a radio call or something and didn't notify him and it is just a departmental policy if you miss court twice you are given a day off for it.

Mr. Rankin. Was that the penalty that was imposed?

Mr. Curry. Yes, it was. He took it in very good graces, he didn't feel like he was being mistreated.

Mr. Rankin. That was the only disciplinary action against him?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; there was one other complaint in his file, where he had stopped a lady and given her a ticket and also had given her, he gave her two tickets, one for no operator's license, and after he had issued the tickets she found her driver's license, and she called to him across the street, and said something about she found her license and he told her okay, show it in court, but she thought he was being rather abrupt and discourteous to her, she felt like he should have come back over and taken this ticket for driver's license and destroyed it.

Under our rules and regulations you cannot destroy a ticket; if it is destroyed it has to be accounted in our auditor's office and that was the only complaint in the years on the force.

Mr. Dulles. A rumor reached me that Officer Tippit had been some way involved in some narcotic trouble, I don't know what the foundation of that is. Do you know anything about that at all?

Mr. Curry. Nothing whatsoever; no, sir.

178 Representative Ford. You mean you know nothing about it or you checked it out and there is no validity?

Mr. Curry. This is the first I ever heard of it that he was involved in any narcotics.

Representative Ford. But your records, so far as you know, would not indicate such?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Thank you.

Mr. McCloy. Did you, so far as you know, did Tippit know Ruby?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe he did. I am sure he didn't. He would not be the type I think that would even have any occasion to know him because some of the officers that we found that did know him, either worked in the area where he had a night club or some of the officers that worked in the vice squad who had occasion to go in and inspect these cases or a few officers we found they went out there for social purposes, outside their regular duty.

Tippit, for a number of years, had been assigned out in Oak Cliff. I don't think he had ever been assigned in an area where Jack Ruby—well Jack Ruby did live in Oak Cliff but I am sure, to the best of my knowledge, Tippit never had any occasion to be around Jack Ruby.

Mr. Dulles. Was Tippit at the time he was killed on a regular assigned assignment or was he just roving in a particular area?

Mr. Curry. On this particular day, now he had been assigned to Oak Cliff for several months farther out than he was, but when this incident occurred at the Texas School Book Depository, this is customary policy in the police department if something happens on this district and tying up several squads that the squads from the other district automatically move in in a position where they can cover off or something else might happen here, much the same as fire equipment does, this is automatic.

Mr. Rankin. Will you explain that further?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; say two squads were to get a call in an area, and this area here, say they had a big fire or something, they brought two or three squads in here from adjoining districts, then automatically these squads out in these other areas would begin to cover off or get in a position to where if instead of staying out here on the far side of this district, they would perhaps move into this district right here where they could answer here, here or over into here. This is just automatic patrol policy.

On this particular day, some of the squads in this Oak Cliff area had been ordered over into the Dallas area, this Texas School Book Depository, and some of these other outlying squads then, I think we have this on a radio log, I don't know whether you have this or not, were 78 or 81.

Mr. Ball. Why don't you read it in the record, a definite order for Tippit to come in there.

Mr. Curry. Right here. This would have been at approximately 12:45, I believe. Here is the description came out at about 12:45. The dispatcher put out a description of attention all squads.

Mr. Dulles. What do you mean by description?

Mr. Curry. Of a suspect.

Mr. Dulles. I see, description of Oswald?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. What are you reading from, Chief?

Mr. Curry. This is radio log record from the Dallas Police Department, as recorded on November 22.

Mr. Rankin. Is that from Commission Document 728?

Mr. Dulles. I want to correct my question, it was a man seen leaving?

Mr. Curry. It was a description of a suspect.

Mr. Dulles. You didn't know it was Oswald?

Mr. Rankin. Will you tell us what the rest of that notation is?

Mr. Curry. Dispatcher put out this description, "attention all squads Elm and Houston, unknown white male person approximately 30, slender build, height 5 feet 10, 160 pounds, reported to be armed with what is believed to be a .30-caliber rifle. Attention all squads, the suspect is believed to be white179 male 30, 5 feet 10 inches, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a .30-30 rifle, no further description at this time."

This was at 12:45 p.m.

Mr. Rankin. What channel are you talking about?

Mr. Curry. Channel 1.

Mr. Rankin. You had more than one channel?

Mr. Curry. Two channels.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Curry. Someone came in, they didn't identify themselves and came in and said what are they wanted for, and they said signal 19 which is a shooting under our code involving the President.

Representative Ford. Did Tippit's motorcycle have channel 1?

Mr. Curry. He was in a squad car and most of our squad cars have channel 1 and 2, but they stay on channel 1 unless they are instructed to switch over to channel 2.

Mr. Dulles. He did have channel 1?

Mr. Curry. Yes. Now within the minute of broadcasting, a little further on, squads 102 and 233 checked out at Elm and Houston, 81 came in the district squad, that was an Oak Cliff squad. He said "I will be going north from Industrial on Corinth." That means he was leaving the Oak Cliff section coming toward the downtown section of Dallas.

Representative Ford. By he who do you mean?

Mr. Curry. The man assigned to district 81, and I don't have his name but it would be on our records.

Then Tippit was working 78 and he along with district 87, which is further out in Oak Cliff, at about 12:45, between 12:45 and 12:46, the dispatcher sent out this message to him, "87-78 moving into central Oak Cliff area."

Now the central Oak Cliff area would have been the area nearby where this shooting occurred.

Representative Ford. Shooting of Tippit?

Mr. Curry. Shooting of Tippit occurred. I am sure—a little later on here, he says "you are in Oak Cliff area, are you not," and he said "at Lancaster and 8th", that would be just several blocks from where this shooting then occurred.

Mr. McCloy. This is Tippit's reply going in?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. The next sentence also says something, Chief?

Mr. Curry. And the dispatcher told him, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes in." In other words, he was one of the remaining squads in Oak Cliff that was in service.

Mr. Dulles. What does that mean, scout around the area?

Mr. Curry. Anywhere in that central area, Oak Cliff.

Mr. McCloy. Did he reply to that?

Mr. Curry. He said "10-4".

Mr. Rankin. What does that mean?

Mr. Curry. It means message received.

Mr. Rankin. Doesn't that mean approval?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. These are transcriptions of communications back and forth?

Mr. Curry. That is recorded on our radio there in Dallas.

Mr. Rankin. Is there a tape recorder on that?

Mr. Curry. Yes; and it is kept for a permanent record.

Mr. Rankin. Was there any other shooting in this particular area where Officer Tippit was that morning, do you know?

Mr. Curry. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Dulles. Is that 10-4 message the last message you received from Tippit?

Mr. Curry. As far as I know that is the last word we heard from him.

Mr. McCloy. Was this description of the suspect the first description that went out?

Mr. Curry. As far as I know, it is.

Mr. Dulles. That was at 12:45, as I recall.

180 Mr. Curry. Approximately, yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Rankin. When did you first learn of Officer Tippit's murder?

Mr. Curry. While I was out at Parkland Hospital. That is after we had taken the President there and the Governor, and we were waiting there.

Mr. Rankin. Now, on these showups for Lee Oswald, did you have any special security arrangements about bringing him in among all this crowd of news people?

Mr. Curry. We had some police officers bringing him down. I was there, Captain Fritz went, I don't believe he went inside the door. He went to the door, I believe. There were several officers there, yes.

Mr. Rankin. Was this more than usual?

Mr. Curry. Perhaps so; yes. Ordinarily there would have been maybe a jailer and a jail guard with the prisoner. And there would have been the detective out with the witnesses.

Mr. Rankin. Were you disturbed about the security for Lee Oswald with all this crowd?

Mr. Curry. Not at that time. I really didn't suspect any trouble from the news media. I thought they were there doing a professional job of reporting the news and I had no reason to be concerned about the news media.

Mr. Rankin. Did it concern you that there were so many additional people to try to keep track of as well as——

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; it did.

Mr. Rankin. What did you do about it?

Mr. Curry. I didn't do anything about it but I was concerned about it. I was thinking that we were going to have to, in the event we have had an incident like this occur again, that we would have to make some different arrangements for the press. We couldn't, when I say the press, the news media, we couldn't have the city hall overrun like this.

Mr. Rankin. Did it occur to you to do anything about stopping it right then?

Mr. Curry. No. I didn't discuss it with any of my staff that we should clear all these people out of here and get them outside the city hall.

Mr. Rankin. You gave no consideration to that kind of approach?

Mr. Curry. Not at the time.

Mr. Rankin. Now after the interrogation of Oswald, did you make some decision about moving him?

Mr. Curry. Not at that particular time. It is customary after we file on a person that he be removed from the city hall.

Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by file on a person?

Mr. Curry. File a case against him and that is necessary to go to the district attorney's office usually, and in this case the district attorney was there and we filed it at the city hall because the district attorney was with us.

Mr. Rankin. A criminal complaint?

Mr. Curry. A criminal complaint. After we file this complaint it is customary for the prisoner to be transferred from the city to the county jail and to remain in custody until he makes bond or is brought to trial.

Mr. Rankin. That is a regular practice?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. These transfers are usually made by the sheriff's office, sometime during the morning.

Mr. Rankin. By the sheriff's office you mean it is the sheriff's responsibility?

Mr. Curry. Routine transfers are made. It is not a hard and fast custom. Many times we will take the prisoner to the sheriff.

Mr. Rankin. Who decides which way you will do it?

Mr. Curry. It is left up to the bureau commander.

Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by the bureau commander?

Mr. Curry. That is handling the case.

Mr. Rankin. Who would that be in this case?

Mr. Curry. In this case it would have been Captain Fritz.

Mr. Rankin. And he decides then in all cases of this type whether or not the police will take him across to the sheriff's jail or the sheriff will come and get him?

181 Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; ordinarily it wouldn't even come to my attention how it was handled.

Mr. Rankin. Did it come to your attention this time?

Mr. Curry. It did this time. I had asked, it seemed to me like it was on Saturday after he had been filed on late or early Friday morning, the news media many times had asked me when are you going to transfer him and I said, "I don't know."

Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by "early Friday morning?"

Mr. Curry. I mean early Saturday morning. Late Friday night or early Saturday morning.

Representative Ford. Where do you actually do this filing?

Mr. Curry. Ordinarily our detectives would go down to the courthouse which is right near where the President was assassinated and file it in the district attorney's office. However, in this case the district attorney and also his assistant was up at the city hall with us, and we drew up the complaints there at the city hall.

Mr. Rankin. Who do you mean by we?

Mr. Curry. When I say we, I mean the Dallas police officers and the homicide officers working in this case.

Mr. Rankin. I see.

Representative Ford. What evidence did you have at that point?

Mr. Curry. I couldn't tell you all the evidence. I think Captain Fritz can tell you better than I. Captain Fritz just told me on Friday afternoon he said, "We have sufficient evidence to file a case on Oswald for the murder of Tippit." Later on that night, somewhere around midnight, I believe, he told me, he said, "We now have sufficient evidence to file on Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President Kennedy."

He told me he had talked it over with Henry Wade and with the assistant district attorney and they agreed we had enough evidence to file a case, and a decision was made then to file the case, which we did.

Representative Ford. At that time you had the rifle, did you not?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Who made the original identification of the rifle, the kind of rifle that it was?

Mr. Curry. I don't know, sir.

Representative Ford. It was reported that the original identification was a 7.65 Mauser. Are those reports true or untrue?

Mr. Curry. I wouldn't know, sir.

Representative Ford. You don't know?

Mr. Curry. I don't know.

Representative Ford. Do you know when it was finally determined that it was not a 7.65 Mauser?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I don't know that.

Mr. McCloy. As far as I know there was no police report that it was a 7.65 rifle.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, do you know of any police records of your police department that showed that this weapon that was purportedly involved in the assassination was a Mauser rifle?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; not to my knowledge.

Representative Ford. All of your records show affirmatively it was the Italian rifle?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. That is correct.

Mr. McCloy. While we are waiting for Mr. Rankin to continue his examination, let me ask you this question, Chief.

Did you, prior to the assassination, know or hear of Oswald?

Mr. Curry. Never.

Mr. McCloy. Didn't hear that he had been—there was a defector named Oswald in the city of Dallas?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. McCloy. Never heard of his name?

Mr. Curry. We didn't have it in our files.

182 Representative Ford. Was there anything in your files that Lee Harvey Oswald had been involved with the Dallas police force?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Representative Ford. No record whatsoever?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Was there any record of his having made a trip to the Soviet Union and returned?

Mr. Curry. Not in our files.

Mr. Dulles. And returned to Texas?

Mr. Curry. We didn't have anything in our files regarding Lee Harvey Oswald.

Senator Cooper. Could I follow up on that, did you have any record of any individuals, persons, in Dallas, or the area, who because of any threats of violence against the President or any Communist background required you to take any special security measures?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; when we have notables, celebrities visiting us, there are some groups in Dallas that are known to be extreme rightwing and extreme leftwing groups. We try to keep track of these people and what their plans are. We have been able to infiltrate most of their organizations.

Senator Cooper. Now prior to the President's visit, did you take any—did the Dallas Police force take any special security measures about any persons that you might suspect of possible violence?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; we kept some people under surveillance or groups under surveillance. We had prior to this visit, we had some information brought to us, I don't know who brought it to us, that there was a man in Sherman or Denison, who said that he is going to see that the President was embarrassed when he came to Dallas.

Senator Cooper. Who was that man, do you know?

Mr. Dulles. We have a Secret Service report, I believe with regard to this case. Here is one from the chief of police of Denton, Tex.

Mr. Curry. Yes; we had some information that the students at North Texas were planning some demonstrations.

Senator Cooper. My question is, did your police force take any special security measures about anyone that you felt might be capable of violence against the President?

Mr. Curry. Not at this particular time, because we had reports from the different groups, and we had information from inside these groups that they were not planning to do anything on the day the President was there. We knew that General Walker was out of the city, and we knew that his group that sometimes put on demonstrations.

Senator Cooper. When you say planning, you are not limiting it to any violence, but you are talking about any possible demonstrations?

Mr. Curry. Yes; demonstrations.

Senator Cooper. I want to come back to that point later, but I want to ask this, outside of what you had in your police files, your records, did you know yourself, or did you know whether anyone in authority in the police force or anyone in the police force, to your knowledge, had any knowledge of the presence of Oswald in Dallas?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I have asked my criminal intelligence section, which would have been the persons who had knowledge of this.

Senator Cooper. Had anyone informed you that he was working in the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Had he ever tangled with the Dallas Police in any respect of which there is any record?

Mr. Curry. We have no record at all of him.

Representative Ford. Did the Secret Service people inquire of you as to your knowledge of these various groups that you had infiltrated?

Mr. Curry. I don't remember them specifically asking me what were these groups planning to do.

Representative Ford. Did you volunteer any information on it?

183 Mr. Curry. I think perhaps we told them what we had done. They were aware of the fact that we did know the plans of the various organizations, and I know we sent Lieutenant Revill and a couple of his men up to Denison, or Denton, to talk to a man that had purportedly said they were going to embarrass the President and had made some remarks about it and after we talked with him he said, "I won't even be in Dallas. I was just popping off. I will assure you I am not even going to be down there. I don't want any part of it."

Then some of the study group in North Texas, we had an informant in this group, and they had decided they would be in Dallas with some placards to express opinions about the President or some of his views. Some of these people were arrested after the shooting because we were afraid that the people were going to harm them. They were down around the Trade Mart with some placards.

Senator Cooper. I have a couple of more questions.

Do you remember the full page advertisement that was in the Dallas paper?

Mr. Curry. I saw it; yes.

Senator Cooper. Directed against the President of the United States?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Senator Cooper. What date did you give that statement in making any kind of preparations for his visit?

Mr. Curry. In the first place, I didn't think it was very appropriate, it makes us apprehensive, a little more apprehensive of the security of the President, but we were doing everything that I knew we could do to protect him. I will never forget that as we turned to go down toward that underpass the remark was made, "We have almost got it made," and I was very relieved that we had brought him through this downtown area, and were fixing to get on this expressway where we could take him out to the Trade Mart where we had a tremendous amount of security set up for him.

Senator Cooper. Since the assassination, have you had any actual factors or any evidence or information of any kind which would indicate that any person other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. Dulles. Was any investigation made of, I believe it was Weissman, or somebody by that name, who inserted this advertisement to which Senator Cooper referred, was any particular investigation made?

Mr. Curry. Not any investigation by us.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. McCloy. I have one question.

Did you since the assassination or before have any information or any credible information which would indicate that there was any connection between Ruby and Oswald?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; we were not able to establish any connection between them.

Mr. McCloy. You made a thorough investigation of that?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; we made every attempt to prove or disprove an association between them, and we were not able to connect the two.

Mr. McCloy. Do you intend to ask the chief about the General Walker episode?

Mr. Rankin. Yes; and also about the Ruby episode.

Mr. McCloy. I think that is all I have at the moment.

Mr. Rankin. Chief, I put in front of you there as Exhibit 705, now marked as "Exhibit 705," your radio log that you have just been looking at and referred to, is that right?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Will you turn to the page there where you find the first broadcast of the description of the suspect of the assassination of the President? Is that on your page 6 or thereabouts?

Mr. Curry. The pages—yes, it is page 6, channel 1.

Mr. Rankin. Will you tell what time of the day that is recorded as having been made?

Mr. Curry. This shows at the end the broadcast to be 12:45 p.m. It would be on November 22d.

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Exhibit 705 being this radio log which covers a great many matters, but in light of the importance184 of the time and the description and all, I think the entire log should go in and then we can refer to different items in it.

Mr. Dulles. It will be admitted as Commission's Exhibit No. 705.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 705, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Rankin. Now, will you read to the Commission a description that was given at that time of the suspect of the assassination?

Mr. Curry. The broadcast reads as follows: "Attention all squads. Attention all squads. At Elm and Houston, reported to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, height 5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds. Reported to be armed with what is believed to be a .30-caliber rifle.

"Attention all squads, the suspect is believed to be white male, 30, 5 feet 10 inches, slender build, 165 pounds, armed with what is thought to be a .30-.30 rifle. No further description or information at this time. KKB there 64 Dallas, and the time given as 12:45 p.m."

Mr. Rankin. You have described Officer Tippit's number?

Mr. Curry. District 78.

Mr. Rankin. And that is recorded along the left-hand side when there is any message either from him or to him, is that right?

Mr. Curry. That is correct.

Mr. Rankin. Do you find there a message directed to him about moving to the central Oak Cliff area?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. And what time is that message recorded?

Mr. Curry. Immediately following this dispatch to him to district squads 87 and 78, EBG 78.

Mr. Rankin. What time?

Mr. Curry. The time is given as 12:46.

Mr. Rankin. What does it say?

Mr. Curry. The dispatcher asked him "87 and 78" or instructed him "Move into the central Oak Cliff area."

Mr. Rankin. Did he respond to that?

Mr. Curry. A little later he did.

Mr. Rankin. When?

Mr. Curry. We have—he was asked his location, would be about 1 o'clock.

Mr. Rankin. Did he say what it was?

Mr. Curry. He didn't come back in at that time. At 1:08 p.m. they called him again.

Mr. Rankin. Did he respond?

Mr. Curry. It is at 12:54. The dispatcher said "78" and he responded, he said, "You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?"

Seventy-eight responded and said, "Lancaster and 8," which would be in the central section of Oak Cliff.

The dispatcher said, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes in."

And he responded, "10-4," which means message received. And he would follow those instructions.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have an item there of a broadcast of a person who murdered Tippit?

Mr. Curry. We have apparently—a citizen came in on the radio and he said, "Somebody shot a police officer at 404 10th Street." Someone in the background said 78, squad 78, car No. 10. And the citizen said, "You get that?" and the dispatcher said, "78."

And there was no response and the citizen said, "Hello, police operator, did you get that?" Some other unknown voice came in and said, "510 East Jefferson."

Mr. Rankin. What time of the day?

Mr. Curry. This was about 1:15; 1:19 is the next time that shows up on the radio log. The dispatcher at 1:19 said, "The subject is running west on Jefferson from the location."

Citizen came back in on the radio and said, "From out here on 10th street, 500 block, the police officer just shot, I think he is dead."185 Dispatcher said, "10-4, we have the information."

The citizen using the radio remained off the radio.

Dispatcher to 15, he was the sergeant, said, "Did you receive the information of police officer shot?"

And he said, "10-4, but didn't that citizen say first he was on Jefferson and 10th and then Chesapeake?"

And he said, "Yes."

And he said, "Do they relate?"

And he said, "Yes, at Denver, 19 will be there shortly," that is a sergeant or a lieutenant.

Ninety-one came on and said, "Have a signal 19 involving a police officer at 400 block East 10th. The suspect last seen running west on Jefferson, no description at this time."

The dispatcher came in and said, "The suspect just passed 401 East Jefferson."

Dispatcher then says, "Give us the correct location on it, 85, we have three different locations."

Eighty-five says, "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet, 10-4, check, 491 East 10th at Denver."

Dispatcher repeated, "The subject has just passed 401 East Jefferson."

At 1:22 we have a broadcast here that says, "We have a description on the suspect here on Jefferson, last seen on the 300 block on East Jefferson, a white male, 30, about 5 feet 8, black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks, armed with what he states unknown. Repeat the description."

Dispatcher said that to the squad. He says. "Wearing a white jacket believed to be a white shirt and dark slacks. What is his direction of travel on Jefferson?"

He said, "Travel west on Jefferson, last seen in the 401 West Jefferson, correction, it will be East Jefferson."

The dispatcher then said, "Pick up for investigation of aggravated assault on a police officer, a white male approximately 30, 5 feet 8, slender build, has black hair, white jacket, white shirt, dark trousers. Suspect has been seen running west on Jefferson from the 400 block of East Jefferson at 1:24."

Then they asked about the condition of the officer, and there was something about—the dispatcher did receive some information that there was a man pulled in there on West Davis driving a white Pontiac, a 1961 or 1962 station wagon with a prefix PE, saying he had a rifle laying in the street.

We have a citizen following in a car address unknown direction.

The dispatcher said, "Any unit near Gaston 3600 block, this is about a blood bank."

Then 279 comes in and says, "We believe the suspect on shooting this officer out here got his white jacket, believed he dumped it in this parking lot behind the service station at 400 block West, Jefferson across from Dudley House. He had a white jacket we believe this is it."

"You do not have a suspect, is that correct?"

"No, just the jacket lying on the ground."

There is some more conversation about blood going to Parkland.

"What was the description beside the white jacket?"

"White male, 30, 5-8 black hair, slender build, white shirt, white jacket, black trousers, going west on Jefferson from the 300 block."

Squad says, "This is Sergeant Jerry Hill." Says, "I am at 12th and Beckley now, have a man in the car with me that can identify the suspect if anybody gets one."

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, we were furnished a Commission Document No. 290, dated December 5, 1963, that purported to be a radio log for your department, and it did not have any item in it in regard to instruction to Officer Tippit to go to the Central Oak Cliff area.

Do you know why that would be true?

Mr. Curry. I don't know why it wasn't in that log except that these logs, after they are recorded, they are pretty difficult to try to take everything off186 of them, channel 1 and channel 2 is in on them and they spent many hours going over these and copying these.

This would be available and I listened to our recording.

Mr. Rankin. That is Exhibit 705 you are talking about?

Mr. Curry. That is right.

Mr. Rankin. So if there is a discrepancy between the two, are you satisfied that Exhibit 705 is correct?

Mr. Curry. Is the correct exhibit; yes.

Mr. Rankin. Commission Document No. 290 does say at the heading that most routine transmissions were left out for reasons of brevity.

Would that be any explanation?

Mr. Curry. Perhaps it could be, yes. Because these would have been routine broadcasts. The fact the squad was moving into this area because this is more or less normal procedure when we have incidents occurring of any magnitude, the squads immediately begin moving in to cover officers of the district.

Mr. Rankin. You were going to tell us about how it came to your attention about the moving of Lee Oswald to the jail from your place on Saturday?

Mr. Curry. To the county jail?

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

I asked Captain Fritz a time or two when he wanted to move Oswald, because this is left up to him. Whoever will be handling the case, I mean I don't enter in the transfer of prisoners. I don't ordinarily even know when they are going to be transferred.

Mr. Rankin. Why is that?

Mr. Curry. It is just a routine matter.

Mr. Rankin. Can you tell us is that involved quite a few times in your operations?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. Usually it is a daily transfer of prisoners, and usually the sheriff's office sends up there and picks them up on routine prisoners.

Mr. Rankin. Are there a number each day?

Mr. Curry. I would say perhaps anywhere from maybe none to 15 a day.

Mr. Rankin. When did you talk to Officer or Captain Fritz about this?

Mr. Curry. I think I talked to him some on Saturday, because the newspaper people or the news media kept asking me when are going to transfer him?

Mr. Rankin. That would be November 23?

Mr. Curry. Yes; and I said this I don't know because that would be left up to the men doing the interrogation. When they felt like they were finished with him and wanted to transfer him or when Sheriff Decker said, "We want the man."

Mr. Rankin. Did you have anything to do with his transfer then?

Mr. Curry. Other than to, I called Sheriff Decker on Sunday morning and he said, I told him and I think he had talked to Fritz prior to that time, too, and he told Fritz, he says, "Don't bring him down here until I get some security set up for him."

So, Sunday morning I talked to Sheriff Decker.

Mr. Rankin. Why didn't you do it at night?

Mr. Curry. This is not customary to transfer prisoners at night.

Mr. Rankin. Why?

Mr. Curry. Well, in talking with Captain Fritz, and here again the prisoner was his, and when some of my captains, I believe it was perhaps Lieutenant Swain, it is in the record somewhere said something about, "Do you think we ought to move him at night?"

And Captain Fritz was not in favor of moving him at night because he said, "If anything does occur you can't see, anybody can immediately get out of sight, and if anything is going to happen we want to know where we can see and see what is happening."

Mr. Rankin. Were you fearful something might happen?

Mr. Curry. I didn't know. I thought it could happen because of a feeling of a great number of people. But I certainly didn't think anything to happen in city hall. I thought that if anything did happen to him it would probably be en route from the city jail to the county jail.

187 Mr. Rankin. What precautions did you take?

Mr. Curry. The precautions that were taken, when I came in on Sunday morning, now Captain Fritz, I had talked to him on Saturday night or Saturday evening anyway, and he said, he thought he would be ready to transfer him by 10 o'clock the next morning, that would be Sunday morning.

Mr. Rankin. Did you tell that to the media?

Mr. Curry. I told them at some time after that. Several of them asked me when are you going to transfer him, and I said, I don't know.

They said, "Are you going to transfer him tonight," and I said, "No, we are not going to transfer him tonight." I said, "We are tired. We are going home and get some rest."

Something was said about well, we are tired, too. When should we come back, and I think that this is recorded in some of the tape recording, that I told them if you are back here by 10 o'clock in the morning, I don't think that you would miss anything you want to see.

Mr. Rankin. What did you do then about precautions?

Mr. Curry. The next morning when I came in, that would be about 8:30, 8:45, I think, parked in the basement of city hall, I started up to the elevator and I noticed they had moved some cameras into a hallway down in the basement and I told Lieutenant Wiggins who is in the jail office, I said, "These things will have to be moved out of here, and I also told Chief Batchelor, and Chief Stevenson, Assistant Chief Batchelor, and Assistant Chief in Charge of Investigations Stevenson who came down in the basement at the time.

Mr. Rankin. Those were TV cameras?

Mr. Curry. That was in the lobby or in near the lobby of the jail office. I told them they were—would have to move those out of there. This was also in the parking area, there was a ramp come down from Main Street and goes out on Commerce Street, and then there is a parking area east of this.

I told Lieutenant Wiggins who was there, I said, "Now, move these squad cars," there was a transfer car there and a squad car, "move these cars out of this area and if the news media wants down here put them over behind these railings, back over in the basement here."

Then that is all I did at that time. I saw that they were setting up some security. A little while later Chief Batchelor and Chief Stevenson went downstairs and found Captain Talbert who was the platoon commander, radio platoon commander had some sergeants down there and they were setting up security and were told clean everything out of the basement and not let anybody in here, I think the depositions will show that, not let anybody in except police officers and news media who had proper credentials.

Mr. Rankin. What about the various entrances, was anything done about that?

Mr. Curry. Well, the entrances to the basement, yes, and the entrances from the basement of city hall out into the basement proper where the cars come in.

Mr. Rankin. What was done about that?

Mr. Curry. Every entrance there were guards put on it with instructions not to let anyone come or go except police officers or news people that had proper credentials.

Mr. Rankin. What entrances are there to the basement?

Mr. Curry. This is a Main Street entrance for vehicles, that would be on the north side of the building. There is a Commerce Street exit which would be on the south side of the building, on the west side downstairs there is an entrance from the jail corridor where the public goes to the jail window into the basement of the parking area. Then there are some elevators that come from the municipal building, that come down to the basement level. There are also, there is also an opening that goes from this basement down into a subbasement where the maintenance men have their offices.

(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)

Mr. Rankin. And each one of those was guarded?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Throughout the time?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. What other precautions were made?

188 Mr. Curry. There were a great number of police reservists and detectives and uniformed officers, I think there was a total, I believe of about 74 men in this area between the jail office and the immediate area where he would be loaded.

Mr. Rankin. How large an area was that?

Mr. Curry. Well, where he would be brought out of the jail office to put him in this car, would be, I would say, 16 or 20 feet, and then this building, this ramp runs from one street to the other, and the parking area would cover a block wide and perhaps 150 feet deep.

Mr. Rankin. Were there cars in the parking area?

Mr. Curry. Some cars were there. They had been searched out, all of them. All of the vehicles had been searched, and all the, where the airconditioning ducts were, they had all been searched, every place where a person could conceal himself had been searched out.

Mr. Rankin. Was there a plan for an armored car?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; there was.

Mr. Rankin. What happened about that?

Mr. Curry. After they had gotten the armored car down there, in talking with Captain Fritz, and here again this prisoner was his responsibility and I don't want to be in a position of just overriding him, and I was willing to trust his judgment, he had been doing this for, like I say, nearly 40 years, and he said, "Chief, I would prefer not to use that armored car, I don't know who the driver is. It is awkward to handle and if anybody tries to do anything to us, I am afraid we would be surrounded. I would prefer to put him in a police car with some of my men following him, and get in and just take him right down Main Street and slip him into the jail."

So I said, "It will be all right with me if you want to do it that way but let's not say anything about this."

Mr. Rankin. Now the armored car was not a Dallas police car, was it?

Mr. Curry. No; it was not.

Mr. Rankin. It was one you were arranging to get from——

Mr. Curry. I believe his name was Mr. Sherrell, who was the manager of the Armored Motor Service there in Dallas.

Mr. Rankin. And they would furnish a driver with it?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. What else was done, if anything?

Mr. Curry. We went ahead with our plans and we instructed the officers that would be involved in this transfer they would go east on Commerce Street, north to Elm Street, west on Elm Street to Houston Street, and then back south on Houston to the rear entrance of the county jail.

Mr. Rankin. How many officers would be involved in the transfer?

Mr. Curry. In the actual transfer, I would think perhaps 15 or 18 besides the men that were stationed at the intersections downtown.

Mr. Rankin. How far would it be from your police department to the county jail?

Mr. Curry. I would say 12–15 blocks.

Mr. Rankin. Were there any other precautions you haven't described?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; that is about all I know of, except that Captain Fritz wanted to transfer the prisoner in his car, with some of his detectives. This is not unusual. He has transferred many, many prisoners, especially where there is—it is an unusual case involving more than the ordinary routine crime, so it is not anything unusual to transfer him, for him to transfer prisoners.

But, it was then suggested or arranged that they would put his car in a position behind the armored car that we would bring the prisoner out, put him in his car, and he would have two detectives in the back seat with him, plus one driver and two or three detectives following him immediately and there was supposed to be another car to pick up and go with them or get into a car van with these two.

They would follow the armored motor car and no one would know that he was not in the armored motor car except the reporters downstairs when they saw him come out. They would see he was placed in a car instead of the armored car, and we planned to let the armored car go over the predetermined route, but that Captain Fritz, when he got to Main Street, as you go east on189 Commerce and turned north to go to Elm Street, that is the second street over, when he got to Main Street they would make a left turn and go right down Main Street to the county jail, and they would turn right on Houston Street and the lead car would pull past the entrance and he would duck in and the gates would be closed and the prisoner would be transferred.

Mr. Rankin. What happened to these TV cameras that you told them to get out of there?

Mr. Curry. They moved them back somewhere. I don't know where they moved them but it was away from there.

Mr. Rankin. Weren't their cameras right there at the time of the shooting?

Mr. Curry. There were some cameras immediately over, TV cameras, I think over where I had told them to place them earlier that morning. I understood when Chief Batchelor went downstairs and I think Captain Jones of the forgery bureau, immediately prior to the transfer, they found there were some reporters and cameramen in the jail office, and Captain Jones, I believe, asked Chief Batchelor if these should not be removed and he was told yes, they should be removed out into the basement. When they were removed out into the basement instead of them being placed outside of the railing—now this is a decision made by Chief Batchelor, I suppose, because he said put them in the driveway up to the north. Now this is from where Ruby came. So apparently this afforded him an opportunity, from our investigation it was determined that he came down this Main Street ramp.

Mr. Rankin. How did you determine that?

Mr. Curry. We interrograted every man that was assigned in the basement. Also every witness who was around there that we could find that knew anything about it.

Mr. Rankin. Did anyone see him come in on that ramp?

Mr. Curry. There was a former police officer who told us he saw him go down that ramp, a Negro former police officer.

Mr. Rankin. Who was that?

Mr. Curry. I believe his name was Daniels. I think perhaps you have a statement from him, don't you?

Mr. Rankin. Is he the only one who saw him come in down there?

Mr. Curry. I believe so.

Mr. Rankin. Now with these TV cameras down there how would your ruse work about having the armored car go ahead and Oswald climb into Captain Fritz' car? Wouldn't that all be shown on TV?

Mr. Curry. If it was. We didn't think there would be anybody downtown to be in a position to watching TV that quickly to do anything about it if they wanted to.

Mr. Rankin. You thought about it though?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. What happened? Were you down there at the time?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I would have been but I received a call from my mayor and as I was fixing to go downstairs and I wish that I had been downstairs because I don't know that I could have done anything but you always have this feeling if you were there maybe you could have done something.

But I was called to the telephone and while I was talking to the mayor, why I heard some noises from downstairs and I was up on the third floor, and I heard some shouting, and someone came in and told me that Oswald had been shot.

Mr. Rankin. Did you learn how the shooting occurred?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Will you tell us?

Mr. Curry. I was told that someone sprang from the crowd and pushed a gun into his stomach and fired a shot.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know who that was?

Mr. Curry. I was told that the man was named Jack Ruby.

Mr. Rankin. What else did you learn about it?

Mr. Curry. Further investigation revealed, and some of my officers who talked to Ruby and talked to his attorney, I believe, were told that he came down that north ramp, and an investigation revealed that one of our officers,190 who was assigned there. Officer Vaughn, who was assigned to this location just prior to this transfer.

Mr. Rankin. That is out on the street?

Mr. Curry. Main Street side.

Mr. Rankin. At the entrance?

Mr. Curry. At the entrance to the basement ramp. He had been assigned there and had been told not to let anybody come in except newspaper reporters or news media or police officers.

Mr. Rankin. Did you find out what he did?

Mr. Curry. We discovered or found out subsequently that he, just prior to this transfer, that when we found out we were going to transfer him and not use an armored car that Chief Stevenson had told Lieutenant Pierce "to get a couple of sergeants or a sergeant, get somebody and go around and get in front of the armored car and when we tell you to why you lead off and lead this armored car over here and just over the route we have discussed, and take it to the county jail."

Well, Lieutenant Pierce went downstairs and got a car and he got Sergeant Putnam and I don't recall the other sergeant, and because the ramp that ordinarily we would use for exit ramp to Commerce Street, it was blocked with this armored car and another vehicle, he went out in the wrong direction, that is he went north, up to north, he went north on the ramp to Main Street which ordinarily would not be done, but since he could not get out, why he did, and as he approached the ramp, our investigation showed that Officer Vaughn stepped from his assignment in the entrance to this ramp, and the walk is about 10 or 12 feet wide there, stepped across and just more or less assisted the car to get into the Main Street flow of traffic.

Now he wasn't asked to do this by the lieutenant, but he just did it and according to what Ruby told some of my officers, I believe, whether you have it on the record who he told this to, that he came down that north ramp.

Mr. Rankin. At that time?

Mr. Curry. At that time.

Now this would only have been, it couldn't have possibly been over 2 or 3 minutes prior to the shooting, so apparently he went right down that ramp and he got in behind some of these newspaper reporters or news media and detectives, and as Oswald was brought out he sprang from behind one of my detectives and took about two steps and shoved a gun in Oswald's side and pulled the trigger.

This officer, in talking to him, he made a report, he swears that he didn't see anybody go in there.

Mr. Rankin. By this officer, you mean Vaughn?

Mr. Curry. Officer Vaughn. He did, I asked him myself or asked the investigating officers to see if he wouldn't take a polygraph test concerning this, just to verify his position in it, and he agreed to take the polygraph test and did take the polygraph test and the polygraph test revealed that he was not aware that Ruby came in while he stepped, when he stepped away from the entrance of that door.

Now I am not here to place the blame on anybody because, as I have said previously, as head of the department, I have got to accept the responsibility for what goes on there.

But if Officer Vaughn had properly carried out his assignment, I don't believe that Ruby could have gotten into the basement of the city hall.

Mr. McCloy. Unless he had credentials, media credentials?

Mr. Curry. That is correct.

Mr. McCloy. We haven't verified whether or not he did have anything?

Mr. Curry. We haven't been able to verify that. There were none found on his person.

Mr. Rankin. Did you make any inquiry as to whether or not any of the police force were involved with Ruby in this shooting?

Mr. Curry. We got reports and interrogated every officer who was there.

Mr. Rankin. What did you find out?

Mr. Curry. We didn't find any officer who knew he was down there or that had in any way assisted him in getting there. No one.

191 Mr. Rankin. You are satisfied that none of them were involved in trying to have Oswald shot?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; I certainly am.

Mr. Rankin. Did you make inquiry to determine whether there was any evidence that anyone else was involved with Ruby in trying to shoot Oswald?

Mr. Curry. We made every effort we could in our investigation. We were not able to determine any tieup between any other individual and Ruby or Oswald.

Mr. Rankin. Did you make any inquiry to determine whether or not anyone else was involved with Oswald in the assassination of the President?

Mr. Curry. We attempted to. Every lead we came upon we followed it out to see whether or not we could make any connection between Ruby, Oswald, or any other group.

Mr. Rankin. Did you discover any evidence that would tend to show that Oswald had any support in the assassination?

Mr. Curry. No; we did not.

Mr. Rankin. Did you discover any evidence that would prove Ruby was involved with any other person in the killing of Oswald?

Mr. Curry. We were not able to determine any connection.

Mr. Dulles. I will just ask one question, if I may, here.

It was Officer Vaughn, I understand, who had the direct responsibility for checking the credentials.

Mr. Curry. Of that door, of that particular door.

Mr. Dulles. That door. Is there any evidence that Officer Vaughn knew of Ruby?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe he did.

Mr. Dulles. Has that been looked into?

Mr. Curry. He was asked that, and if I remember correctly in his deposition he didn't know him.

Mr. Dulles. He testified he didn't know him?

Mr. Curry. I believe so, I am not confident of that, but they have had his deposition here, which I am sure would reveal that.

Mr. Dulles. Do you know——

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCloy. Do you know, chief, anybody on the staff, on your staff, on the police staff, that was particularly close to Ruby?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. McCloy. I would want to go back for a little while on one thing.

How did it happen the description was broadcast so quickly after the event? Can you explain the circumstances under which——

Mr. Curry. I am merely giving an opinion here.

Mr. McCloy. Yes.

Mr. Curry. I think the reason it was when they found out at the Texas School Book Depository that this employee when they were checking employees and they found out this employee was missing, that they presumed he must or could have had some connection between the shooting of the President and the fact that he was not present at this time.

Mr. McCloy. Can you describe the mechanics or the machinery by which this did get on to, this material on to the broadcast, that is——

Mr. Ball. Could I go off the record on it?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Curry. No, sir; other than, I am sure that someone put it over a police radio to our dispatcher and he put it then, he broadcast it.

Mr. McCloy. That is someone on the scene would presumably communicate with headquarters?

Mr. Curry. With the dispatcher. He would rebroadcast it to all units.

Mr. McCloy. And he would rebroadcast it to all the units?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. You have given us, I think, an estimate or approximate estimate of the number of officers you thought that knew Ruby, and I believe it was about 25 out of the whole force.

Mr. Curry. This is just—I mean this is not—I couldn't say this was a real192 accurate number, but I am just presuming from just talking to people in the department. I would say that certainly no more than 50 men knew anything about him at all.

Mr. Dulles. Have you made any effort to find out and run down these men that did know?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. You have?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. And how many have you actually discovered did know Ruby from that investigation?

Mr. Curry. I don't have the exact number, but I am guessing it probably would be 25 or 30 men.

Mr. Dulles. Twenty-five men whom you have interrogated with regard to their association with Ruby?

Mr. Curry. That knew him in some capacity. That knew him in some capacity.

Mr. Dulles. Mr. Rankin, do we have depositions on this point?

Mr. Rankin. We have inquired of everyone deposed as to what he knew about Jack Ruby, what acquaintance, any prior connections.

Mr. Dulles. You mean all the police officers who were——

Mr. Rankin. Who were interrogated, but, of course, we didn't cover any 1,200 men.

Mr. Dulles. Did you cover all those that were present that morning?

Mr. Curry. I believe we asked anyone in the police department who knew Ruby to let us know about it. And then I think anyone that knew him, the names were turned over to those people here. We covered all that such an inquiry would reveal but we didn't purport to cover—well, we covered something like a hundred out of 1,200.

We requested by departmental order any police officer who knew Jack Ruby make it known to us, and then he was interrogated about it.

Mr. Rankin. Of those interrogated that would probably include all of those present the day of the shooting of Oswald, the morning of the shooting of Oswald at the time of the transfer?

Mr. Curry. I believe it would.

Mr. Rankin. All that we knew were present at all, and beyond that, too, have been interrogated.

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. When Officer 78, that is Tippit was directed to the Oak Cliff area that was simply because the Oak Cliff area was sort of a center of activity at that point?

Mr. Curry. At that time.

Mr. McCloy. It wasn't—it wasn't because you were trying to or had any idea that the suspect might have been there?

Mr. Curry. Not from the Presidential shooting, but we were sure that the suspect in the Officer Tippit shooting was in the central area.

Mr. McCloy. But Tippit was still alive on the first direction to him to go out there?

Mr. Curry. That was because some of the squad had been moved out of the Oak Cliff into the Dallas area. You see, this is across the river.

Mr. McCloy. What is the Oak Cliff area?

Mr. Rankin. I think that ought to be clarified. Chief Curry, wasn't your testimony that Tippit was in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. And then he was directed to move to the central Oak Cliff area?

Mr. Curry. That is correct.

Mr. Rankin. Move in closer, and so he was in it, his regular beat, as I understand it, was in the Oak Cliff area, isn't that right?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. And is Oak Cliff a suburb or what is it?

Mr. Curry. It is not exactly a suburb, but it is physically separated. It used to be a separate municipality and some years ago——

193 Mr. Rankin. Where does it lie?

Mr. Curry. It lies west of Dallas proper and across the Trinity River and the only means of going to Oak Cliff, going to and from Oak Cliff is by means of viaduct so there is a physical separation between Oak Cliff and Dallas, and some of the squads had been pulled out of the Oak Cliff area and to come over to the Elm and Houston area to assist in the investigation of this shooting, and it would be normal procedure as squads go out of an area for the squads further out to move in in the event something does happen in this area they would have a squad that wouldn't be so far removed from it.

Mr. Dulles. This direction had nothing to do with any suspicion that you might have had that the assassin might be going into this area?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; none at all.

Mr. Dulles. It was purely a maneuver to cover an area which had been evacuated or been left uncovered because of the assassination and the reassignment of squads?

Mr. Curry. The reassignment of squads, that is right.

Mr. McCloy. Because of the withdrawal of people of the Oak Cliff area into the Houston Street area?

Mr. Curry. That is correct. So we pulled some of the squads further assigned to the area into the most central area to cover anything that might happen so they would be in position to go out or come in.

Mr. McCloy. That does clear it up.

Mr. Rankin. Will you tell us on the record what was normal procedure that you just spoke about?

Mr. Curry. Normal procedure would be when we have a great number of squads on assignment in an area, in their particular district, as squads go out of service, say they are checking out, to haul prisoners into the jails or they are on calls, it just is automatic they are instructed in school when they go to school if the adjoining squad goes out of service, doesn't stay, say he adjoins you on the east, don't go to the far west side of your district, go to the east side of your district where you could be on the west side of his district, so if something else occurs in his district you would be in a position to answer the call.

Ordinarily it is not necessary for us to, so that squads go to getting out of service, to go and rearrange squads.

In this particular instance, when he asked 81 and 78 if they were in central Oak Cliff they said yes, but they were moving there because this would be a normal thing to do, to move into an area where other squads had gone out of service.

Mr. Rankin. You told us about your efforts to try to determine whether subversive groups or groups that might have an interest in making trouble for a trip of the President were going to try to do anything. Would you tell us what you did about that in more detail?

Mr. Curry. I gave you a copy of this, and I would like to read it for the record, if you would like me to.

Mr. Rankin. We will offer that.

Mr. Curry. All right.

This is a copy of a report submitted to me by Lieutenant Jack Revill, criminal intelligence section of the special service bureau.

Mr. Rankin. I will hand you Exhibit No. 710 and ask you if that isn't a copy of what you are referring to.

Mr. Curry. Yes; it is.

Mr. Rankin. You won't have to read that. Chief, if you will just describe in a general way what was done that you know about and then I will offer that to show what it proves.

Mr. Curry. In essence, this report says prior to the announcement of the President's visit, there were rumors he would visit Dallas and because of these rumors the intelligence section increased its efforts in attempting to get data concerning not only extremists and subversive groups.

Mr. Rankin. How do they do that?

Mr. Curry. They usually have an informant inside the organization. Sometimes it may be one of our own men.

Mr. Rankin. I see.

194 That was with regard to the persons listed on that Exhibit 710?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know of any other efforts besides that?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; these are all that I know of except we did in one instance go to the cities outside of Dallas, towns outside of Dallas to talk to some people that had rumored that they would do something to embarrass the President. These organizations are listed as the Ku Klux Klan, the Indignant White Citizens Council, National States Rights Party, the John Birch Society, Dallas White Citizens Council, Oak Cliff White Citizens Council, General Walker group, American Opinion Forum, Dallas Committee for Full Citizenship, Young Peoples Socialist League, Dallas Civil Liberties Union, Texas White Citizens Council, and Black Muslims.

Mr. Rankin. I will hand you Exhibit 709 which you have furnished us this morning, and ask you, can you tell us how you got that exhibit?

Mr. Curry. This exhibit was a report that was submitted to me from Jack Revill, who is a lieutenant, in the criminal intelligence section.

Mr. Rankin. That is the same man who is referred to in Exhibit 710?

Mr. Curry. Yes, it is; their assignment is to keep track of these groups that we have talked about, possible subversive or extremist groups and try to know something about their plans, their movements.

Mr. Rankin. How did you get that information described in Exhibit 709?

Mr. Curry. It was given to me on November 22d at 2:50 p.m., or shortly thereafter, but I mean the information came to him at that time, and he passed it on to me, later that day.

Mr. Rankin. Would you tell us how you secured Exhibit 711?

Mr. Curry. This is a report from Officer V. J. Brian, B-r-i-a-n, who is a detective in the criminal intelligence section, and was present when Lieutenant Revill, when the information submitted was given to Lieutenant Revill.

Mr. Rankin. I would like to offer Exhibits 709, 710, and 711.

Mr. Dulles. They will be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibit Nos. 709, 710, and 711 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a recess now until 2 o'clock.

Mr. McCloy. One more question.

Was there any talk that you heard around before the, after the apprehension of Oswald and his time set for his removal from police headquarters to the jail, was there any talk that you heard in the corridors or elsewhere about lynching or possible lynching?

Mr. Curry. No, sir. The only information I had was that the FBI, someone from the FBI passed the information to the city hall during the night that they had had a call that said, I believe the FBI sent this call, that there was a group of 100 who would take that prisoner away from us before he got to the county jail.

Mr. McCloy. But this came from outside the jail?

Mr. Curry. Yes; outside.

Mr. McCloy. You never heard any threats uttered within the jail?

Mr. Curry. No.

Mr. Dulles. Another general question: Have you any comments or anything you would like to say about the cooperation between the Dallas police, the Secret Service, and the FBI during this period immediately following, prior to and immediately following the assassination?

Mr. Curry. No, sir. We have always had the best of cooperation between both of these Federal units, and all other units of the Federal and State government. I feel sure that they thought this information was important to us, they probably would have given it to us. But we certainly have not had any trouble with the FBI or with the Secret Service in any of our past associations.

Mr. Dulles. I was going a little further. I mean, was the cooperation whole-hearted and open and frank as far as you could tell?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; as far as I could tell, it was.

Mr. Dulles. Was there any problem created because of the possible—not conflict of authority, but question as to who had responsibility of particular195 areas here as between you as chief of police and the Secret Service and the FBI?

Mr. Curry. Prior to the President's visit, no; there was nothing there.

Mr. Dulles. Prior to or subsequent to?

Mr. Curry. Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place, but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas, Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.

We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"

But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.

Mr. Dulles. An agent of the police force, you mean?

Mr. Curry. An agent of the FBI.

Mr. Dulles. FBI?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. There was no agent of the Dallas police that went to Washington with the evidence?

Mr. Curry. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Rankin. Did that work out all right so far?

Mr. Curry. Well, not exactly, because they were to give us pictures of everything that was brought to Washington, and Fritz tells me that some of these little items that it was very poor reproduction of some of the items on microfilm.

Subsequently they photographed these things in Washington and sent us copies, some 400, I think, 400 copies of different items. So far as I know, we have never received any of that evidence back. It is still in Washington, I guess.

Perhaps the Commission has it.

Mr. Rankin. Yes; the Commission is still working with it.

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. But apparently the FBI tried to carry out their agreement with you, didn't they?

Mr. Curry. Yes; they did.

Mr. Rankin. And it is a question of whether or not their reproductions were as good as you would like to have?

Mr. Curry. There were made, some of them, in the office down in Dallas, they were in a tremendous hurry to get all of these items to the laboratory here in Washington, and our only concern was this, that if this case is tried in Dallas, we need the evidence to be presented here in a court in Dallas and we were a little bit apprehensive about it if it gets to Washington will it be available to us when we need it. If we need somebody to identify, attempt to identify the gun or other items will it be here for them to see?

And that was our only concern.

We got several calls insisting we send this, and nobody would tell me exactly who it was that was insisting, "just say I got a call from Washington, and they wanted this evidence up there," insinuated it was someone in high authority that was requesting this, and we finally agreed as a matter of trying to cooperate with them, actually.

Mr. Dulles. Have you any more questions?

Mr. McCloy. Not at this stage.

Mr. Rankin. Shall we convene at 2?

Mr. Dulles. Mr. Murray, do you have any?

Mr. Murray. No, thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)


196

Afternoon Session
TESTIMONY OF JESSE EDWARD CURRY RESUMED

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

Mr. McCloy. (presiding). We are ready.

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, I was asking you just as we closed your examination before lunch about Exhibits 709, 711 particularly, and you will recall those are the documents concerning the conversation between Agent Hosty of the FBI and Jack Revill who is your lieutenant of criminal intelligence section, is that right?

Mr. Curry. It was reported to me, I was given a report to that effect.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know anything about the matters described in those letters?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. Will you tell us what you know about them? Do you want to see them?

Mr. Curry. Yes. One of the documents tells me that Lieutenant Revill states that about 2:50 p.m. on the 22d——

Mr. Rankin. Of what?

Mr. Curry. November 1963, that he met Special Agent Jim Hosty of the FBI in the basement of the city hall, and at that time Agent Hosty related to Revill that the subject, Oswald, was a member of the Communist Party, and that he was residing in Dallas.

Mr. Rankin. Did you make any further inquiry after you got that information?

Mr. Curry. None other than I had a report from V. J. Brian, a detective in criminal intelligence, who was present at the time this conversation took place.

Mr. Rankin. That later report was as of April 20?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. 1964?

Mr. Curry. The last report.

Mr. Rankin. What was the occasion for that?

Mr. Curry. I just asked Revill if anyone was with him at the time, and he recalled that Detective Brian was at the time.

Mr. Rankin. Otherwise, did you know anything more about that matter?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I believe Captain Fritz said that he, he told me he knew they had been out to talk to Mrs. Paine.

Mr. Rankin. By they, who do you mean?

Mr. Curry. Some of the FBI agents, and that he did know that Oswald apparently knew Hosty, because Hosty was present in the interrogation room.

Mr. Rankin. By he there at that point who do you mean?

Mr. Curry. Oswald.

Mr. Rankin. Yes; but you say he knew.

Mr. Curry. That Oswald knew Hosty.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Curry. Because according to Fritz he said that he was quite bitter, Oswald was quite bitter toward Hosty because he had made the statement that "you mistreated my wife."

Mr. Rankin. Do you know how Captain Fritz learned that?

Mr. Curry. He was in Captain Fritz's office when this statement was made, according to Captain Fritz.

Mr. Rankin. Now, after the assassination, did you give any orders of your staff, making any reports about anything they knew about either the assassination or the Tippit killing?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; we had all of our officers who knew anything at all about it to submit reports which is a normal procedure in any unusual incident.

Mr. Rankin. How did you direct that that be done?

Mr. Curry. Just through my staff.

Mr. Rankin. Was that in writing?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

197 Mr. Rankin. You just told them?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. And was that direction promptly given?

Mr. Curry. I am sure it was passed on immediately. All orders are.

Mr. Rankin. How soon after the assassination?

Mr. Curry. I would say probably within the next day after we met and we decided that an investigation should be conducted into all phases of this.

Mr. Rankin. Did you give any directions about furnishing information immediately about what anyone knew about the killing of Oswald?

Mr. Curry. No specific directions. After Oswald was killed, I called and I talked with Deputy Chief Stevenson of the criminal investigation division the next morning of the next day, I believe this was Monday, and we decided we should appoint an investigative group.

Mr. Rankin. Who was that?

Mr. Curry. That was Inspector Sawyer, headed by Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. Rankin. Who else?

Mr. Curry. And Captain O. A. Jones, and then I think they had some lieutenants assigned to it and some detectives. Their assignment was to find out every person who was present in or around the city hall at the time that Lee Oswald was killed, and to get a report from them.

I know Lieutenant Revill was also in on this, and then they would also, in addition to getting a report, they would personally interrogate each one of them to see whether or not any information they had knowledge of might be left out of the reports.

And you have a copy of all of these reports, both the reports the officers made, the additional interrogation made by members of this investigating group.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether they inquired as to the knowledge of any of these people about conversations with Ruby immediately after the shooting of Oswald?

Mr. Curry. I believe they have some reports to that effect.

Mr. Rankin. Was that a part of their responsibility to get those reports?

Mr. Curry. Yes; anything that they had, that they could get regarding this.

Mr. Rankin. And you would expect the police officers to tell anything they knew at once?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. So far as you know has all of that information been supplied to the Commission?

Mr. Curry. So far as I know.

Mr. Rankin. It has?

Mr. Curry. So far as I know it has been supplied.

Mr. Rankin. Did you learn about the claims of some police officers that Ruby had said something about the killing to them shortly after killing Oswald?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. When did you first learn that?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall exactly, the exact date that I learned of this. But I think the first time it came to my knowledge was that Agent Sorrels of the Secret Service, sometime after this told me, he said, "Now Chief, I don't know that, they could—that I could testify to this," but he said, "immediately after Oswald was shot, I went to his cell"——

Mr. Rankin. Whose cell?

Mr. Curry. To Oswald's—I mean to Ruby's cell, "and I went in and talked to him, told him who I was, and"——

Mr. Rankin. Was anyone else present?

Mr. Curry. There was a patrolman and a guard, I think, and perhaps a detective.

Mr. Rankin. Who were they?

Mr. Curry. I believe Dean was present, Sergeant Dean, I don't know who these officers were but it is revealed in these reports that have been made.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Curry. Sorrels told me, he said, "I asked Ruby why he did it and he said somebody had to kill the son-of-a-bitch and the police department couldn't do it."

198 I believe he also said, "I couldn't think, stand the thought of having Jacqueline Kennedy having to return to Dallas and go through a trial for him." I told him this was not for the Secret Service or not for publication, I just asked him the question but he said, "I did not warn him against himself, about his constitutional rights, so I don't know that I would be allowed to testify to this."

Mr. Rankin. When did Sorrels first tell you that?

Mr. Curry. This was the—it seems to me like several days after this occurred.

Mr. Rankin. Did you report that to anyone?

Mr. Curry. I believe I told Chief Stevenson about it or whoever was—or perhaps Captain or Inspector Sawyer or some of them. This information was relayed on to the investigating group.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether they recorded it any place?

Mr. Curry. No; we called the officers, when I say we, the investigating team did talk with the officers and they recall hearing this testimony.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know when they first gave you any information that they knew of any such conversation?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall that; no, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Do you recall that the officers ever said to you or placed in writing in any memorandum or communication to you that they heard Ruby say anything beyond what you have described Mr. Sorrels to say?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. Rankin. If your records show that the first time any such information was communicated to you, was around February 18, 1964, would you think that was a correct record?

Mr. Curry. Perhaps it is. When Sorrels, if that is when he says it is when it was, perhaps that is when it was. But this was prior to Ruby's trial that I know that he came forward with this information and he said, "It is possible they can use this testimony in the trial of Ruby", but he didn't feel like that he could testify to it because he had not warned him of his constitutional rights.

But that these officers were present, and if they overheard it, then he said, "You ought to at least talk to Henry Wade about it and he might be able to get that in his testimony on that basis."

Mr. Rankin. You think that Dean was one of the officers involved who overheard it?

Mr. Curry. I believe he was.

Mr. Rankin. And who else?

Mr. Curry. I don't recall now. It is in our reports.

Mr. Rankin. Was the officer Archer?

Mr. Curry. I believe Officer Archer was there.

Mr. Rankin. Was it Officer Newcomb?

Mr. Curry. I believe so.

Mr. Rankin. Do you believe whether they testified to something like that at the trial?

Mr. Curry. I was not present during the trial but I understand they did testify.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether or not those officers made a report about what they knew about the killing of Oswald prior to February 18?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe they did.

Mr. Rankin. You don't think they made any report to you or to the FBI or anybody else?

Mr. Curry. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Rankin. So if they did not include such information in any report or statement prior to February 18, 1964, you don't know it?

Mr. Curry. That is correct, I do not know it.

Mr. McCloy. May I ask, when was, has there been testimony as to when Agent Sorrels told the chief that he had heard this?

Mr. Rankin. I don't recall the date.

Mr. Curry. But it was—I don't recall the date but it was sometime after the shooting of Oswald.

199 Mr. Rankin. Was it 1 day or 2 days?

Mr. Curry. It was several days but it was prior to the trial of Jack Ruby.

Mr. Rankin. Was it a week later?

Mr. Curry. I would say perhaps it was more than a week later, it was several weeks, I would say, but prior to the trial, Sorrels talked to me and he said that this may be important in a trial of the case.

"Some of the things that Ruby told me immediately following the shooting of Oswald," and he said, "I don't think I can testify to it, but you might talk to Mr. Wade and he might be able to get the testimony entered because these officers were not talking they just overheard the conversation."

Mr. McCloy. This was a substantial period after the date?

Mr. Curry. The assassination.

Mr. McCloy. The date of the assassination?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. And the date that Sorrels was alleged to have heard this from Ruby?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Was it before or after Christmas?

Mr. Curry. I believe it was after Christmas. I just couldn't be sure because I was not——

Mr. Rankin. Where did the conversation occur?

Mr. Curry. On the telephone.

Mr. Rankin. Was anybody present?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr Rankin. Did you make a written record of the information?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I just told Chief Stevenson, who is in charge of criminal investigation, to attempt to determine who was present at that time; that Oswald was—I mean that Ruby was talking to Sorrels, and to see what they heard at that time, which they did, and the officers then made a report.

Mr. Rankin. Did you tell Chief Stevenson at that time what Sorrels had told you?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether he made any record of it?

Mr. Curry. I doubt that he did.

Mr. Rankin. You haven't tried to find out?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I haven't.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have any practice in the police force about recording statements by the accused in first-degree murder cases?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. Rankin. Now changing to another subject, do you recall—you said that you had made some comments upon the evidence in regard to Oswald and to the media—do you recall what you said about that?

Mr. Curry. I believe I told them it had been reported that we had an FBI report that they had been able to trace that weapon where he had ordered it from Chicago, and it had been picked up under the name of Hidell and that the handwriting was the same on the order blank as Oswald's.

Mr. Rankin. Was this told to a news conference or over the TV?

Mr. Curry. Well, the TV was there. It was not a news conference. I was walking down the hall, and they surrounded me.

Mr. Rankin. Did you tell them anything else about the evidence you had against Oswald?

Mr. Curry. I only told them I believed that we had some other evidence, but I didn't tell them what it was.

Mr. Rankin. Did you ever tell them any more about the evidence that you had against Oswald?

Mr. Curry. I don't believe so; I don't recall it.

Mr. Rankin. Did you ever tell them about the evidence you had against Oswald concerning the Tippit shooting?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I don't believe I made any comment.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know about when this was made, these statements were made about the evidence?

200 Mr. Curry. I believe this was on Friday, the 22d, during the late evening.

Mr. Rankin. Is it a common practice for you or someone for the police department to tell about the evidence that you had?

Mr. Curry. It wouldn't be an uncommon practice. There is no law against it.

Mr. Rankin. Did you often do it then?

Mr. Curry. Well, I would say this was not really unusual. It might be—this was an exceptional case; ordinarily I am not involved in these investigations or in making statements, but this would not be an unusual thing to say.

Mr. Rankin. Someone from the police department often does it; is that right?

Mr. Curry. Well, frequently, if they are asked about it.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether it is possible to monitor conversations between the prisoner and the visitor on the intercom?

Mr. Curry. Not by intercom. It would be—they are brought into—when a prisoner is brought in to visit with an attorney or a relative he is placed on one side of a wall and the prisoner—I mean the visitor—on the other side, but we don't have any means of recording this. They talk through by telephone. There is a glass that separates them.

Mr. Rankin. Did you monitor any conversations between Lee Oswald and his brother Robert, or Lee Oswald and Marina at any time?

Mr. Curry. I did not, and I don't know of any. We don't have any way of doing it. I mean we have no setup for doing this.

Mr. Rankin. You don't know of any that was done?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. Rankin. In regard to arrangements, do you know the Texas law as to how soon after an arrest an arraignment is required?

Mr. Curry. Excuse me now; I am not an attorney.

Mr. Rankin. Yes.

Mr. Curry. It is my understanding that, so far in Texas, being brought immediately before a magistrate would be during the normal course of that court's business.

Mr. Rankin. Your law——

Mr. Curry. When they are in session.

Mr. Rankin. Your law says he shall be brought immediately.

Mr. Curry. Immediately, but it has been——

Mr. Rankin. But in interpretation you ordinarily follow a practice of——

Mr. Curry. During the normal course of the court's business. This was actually unusual because this type of arraignment—because usually it would have been later than this, but we were trying to take whatever precautions we could to see that he was given his—we were not violating his civil rights. That is the reason that we did arraign him in the city hall. Ordinarily we would have taken him before a court.

Mr. Rankin. I didn't understand you to say that the justice of the peace told him he had a right to counsel or said anything about that.

Mr. Curry. I don't recall whether he did or whether he did not. He read all this to him.

Mr. Rankin. That is, he read the complaint to him?

Mr. Curry. The complaint, and I don't recall what all he said to him.

Mr. Rankin. So, according to the practice in Texas at the time that he was taken for arraignment would have been the usual practice or a little earlier?

Mr. Curry. A little earlier, actually.

Mr. McCloy. Were you present at any investigation or interrogation of Ruby?

Mr. Curry. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. McCloy. Did you hear any further elaboration of this charge that Oswald made that Hosty had mistreated his wife; what was the nature of the mistreatment?

Mr. Curry. I was not present when this happened. This was told to me, I think Captain Fritz told me this, and he seemed to gather that he had more or less sort of browbeat her in interrogating her is what Fritz, the impression that Fritz got.

Mr. McCloy. When was that? Do you have any reason to know—Captain Fritz will perhaps tell us about it—as to when that interrogation of Hosty and Mrs. Oswald took place?

201 Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. McCloy. You don't take normally any tape recordings of witnesses' examinations?

Mr. Curry. No, sir.

Mr. McCloy. I guess that is all, except the general question I have of Chief Curry. Do you know anything else with respect to this whole matter that you think would be of any help to this Commission in getting at the facts?

Mr. Curry. Not that I know of, except to say we were extremely sorry that, of course, this thing happened in Dallas. We thought we were taking every normal precaution that we could take to insure the safety of the President in cooperating with the Secret Service and all other agencies and we felt like we had done a good job.

After the assassination and the murder of our officer, that our officers had done a good job in making a quick apprehension of the alleged person guilty of this, and that we will have to admit that although we thought that adequate precautions had been taken for the transfer of this prisoner, that one of our officers momentarily stepped away from his post of duty, and that during this moment of negligence on his part, as far as we could determine Ruby went down the ramp, the Main Street ramp, and concealed himself behind some news media and detectives and as Oswald was brought out he stepped forward and shot him.

And if we had it to do over again, and I think this, that some policy should be set up for the news media, whereby if anything of this magnitude ever occurs again, that we would not be plagued by the confusion present that was present at that time, and that the news media should accept some of the responsibility for these things and agree among themselves to have representatives that can report back to them.

Mr. Rankin. Chief Curry, I am not quite clear about the situation with regard to your practices in the police force, and the news media. I understand what happened, as you described it at the time of the episodes that we have been going into, and I understand that you would, if there was a matter of this magnitude again—you would expect and want a very different change?

Mr. Curry. Yes.

Mr. Rankin. And eliminate the interference by the news media?

Mr. Curry. That is right.

Mr. Rankin. But what do you do now about the ordinary case? Have you changed your practices about the media at all?

Mr. Curry. Not the ordinary cases; no.

Mr. Rankin. And do they use the radio and TV in the police headquarters?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; they do.

Mr. Rankin. And they, the reporters, come in, and it is just the difference between a great many?

Mr. Curry. And a few is what made the difference in this.

Mr. McCloy. Do you permit reporters now to come in and interrogate prisoners as they did in this case by holding a microphone up to their mouth and saying, "How did you do it?"

Mr. Curry. They do the same as they do here; on the way from the interrogation room to the jail elevator as they pass by they might run along and ask him questions and try to get him to answer.

Mr. Rankin. That could be done today just the same?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. Because we have no way of keeping them out of the public halls.

Mr. Rankin. Don't you have jurisdiction as chief of police to exclude them if you thought it was the wise thing to do?

Mr. Curry. Yes. Now if I had it to do over again, of course, I would exclude it.

Mr. Rankin. And you could do it today in the ordinary case if you wanted to?

Mr. Curry. I would probably have my hide taken off by the news media, but I could do it.

Mr. Rankin. So, it is really a problem of weighing what the media will do to you against other considerations?

Mr. Curry. And this, too; it seemed like there was a great demand by the general public to know what was going on.

202 Mr. Rankin. Yes. And that is what you were trying to satisfy?

Mr. Curry. That is what I was trying to do.

Mr. Rankin. Those are all the questions.

Mr. McCloy. I don't think I have anything else.

Mr. Rankin. Thank you very much, Chief, for all of your help.

Mr. Curry. Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. Rankin. I want to offer the Exhibits 701 through 708, both inclusive.

Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 701 through 708 were received in evidence.)

TESTIMONY OF J. W. FRITZ

Mr. McCloy. You know the purpose of what we are here for, captain?

Mr. Fritz. I think so.

Mr. McCloy. We have a very broad mandate to look into all the circumstances relating to these unfortunate incidents that occurred in Dallas on November 22 last year, and thereafter.

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. And we have had Chief Curry on this morning, as I am sure you understand, and we would like to continue our investigation through you. We understand that you were in very direct contact with this problem of investigation, and I will ask you to stand and raise your right hand, sir.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Will you state your name, please?

Mr. Fritz. J. W. Fritz.

Mr. Ball. Where do you live?

Mr. Fritz. I live in Dallas.

Mr. Ball. Could you tell us something about yourself; tell us where you were born and what your education is and what your training has been as a police officer?

Mr. Fritz. I was born in Dublin, Tex., and lived there for several years. My father moved to New Mexico, and I grew up at Lake Arthur, N. Mex. And then I came back to Texas, and came to the police department in January of 1921, and have been there ever since.

Mr. Ball. You started as a patrolman, did you, in the Dallas Police Department?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I started as a patrolman, worked as a patrolman approximately 2 years, I am not sure of the exact time and I was then moved to the detectives' office and have come up through the ranks there, up and down.

Mr. Ball. You are now a captain of police, are you?

Mr. Fritz. Captain of homicide and robbery bureau; yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. How long have you held that office?

Mr. Fritz. Since it was set up, I believe, in 1932 or 1933, I am not sure.

Mr. Ball. You have been head of homicide and robbery detail since 1932 or 1933?

Mr. Fritz. That is right. I have had other jobs, too. One time I had the whole CID; they didn't call it CID at that time; they called it detectives' office, but I kept the homicide and robbery under my supervision during that time. I later went back with the homicide and robbery, full time.

Mr. Ball. Is there a division of detectives separate from homicide and robbery?

Mr. Fritz. Well, we call it now the CID. It would be ordinarily called the detective division; yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Who is in charge of that?

Mr. Fritz. Who is in charge of it?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. Of course, we are all directly under the chief, and Chief Stevenson is the head of the CID, M. W. Stevenson.

Mr. Ball. Have you had any special training in police schools or places like that?

203 Mr. Fritz. Well, of course, I have had a good many years of experience, and I attempted, I still go to school to our police schools, and I now attend seminars at different places, Oklahoma University and Texas University and go to most any training school that is available.

Mr. Ball. On November 22, 1963, you had been told the President or before November 22, 1963, you had been told that the President was coming to Dallas?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. And had you taken certain precautions for his safety?

Mr. Fritz. Well, we had taken some precautions but those were changed. We were told in the beginning that we would be in the parade directly behind it, I don't know whether it was the second or third car, but the Vice President's car, that we would be directly behind that, and we did make preparation for that.

But at 10 o'clock the night before the parade, Chief Stevenson called me at home and told me that had been changed, and I was assigned with two of my officers to the speakers' stand at the Trade Mart.

Mr. Ball. Was most of your work out at the Trade Mart that day?

Mr. Fritz. Well, we didn't have a great deal of work to do there, other than check the speakers' stand and make a check to see if everything was all right before the President got there. He would have been there in 10 more minutes.

Mr. Ball. Did you check the waiters who had been hired?

Mr. Fritz. That wasn't my job.

Mr. Ball. Someone else did?

Mr. Fritz. Someone else did; yes.

Mr. Ball. How many men did you have assigned?

Mr. Fritz. Where?

Mr. Ball. With you at the Trade Mart.

Mr. Fritz. Two.

Mr. Ball. Who were they?

Mr. Fritz. Detectives Sims and Boyd.

Mr. Ball. And they are both homicide?

Mr. Fritz. Both homicide officers; yes. I had other officers assigned to different places. I had two of my officers assigned to ride in the car that was in front of the parade a half mile, with Chief Lumpkin. That was Senkel and Turner.

Mr. Ball. You were at the Trade Mart when you heard the President had been shot?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. That was about what time you heard that? You have a little notebook there.

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I have a notebook.

Mr. Ball. Did you make notes as of that time?

Mr. Fritz. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the tragedy.

Mr. Ball. How long after?

Mr. Fritz. We started on it real soon after, and we have been working on it ever since.

Mr. Ball. Did somebody assist you in the preparation of that notebook?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Who was that?

Mr. Fritz. I had several officers assist me with this, and some secretaries, of course, that helped us with it. I had my lieutenant, T. L. Baker, help me to put this book together, this larger book, I think you have a copy of it there, and to make some additional books like this.

Of course, we worked the whole office ever since it happened so it is hard to say just who helped.

Mr. Ball. Now, the book you are talking about is a notebook that you have with you, the book at which you are looking now?

Mr. Fritz. This is the book I am talking about.

Mr. Ball. You made a formal report, didn't you, to the attorney general of Texas?

Mr. Fritz. We, we didn't make it for the attorney general of Texas. At the time we made this we were just making, we were told that we would probably204 need a report for this investigation, and we started immediately to making this. We didn't know at that time the attorney general would need one of these but when we were told he would need one we, of course, sent him one, too.

Mr. Ball. What I want to do is distinguish between the books you are looking at for this record.

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. You have a book that is of some size there?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. And you call that what?

Mr. Fritz. Well, "Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy."

Mr. Ball. That is the same as Commission's Document No. 81B. So, then, you have a smaller book before you, haven't you?

Mr. Fritz. Yes; a little index book.

Mr. Ball. An index.

Mr. Fritz. It really is an index book for this larger file but it is kind of a quick reference book.

Mr. Ball. I see. Now, what time did you, what time was it that you heard the President had been shot?

Mr. Fritz. I show that he was shot at 12:35, and one of the Secret Service men who was assigned the same location where we were assigned, got a little call on his, evidently got a call on his little transistor radio and Chief Stevenson, who was also assigned to some part of the building there, came to me and told me that the President had been hit at the underpass, and asked me to go to the hospital and see what I could do.

Mr. Ball. You say you know he was shot at 12:35?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. You mean that is the time you heard about it?

Mr. Fritz. Well, we heard about it immediately after that, and we arrived and we checked——

Mr. Ball. What time did you hear about it?

Mr. Fritz. Just when Chief Stevenson came to me and told me.

Mr. Ball. Did you make a note of it at the time?

Mr. Fritz. No sir; I didn't make a note of it at the time.

Mr. Ball. When you heard of this what did you do?

Mr. Fritz. Immediately left, and I told the two officers with me, Mr. Sims and Boyd that we would run to our police car that was parked nearby, listened to radio call to see whether it was a hoax or whether it was the truth. It was only 10 minutes' time for the President's arrival, we didn't want to leave unless this was a genuine call, and a true call.

When we got to the radio, of course, we began to get other news. We went to Parkland Hospital as we had been instructed, and as we drove up in front of the hospital, we I suppose intercepted the chief, Chief Curry, between the curb and the hospital, and I told him we had had a call to the hospital but I felt we were going to the wrong place, we should go to the scene of the crime and he said, "Well, go ahead," so I don't think our car ever quit rolling but we went right to the scene of the crime.

Mr. Ball. Did you go directly to a building?

Mr. Fritz. Directly to the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. Ball. What time did you arrive there?

Mr. Fritz. Well, sir; we arrived there—we arrived at the hospital at 12:45, if you want that time, and at the scene of the offense at 12:58.

Mr. Ball. 12:58; the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. Fritz. Yes.

Mr. Ball. Were there any officers there at the time?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. In the front?

Mr. Fritz. Several officers; yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Do you know who they were?

Mr. Fritz. I couldn't give you the name of all of them.

Mr. Ball. What did you do when you got to this building?

Mr. Fritz. Some officer told us they thought he was in that building, so we had our guns——

205 Mr. McCloy. Thought who was in the building?

Mr. Fritz. The man who did the shooting was in the building. So, we, of course, took our shotguns and immediately entered the building and searched the building to see if we could find him.

Mr. Ball. Were there guards on the doors of the building at that time?

Mr. Fritz. I am not sure, but I don't—there has been some question about that, but the reason I don't think that—this may differ with someone else, but I am going to tell you what I know.

Mr. Ball. All right.

Mr. McCloy. By all means.

Mr. Fritz. After I arrived one of the officers asked me if I would like to have the building sealed and I told him I would.

Mr. Ball. What officer was that?

Mr. Fritz. That is a uniformed officer, but I don't know what his name was, he was outside, of course, I went upstairs and I don't know whether he did because I couldn't watch him.

Mr. Ball. Then what did you do?

Mr. Fritz. We began searching the floors, looking for anyone with a gun or looked suspicious, and we searched through hurriedly through most all the floors.

Mr. McCloy. Which floor did you start with?

Mr. Fritz. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think we went up probably to the top.

Different people would call me when they would find something that looked like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window, they had found some empty cartridges.

Mr. Ball. That was on the sixth floor?

Mr. Fritz. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.

Mr. Ball. What did you do?

Mr. Fritz. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done, and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted the shelfs for prints.

Mr. Ball. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?

Mr. Fritz. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.

Mr. Ball. Day?

Mr. Fritz. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?

Mr. Fritz. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see whether he could.

Mr. Ball. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?

Mr. Fritz. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve that evidence and I went right ahead.

Mr. Ball. What happened after that?

Mr. Fritz. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they had found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same thing, not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get over there he made pictures of that.

Mr. Ball. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then?

Mr. Fritz. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.

Mr. Ball. And who did you give that to?

Mr. Fritz. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.

Mr. Ball. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?

Mr. Fritz. On that loaded cartridge?

Mr. Ball. On that loaded cartridge.

Mr. Fritz. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.

Mr. Ball. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?

206 Mr. Fritz. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.

Mr. Ball. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?

Mr. Fritz. Right at that time?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.

Mr. Ball. Did you think it was a Mauser?

Mr. Fritz. No sir; I knew—you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.

Mr. Ball. Well, did you ever make any—did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?

Mr. Fritz. No sir; I am sure I did not.

Mr. Ball. Or did you think it was such a thing?

Mr. Fritz. No sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.

Mr. Ball. Did you initial the rifle?

Mr. Fritz. The rifle; no, sir.

Mr. Ball. You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected this live cartridge?

Mr. Fritz. I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me, Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later I asked him to bring it down—I don't believe I ever carried that rifle to city hall. I believe Lieutenant Day carried it to city hall, anyway if you will ask him he can be more positive than I.

Mr. Ball. While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the time we finished Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving address.

Mr. Ball. This was after the rifle was found?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; after the rifle was found.

Mr. Ball. Another witness has testified that the rifle was found at 1:22 p.m., does that about accord with your figures or your memory?

Mr. Fritz. Let's see, I might have that here. I don't think I have that time.

Mr. Ball. Do you have the time at which the shells were found?

Mr. Fritz. No, sir; I don't have that time.

Mr. Ball. How long did you stay there at the Texas School Book Depository?

Mr. McCloy. Can I ask one question there, did you take any precautions as to fingerprints before you ejected this?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. So in your opinion your fingerprints wouldn't show?

Mr. Fritz. He could have taken mine but I let him dust first before I ejected a shell.

Mr. Ball. How long did you stay at the Texas School Book Depository after you found the rifle?

Mr. Fritz. After he told me about this man almost, I left immediately after he told me that.

Mr. Ball. You left almost immediately after he told you that?

Mr. Fritz. Almost after he told me that man, I felt it important to hold that man.

Mr. Ball. Did you give descriptions to Sims and Boyd?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I told them to drive me to city hall and see if the man had a criminal record and we picked up two other officers and my intentions were to go to the house at Irving. When I got to the city hall, I asked, because, I will tell you why I asked because while we were in the building we heard that our officer had been killed, someone came in and told me, I asked when I got to my office who shot the officer, and they told me his name was Oswald, and I said, "His full name?" And they told me and I said, "That is the suspect we are looking for in the President's killing."

207 So, I then called some of my officers to go right quickly, and asked them about how much evidence we had on the officer's killing and they told me they had several eye witnesses, and they had some real good witnesses, and I instructed them to get those witnesses over for identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond while we investigated the President's killing where we didn't have so many witnesses.

Mr. Ball. Now, you instructed some other officers to go to Irving, didn't you?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Ball. And you told Sims and Boyd to stay with you?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I don't believe I sent them to Irving, I have the names of the officers I sent to Irving.

Mr. Ball. Who did you send to Irving?

Mr. Fritz. To Irving, Officer Stovall, Rose, and Adamcik.

Mr. Ball. After you had done that what did you do?

Mr. Fritz. I sent some officers—you mean right at that time? I also sent officers over to the Beckley address, you know, as soon as we got there, I don't believe we had the Beckley address at this part of this question.

Mr. Ball. You didn't have it at that time, did you?

Mr. Fritz. Not right at this time, but as soon as I got to that address.

Mr. Ball. Let's come to that a little later and we find out when you got there.

Mr. Fritz. When I got there?

Mr. Ball. Yes. What did you do after you had sent the officers to Irving?

Mr. Fritz. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just before I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my office that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer was, I think we can find out, I have—since I have talked to you this morning I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who that officer was, but I am not sure yet.

Mr. Ball. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on Beckley?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Had he been brought into the station by that time?

Mr. Fritz. He was at the station when we got there, you know.

Mr. Ball. He was?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; so then I talked to him and I asked him where his room was on Beckley.

Mr. Ball. Then you started to interrogate Oswald, did you?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. And you called him into your room?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Will you describe the interrogation room, what it looks like and where it is located?

Mr. Fritz. It is on the, room 317, on the third floor of the courts building, and it isn't a large office. I believe it is 9 feet by 14 feet, I have the exact measurements that I think are correct. Glass all around, and it has a door leading out into a hallway. My secretaries are seated in the front. There is a lieutenant's office and desk across the hall from me. To my right and through the back window out of my office would be the squadroom where the officers write their reports. And at the end of the hall I have an interrogation room and one interrogation in back of the squadroom.

Mr. Ball. Your room opens onto——

Mr. Fritz. A little hallway.

Mr. Ball. A little hallway?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. That is not the main hall that goes through the third floor, is it?

Mr. Fritz. Sir? No, no, a little hallway in the office.

Mr. Ball. The main corridor on the third floor—your office does not open onto the main corridor of the third floor, does it?

Mr. Fritz. My own office?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. No, sir; when I say my office, the homicide and robbery office, my office opens onto the main hallway.

208 But my little office, a private office opens into a smaller hallway.

Mr. Ball. Where was Oswald being kept before you got there, what room was Oswald in?

Mr. Fritz. When I got there he was in the front interrogation room at the end of the little hall.

Mr. Ball. Here is a map or a diagram drawn by Chief Curry. It is Commission Exhibit 701. Take a look at this, is that a diagram of the floor?

Mr. Fritz. This would be my office right here.

Mr. Ball. That would be the entry to the homicide and robbery?

Mr. Fritz. Homicide and robbery bureau.

Mr. Ball. This is your office?

Mr. Fritz. My office opens right here.

Mr. Ball. Off of the hall?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Off the homicide and robbery?

Mr. Fritz. Yes; there should be another line, wait just a minute. There is a little mistake right here, would it be all right if I correct it?

Mr. Ball. Go ahead and correct it, your office is farther back from the hall, isn't it?

Mr. Fritz. You see this, coming up from the hall, down at this end the administrative office, the chief's office, and the dispatcher's office over here, and over here is the chief's office back here, here are some assistant chiefs all along here, and in this corner. Now, in coming down this hall, this is open right in here that makes a square that goes into the other building in city hall, and this comes to the elevators, the elevators are right here.

Now then, right here in this little jail office, a little small office for the jail elevators right here, and two toilets right here. Now then, this should have a hallway in here like that, beginning right here.

Mr. Ball. You are adding to Chief Curry's map showing a little hallway?

Mr. Fritz. That is right. This is the lieutenant's office right here.

Mr. Ball. You are marking "Lieutenant's office."

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; and that is his—that is placed there just like my office is, and right at the end of this hall, right here, using a little part of that probably, but in there is a little conference room right in here which comes clear across here.

Here, I have a desk, a metal desk with all the records, daily record, the working records stacked right on here for the benefit of the officers who work in this squadroom right here with these desks.

Mr. Ball. Where is the door to your office?

Mr. Fritz. Here is the door to my office right here.

Mr. Ball. Mark that, please. Show me where Oswald was kept.

Mr. Fritz. In this little place right here.

Mr. Ball. Put a big X there where Oswald was kept.

Mr. Fritz. At first?

Mr. Ball. At first.

Mr. Fritz. He was there when I came in. We didn't keep him there long.

Mr. Ball. That was only a few steps from your office?

Mr. Fritz. Only a few steps. That is where he was when I came into the office.

Mr. Ball. In the room marked "X" on this Exhibit No. 701 is where he was?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. After a few moments you had him come in, in a little while, to your office?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Do you have that in time when he came into your office?

Mr. Fritz. The chief's map would have been, I could have made this better if I had used the chief's map and put the lieutenant's office over here.

Mr. Ball. Don't worry about it. That is close enough. We have him from X which is the conference room into your office.

Mr. Fritz. Yes; my desk is right here and I sit behind it right here and there are some chairs and telephone table right here and I had him sitting in a chair, right here.

Mr. Ball. Right beside you?

209 Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I have other chairs along here.

Mr. Ball. All right.

Now, Captain, about what time did you first bring him to your office?

Mr. Fritz. Let's see, I have it right here. Oswald was arrested at 1:40 and I think he was taken to the city hall about 2:15 and I started talking to him probably a little bit after that.

Mr. Ball. About what time?

Don't you have a time marked in your report there?

Mr. Fritz. I think so.

Mr. Ball. Of 2:25.

Mr. Fritz. 2:25?

Mr. Ball. On page 237 of your report, your report of Sims and Boyd refers to a time that he was brought to your room, and I believe 165.

Mr. Fritz. My report, my report should have a report right there that should show it. This shows here 2:15 and I don't think that is right.

Mr. Ball. Mr. Baker's report on 165 gives the time also.

Mr. Fritz. The nearest that I have here then would be shortly after 2:15 p.m.

Mr. Ball. You will notice that Sims and Boyd make it, state they brought him from the conference room to your office at about 2:20.

Mr. Fritz. That might be all right because I have 2:15 here but I think 2:15 may be 5 or 10 minutes too early.

Mr. Ball. It was soon after you got there?

Mr. Fritz. Soon after I got there.

Mr. Ball. That you brought him into your office?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Who was present when you talked with him?

Mr. Fritz. At that time, when I first brought him in there there would be Sims and Boyd and probably one or two officers from the office, I am not sure, just who else might have been there. I know those two, I am sure, I believe those two were there. Just about the time I started talking to him, I had just started to question him, I got a phone call from Mr. Shanklin, Gordon Shanklin, agent in charge of the FBI calling for Mr. Bookhout, and I asked Mr. Bookhout to go to pick up the extension.

Mr. Ball. Was Mr. Bookhout there?

Mr. Fritz. He had just come into the lieutenant's office and Mr. Shanklin asked that Mr. Hosty be in on that questioning, he said he wanted him in there because of Mr. Hosty knowing these people and he had been talking to them and he wanted him in there right then.

So, I got up from my desk and walked over to the lieutenant's office and asked Mr. Bookhout to come in, the reason I asked both of them to come in and Mr. Bookhout is in my office most of every day and works with us in a lot of cases and asked him to come in with Mr. Hosty.

Mr. Ball. So Bookhout and Hosty came into your office?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Was anyone else present?

Mr. Fritz. I don't remember whether there was anyone else right at that time or not.

Mr. Ball. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?

Mr. Fritz. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.

Mr. Ball. What is your best memory of what you said to him when he first came in?

Mr. Fritz. I first asked him as I do of most people something about where he was from, and where he was raised and his education, and I asked him where he went to school and he told me he went to school in New York for a while, he had gone to school in Fort Worth some, that he didn't finish high school, that he went to the Marines, and the Marines, and finished high school training in the Marines.

210 And I don't remember just what else. I asked him just the general questions for getting acquainted with him, and so I would see about how to talk to him, and Mr. Hosty spoke up and asked him something about Russia, and asked him if he had been to Russia, and he asked him if he had been to Mexico City, and this irritated Oswald a great deal and he beat on the desk and went into a kind of a tantrum.

Mr. Ball. What did he say when he was asked if he had been to Mexico City?

Mr. Fritz. He said he had not been. He did say he had been to Russia, he was in Russia, I believe he said for some time.

Mr. Ball. He said he had not been in Mexico City?

Mr. Fritz. At that time he told me he had not been in Mexico City.

Mr. Ball. Who asked the question whether or not he had been to Mexico City?

Mr. Fritz. Mr. Hosty. I wouldn't have known anything about Mexico City.

Mr. Ball. Was there anything said about Oswald's wife?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir. He said, he told Hosty, he said, "I know you." He said, "You accosted my wife on two occasions," and he was getting pretty irritable and so I wanted to quiet him down a little bit because I noticed if I talked to him in a calm, easy manner it wasn't very hard to get him to settle down, and I asked him what he meant by accosting, I thought maybe he meant some physical abuse or something and he said, "Well, he threatened her." And he said, "He practically told her she would have to go back to Russia." And he said, "He accosted her on two different occasions."

Mr. Ball. Was there anything said about where he lived?

Mr. Fritz. Where he lived? Right at that time?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. I am sure I had no way of asking him where he lived but I am not too sure about that—just how quick he told me because he corrected me, I thought he lived in Irving and he told me he didn't live in Irving. He lived on Beckley as the officer had told me outside.

(At this point Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

Mr. Fritz. And I asked him about that arrangement and I am again, I can't be too sure when this question was asked. I asked him why his wife was living in Irving and why he was living on Beckley and he said she was living with Mrs. Paine. Mrs. Paine was trying to learn to speak Russian and that his wife, Mrs. Oswald, had a small baby and Mrs. Paine helped with the baby and his wife taught Mrs. Paine Russian and it made a good arrangement for both of them and he stayed over in town. I thought it was kind of an awkward arrangement and I questioned him about the arrangement a little bit and I asked him how often he went out there and he said weekends.

I asked him why he didn't stay out there. He said he didn't want to stay out there all the time, Mrs. Paine and her husband didn't get along too well. They were separated a good part of the time and I asked him if he had a car and he said he didn't have a car, he said the Paines had two cars but he didn't use their cars.

Mr. Ball. Did you ask him anything about his address or did he volunteer the address?

Mr. Fritz. He volunteered the address at Beckley?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. Well, I will tell you, whether we asked him or told him one, he never did deny it, he never did deny the Beckley Street address at all. The only thing was he didn't know whether it was north or south.

Mr. Ball. Did you ask him whether it was north or south?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, but he didn't know. But from the description of surroundings we could tell it was North Beckley.

Mr. Ball. Up to that time you hadn't sent any men out to North Beckley, had you?

Mr. Fritz. Well, I sent them out there real soon and Officer Potts called me back from out there and talked to me on the telephone and gave me a report from out there on the telephone, and I am sure that that is the time that he told me about the way he was registered, and I asked Oswald about why he was registered under this other name.

Mr. Ball. What other name?

211 Mr. Fritz. Of O. L. Lee.

Mr. Ball. O. H. Lee?

Mr. Fritz. O. H. Lee. He said, well, the lady didn't understand him, she put it down there and he just left it that way.

Mr. Ball. Did you ask him whether he had signed his name O. H. Lee?

Mr. Fritz. No, I hadn't asked him.

Mr. Ball. Did you know that he had personally registered?

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

Mr. Ball. He said the lady didn't understand him?

Mr. Fritz. He said the lady didn't understand him and he just left it that way.

Mr. Ball. How long did this first questioning take?

Mr. Fritz. Of course, I talked to him several times during that afternoon. I would have to go out and talk to every officer and give them different assignments and talk to them about these witnesses, and help some in getting the witnesses over there.

I also asked Lieutenant Day to bring the rifle down after I sent after Mrs. Oswald, and had her to look at the rifle. She couldn't identify it positively but she said it looked like the rifle that he had, but she couldn't say for sure. She said she thought he brought it from New Orleans.

Mr. Ball. How long a time did you sit with Oswald and question him this first time?

Mr. Fritz. The first time, not but a few minutes.

Mr. Ball. That was the time Hosty and Bookhout were there?

Mr. Fritz. That is right. But sometimes when I would leave the office to do something else, it is hard to imagine how many things we had happening at the one time or how many different officers we had doing different things without seeing it but we were terribly busy.

I had called all my officers back on duty and had every one of them assigned to something, so going back and forth kept me pretty busy running back and forth at the time of questioning.

I don't know when I would leave, I suppose Mr. Bookhout and Mr. Hosty asked him a few questions, but I don't believe they questioned him a great deal while I was gone.

Mr. Ball. You said just a few minutes, what did you mean by that, 15, 20, 25?

Mr. Fritz. It would be pretty hard to guess at a time like that because we weren't even quitting for lunch so I don't even know, time didn't mean much right at that time. For a few minutes, you would think 30 or 40 minutes the first time.

Mr. Ball. Thirty or forty minutes?

Mr. Fritz. I am guessing at that time.

Mr. Ball. He hadn't been searched up to that time, had he?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; he had been searched.

Mr. Ball. Wasn't he searched later in the jail office?

Mr. Fritz. He was searched, the officers who arrested him made the first search, I am sure. He had another search at the building and I believe that one of my officers, Mr. Boyd, found some cartridges in his pocket in the room after he came to the city hall. I can't tell you the exact time when he searched him.

Mr. Bail. You don't have the record of the time when he was searched?

Mr. Fritz. No.

Mr. Ball. You remember they found a transfer of Dallas Transit Company?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; found a transfer.

Mr. Ball. And some bullets?

Mr. Fritz. Bullets; yes, sir. Cartridges.

Mr. Ball. He had an identification bracelet, too, didn't he?

Mr. Fritz. I am not sure about that.

Mr. Ball. You don't remember?

Mr. Fritz. No.

Mr. Ball. You had a showup that afternoon?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. May I ask what kind of bullets these were?

212 Mr. Fritz. .38, cartridges for a .38 pistol.

Mr. McCloy. Pistol?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, pistol cartridges.

Mr. Ball. You had a showup that afternoon?

Mr. Fritz. That first showup was for a lady who was an eye witness and we were trying to get that showup as soon as we could because she was beginning to faint and getting sick.

In fact, I had to leave the office and carry some ammonia across the hall, they were about to send her to the hospital or something and we needed that identification real quickly, and she got to feeling all right after using this ammonia.

Mr. Ball. Do you remember her name?

Mr. Fritz. I have her name here.

Mr. Ball. Was that Mrs. Markham?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, Helen Markham.

Mr. Ball. That was the first showup, was it?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Were you there?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. With her?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Will you tell me what happened there?

Mr. Fritz. She looked at these people very carefully, and she picked him out and made the positive identification.

Mr. Ball. What did she say?

Mr. Fritz. She said that is the man that I saw shoot the officer.

Mr. Ball. Who did she point out?

Mr. Fritz. She pointed out Oswald; yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. In your showup room you have the prisoners separated from the visitors?

Mr. Fritz. There is a screen. They are on a stage with numbers over their heads for identification, and measurements to show their height, and this is lighted back there so the people can see them plainly, and the people who are looking at them usually sit at desks out some distance, probably as far as here from that window from the showup screen.

Mr. Ball. Near the window, you mean about 15, 20 feet.

Mr. Fritz. Yes; about that far.

Mr. Ball. And then, now in this showup there were two officers of the vice squad and an officer and a clerk from the jail that were in the showup with Oswald?

Mr. Fritz. That is true. I borrowed those officers, I was a little bit afraid some prisoner might hurt him, there was a lot of excitement and a lot of feeling right about that time so we didn't have an officer in my office the right size to show with him so I asked two of the special service officers if they would help me and they said they would be glad to, so they took off their coats and neckties and fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners and they were good enough to stand on each side of him in the showup and we used a man who works in the jail office, a civilian employee as a third man.

Mr. Ball. Now, were they dressed a little better than Oswald, do you think, these three people?

Mr. Fritz. Well, I don't think there was a great deal of difference. They had on their regular working clothes and after they opened their shirts and took off their ties, why they looked very much like anyone else.

Mr. Ball. They were all handcuffed together, were they?

Mr. Fritz. I am not sure, I don't remember for sure if they were all handcuffed together or not. They probably did. I couldn't be positive about that.

Mr. Ball. Now, after you had had the showup with Helen Markham, did you question Oswald again?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. In your office?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Go directly from the showup room up there?

213 Mr. Fritz. Well, I am not sure whether directly, but shortly, there wouldn't be too much time when we talk to him after that.

Mr. Ball. Your records show the showup for Helen Markham was 4:45.

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Do you think that is about right?

Mr. Fritz. I think that is about right.

Mr. Ball. All right, now how long after that would you say you went back to your office and talked to him again?

Mr. Fritz. I would say within, it would take us a few minutes, you know, to get him back from the showup, probably 15 minutes, something like that.

Mr. Ball. Who was present?

Mr. Fritz. Twenty minutes.

Mr. Ball. Who was present at this questioning?

Mr. Fritz. This particular questioning?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. I believe—I don't want to be sure about whether Mr. Hosty stayed at this next time or not because he left at some time. Mr. Bookhout stayed and my officers were there.

Mr. Ball. Now, there was a time when you asked him where he worked and what he did?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. And was that the first——

Mr. Fritz. That was the first time.

Mr. Ball. The first question—what did he tell you about that?

Mr. Fritz. He told me he worked at the Texas School Book Depository.

Mr. Ball. Did he tell you——

Mr. Fritz. I asked him how he got his job down there, too.

Mr. Ball. What did he say?

Mr. Fritz. He told me that someone that he knew, a lady that he knew recommended him for that job and he got that job through her. I believe the records show something else but that is what he told me.

Mr. Ball. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. What did he say?

Mr. Fritz. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think—I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Mr. Ball. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?

Mr. Fritz. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him—I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

Mr. Ball. Did you question Oswald about that?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.

Mr. Ball. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?

Mr. Fritz. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.

Mr. Ball. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?

Mr. Fritz. He said he had a Coca-Cola.

Mr. Ball. That same time you also asked him about the rifle.

Mr. Fritz. I am not sure that is the time I asked him about the rifle. I did ask him about the rifle sometime soon after that occurred, and after the showup; I am not sure which time I asked him about the rifle.

Mr. Ball. Did you bring the rifle down to your office?

214 Mr. Fritz. Not to him; not for him to see.

Mr. Ball. You never showed it to him?

Mr. Fritz. No, sir. I asked him if he owned a rifle and he said he did not. I asked him if he had ever owned a rifle. He said a good many years ago he owned a small rifle but he hadn't owned one for a long time. I asked him if he owned a rifle in Russia and he said, "You know you can't own a rifle in Russia." He said, "I had a shotgun over there. You can't own a rifle in Russia." And he denied owning a rifle of any kind.

Mr. Ball. Didn't he say that he had seen a rifle at the building?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir; he told me he had seen a rifle at the building 2 or 3 days before that Mr. Truly and some men were looking at.

Mr. Ball. You asked him why he left the building, didn't you?

Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. He told you because he didn't think there would be any work?

Mr.