Part 57

Colonel FINCK. From behind and above.

Mr. SPECTER. Were the bullets used dumdum bullets, in your opinion, Dr. Finck?

Colonel FINCK. In what wound, sir?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, start with the head wound, or the back wound, either one.

Colonel FINCK. In all the wounds considered, on the basis of the aspect of the wound of entrance, dumdum bullets were not used.

Mr. SPECTER. And what characteristics of dumdum bullets were absent, in your opinion--in your evaluation of these wounds?

Colonel FINCK. I would expect more jagged, more irregular and larger wounds of entrance than described in this case.

Representative FORD. With a dumdum bullet?

Colonel FINCK. With a dumdum bullet.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the question of likelihood of Governor Connally having been wounded in the back and chest with the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy in 385, what reduction would there be, if any, in the velocity, considering the relative positions of the two men in the automobile as reflected in photograph, Exhibit 398?

Colonel FINCK. Of course, to reach precise figures we would need experiments and similar circumstances with the same type ammunition at the same distance through two human cadavers, which I did not do.

On the basis that if we assume that this is one bullet going through President Kennedy's body and also through Governor Connally's body, the reduction of velocity would be of some extent after passing through President Kennedy's body, but not having hit bones, the reduction in velocity, after going through President Kennedy's body, would be minimal.

Mr. SPECTER. Would there be sufficient force then to inflict the wound which Dr. Humes described from the Parkland Hospital records as having been inflicted on Governor Connally's back and chest?

Colonel FINCK. There would be enough energy to go through the body of the Governor.

Mr. SPECTER. In expressing your opinion on that subject, Doctor Finck, have you taken into account the assumptions on distance, that we are dealing here with a weapon that has a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of slightly in excess of 2,000, and that the vehicle carrying these two individuals was approximately 150, about 150 feet away from the site of origin of the missile?

Colonel FINCK. At this range, a bullet of this velocity loses very little velocity, and keeps upon impact a large amount of kinetic energy.

Mr. SPECTER. You heard the whole of Doctor Humes' testimony, did you not?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything that you would like to add to what he said?

Colonel FINCK. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Or would you like to modify his testimony in any way?

Colonel FINCK. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you subscribe to the observations and procedures which he outlined during the course of his testimony?

Colonel FINCK. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. As having been conducted on President Kennedy?

Colonel FINCK. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. And do you share the opinions which he expressed in their entirety in the course of his testimony here today?

Colonel FINCK. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You might be seated, Colonel.

Mr. McCLOY. Just as truthful seated as standing.

Representative FORD. How many cases did you investigate to develop this theory shown by Commission Exhibit 400?

Colonel FINCK. Among the more than 400 cases I have reviewed, several of them--I cannot give you an exact figure, I do not tabulate them, but many of them had through and through wounds of the skull as well as of flat bones, as, for instance, the sternum, the bone we have in front of our chest, and this would apply also to a through and through wound of the sternum. I have cases like that.

There was a specific case in which I was able to identify the entrance at the level of the sternum on the same basis as the criteria I have given for the skull. Whenever a bullet goes through a flat bone, it will produce that beveling, that cratering, shelving, and that I have seen in numerous cases.

Representative FORD. Is this a generally accepted theory in the medical profession?

Colonel FINCK. Yes, sir; it is. Am I allowed to quote a standard textbook?

The CHAIRMAN. You may; yes sir.

Colonel FINCK. The textbook of legal medicine, pathology and toxicology by Gonzalez, Vance, Halpern and Umberger does not give a scheme like I have shown to you today, but describes similar criteria.

As you know, one of the authors of the book I mentioned is still chief medical examiner of New York City, with 20,000 medical-examiner cases a year.

Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Finck, after the path C-D described in No. 385, would that be a straight line starting with the weapon itself, or was that line deviated in any way or altered when it passed through the body of President Kennedy?

Colonel FINCK. For practical purposes line C-D is a straight line with little or no deviation, the bullet not having hit bony structures.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine Commission's Exhibit 399?

Colonel FINCK. For the first time this afternoon, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And based upon your examination of that bullet, do you have an opinion as to whether in its current condition it could have passed through President Kennedy at point C-D in 385 and then inflicted the wound in the back and chest of Governor Connally?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; I do. This is a bullet showing marks indicating the bullet was fired. The second point is that there was practically no loss of this bullet. It kept its original caliber and dimensions. There was no evidence that any major portion of the jacket was lost, and I consider this as one bullet which possibly could have gone through the wounds you described.

Mr. SPECTER. And could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388?

Colonel FINCK. Through President Kennedy's head? 388?

Mr. SPECTER. And remained intact in the way you see it now?

Colonel FINCK. Definitely not.

Mr. SPECTER. And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. And is the condition of Exhibit 399 consistent with the type of a wound which Doctor Humes described on Governor Connally's rib?

Colonel FINCK. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. I have a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of Exhibit 399, can you identify the caliber of that bullet?

Colonel FINCK. The caliber of this bullet, if I could measure it, but I cannot touch it.

The CHAIRMAN. We can.

Colonel FINCK. I would say it is consistent with a 6.5 mm.

Mr. McCLOY. Are you familiar with the Mannlicher 6.5 rifle?

Colonel FINCK. I am familiar with the caliber 6.5. I can draw the calibers for you on the blackboard.

Mr. McCLOY. What is the initial velocity of a 6.5 mm. bullet of that character?

Colonel FINCK. Of the order of 2,000 feet per second.

Mr. McCLOY. And you say there would not be a substantial diminution of that velocity either at the point of impact or at the point of exit?

Colonel FINCK. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. One more question, Mr. Chief Justice.

On 388, point A to B, what is your view, Dr. Finck, as to whether or not that is represented by a straight line going back to the point of origin of the weapon?

Colonel FINCK. The difficulty in interpreting the path in line A-B of Commission's Exhibit 388 is that, one, there is, as stated before, a large wound of exit, and, two, there is a secondary path as indicated by the fragments recovered. So we can have an assumption and state that the general direction, the general path, the general angle of this missile was from behind and above, and that the bullet, markedly fragmented, went out of the President's head on the right side, but that a portion of this bullet which badly fragmented was recovered within the skull.

Mr. SPECTER. In view of the impact on the skull at point A, it is unlikely to be a straight line to B all the way back to the muzzle of the weapon as it is, say, in 385 C-D, all the way back to the muzzle of the gun.

Colonel FINCK. In C-D, Commission's Exhibit 385, due to the fact that there was no fragmentation, I can say that it is a straight line from behind and above, whereas here, due to the fragmentation and to the dual path, I can't give a precise angle, but I can say that the injury is consistent with a wound produced by one bullet producing many fragments.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, have you any questions you want to ask?

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask one?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go right ahead.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you examine any of the fragments which were removed from the President's skull?

Colonel FINCK. I only saw one fragment shown to me when I arrived at Bethesda, and it was an elongated black metallic fragment, and that is the only one I saw to my recollection. I was told that it had been removed from the brain of President Kennedy in the anterior portion of his head.

Mr. McCLOY. From that bullet, that fragment, could you determine, was it sufficiently large to determine from the ballistic evidence the caliber of the bullet?

Colonel FINCK. No, sir; for the reason that to determine the caliber you need the entire bullet, or at least an entire portion. You need a portion of the bullet showing the entire diameter, and I was not shown that. I was shown a fragment which represented a very small portion of the original bullet. Therefore, at that time I could not say anything on the possible original caliber.

Mr. McCLOY. You examined no fragment which did contain those characteristics?

Colonel FINCK. No, sir; I did not see any entire bullet or bullet showing the entire diameter.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford?

Representative FORD. I believe you testified, Colonel, that you concurred in the previous testimony by Commander Humes and Commander Boswell, and that you were one of the co-authors of the autopsy. At any time during this process where you were conducting the autopsy, was there any disagreement between any one of you three, any difference of opinion as to anything involved in the autopsy?

Colonel FINCK. No, sir.

Representative FORD. There has been complete unanimity on what you saw, what you did, and what you have reported?

Colonel FINCK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. Colonel, I would like for you to look at Exhibit 388 and at the possible trajectory of the bullet which entered President Kennedy's head at A and then mark it as a possible point of exit by "out". You remember there was testimony about a portion of the bullet from point A to the place on the diagram marked "fragment" where a fragment was found. I would like to ask if it is possible that the trajectory of the bullet, from the point of origin, could have been A to this point marked "fragment" as well as from A to the place marked "out"?

Colonel FINCK. I don't think so, sir.

Senator COOPER. Why? Would you explain that answer?

Colonel FINCK. I would think that I would consider the midportion of this exit would labeled B, Exhibit 388, as the wound produced by most of the fragments and the major portions of the fragmenting bullet. This is only a small portion of it which makes me say that this is a secondary path.

Senator COOPER. What was the size of the fragment relative to the size of the missile of the 6.5 Mannlicher, fired from the 6.5 Mannlicher rifle?

Colonel FINCK. Approximately one-tenth, or even less.

Representative FORD. From your numerous case studies, is it typical for a bullet, for a missile in this circumstance as shown in 388, to fragment to the degree that this one apparently did?

Colonel FINCK. Yes, it is quite common to find a wound of exit much larger than the wound of entrance for weapons commonly used.

Representative FORD. But is it typical for the missile to fragment to the degree that this one did as shown in Exhibit 388?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; it is.

Representative FORD. Is it typical to find only a limited number of fragments as you apparently did in this case?

Colonel FINCK. This depends to a great extent on the type of ammunition used. There are many types of bullets, jacketed, not-jacketed, pointed, hollow-nosed, hollow-points, flat-nose, round-nose, all these different shapes will have a different influence on the pattern of the wound and the degree of fragmentation.

Representative FORD. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel, very much for your help.

Colonel FINCK. You are welcome, sir.

Representative FORD. May I ask just one question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; Colonel, we would like to ask just one more question.

Representative FORD. Do these two wounds represent the same or a different kind of bullet?

Colonel FINCK. You are referring to one wound and this other wound here?

Representative FORD. I am referring to the wound shown in Exhibit 388 identified as point of entry A, and wound in Exhibit 385 identified as C.

Colonel FINCK. Due to the difference in the nature of the tissue, difference in the nature of the target, it is perfectly possible that these two wounds came from the same type of bullet, that one hit bony structures and the other one did not, and that explains the differences between the patterns of these two wounds.

Representative FORD. Why one fragmented and one did not.

Colonel FINCK. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, again thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Wednesday, March 18, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. PAINE AND RUTH HYDE PAINE

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on March 18, 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; Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel; Dr. Alfred Goldberg, historian; and Charles Murray, observer.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. PAINE

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Paine, I will just read a brief statement concerning the purpose of the meeting today which is our practice.

The purpose of this hearing is to take the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Michael R. Paine. The Commission has been advised that Mr. and Mrs. Paine made the acquaintance of the Oswalds during 1963, and that Mrs. Marina Oswald lived in the Paine home from late September 1963 up to the time of the assassination.

Since the Commission is inquiring fully into the background and possible motive of Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, it intends to ask the above witnesses questions concerning Mr. Oswald, his associations and relations with others, as well as questions concerning any and all matters relating to the assassination.

You have been furnished a copy of this, have you not?

Mr. PAINE. I have seen something to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seen it.

Very well, will you rise and raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. PAINE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated; Mr. Liebeler will propound the questions to you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name, please?

Mr. PAINE. Michael R. Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. And your address?

Mr. PAINE. 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born, Mr. Paine?

Mr. PAINE. June 25, 1928.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where?

Mr. PAINE. New York City.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us briefly your educational background, where you attended schools?

Mr. PAINE. I went to school, high school in New York, went to 2 years of Harvard and a year of Swarthmore, I have not finished college.

Mr. DULLES. What class would you have been in Swarthmore?

Mr. PAINE. 1953.

Mr. DULLES. You would have been 1953 if you finished or did you finish?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not.

Mr. DULLES. Excuse me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are presently married, are you not?

Mr. PAINE. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your wife's name is?

Mr. PAINE. Ruth Hyde Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have two children?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us who your parents are.

Mr. PAINE. Lyman Paine is my father and Ruth Forbes Paine Young, or Young is her present name. Mrs. Arthur Young now. She is my mother.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is your father living at the present time?

Mr. PAINE. He is in Los Angeles.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your mother?

Mr. PAINE. Philadelphia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any brothers and sisters?

Mr. PAINE. I have a brother in Baltimore.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is his name?

Mr. PAINE. Cameron Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. By whom are you presently employed?

Mr. PAINE. Bell Helicopter, Fort Worth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a security clearance in connection with your work at Bell Helicopter?

Mr. PAINE. I suppose it is. I don't happen to know what the classification is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you work prior to working for Bell Helicopter?

Mr. PAINE. I worked in Pennsylvania for Arthur Young.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the nature of your employment with Mr. Young?

Mr. PAINE. I had set up a shop in his barn and started work for myself and then he employed me making models, helicopter models for himself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately at what time, what period of time did you work for Mr. Young?

Mr. PAINE. That is very difficult to say. I began more or less gradually first. I was doing other things. I am very vague about the dates.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the year approximately?

Mr. PAINE. I suppose I went to work at Bell in 1958. I have been there 4-1/2 years.

Mr. DULLES. Is this Mr. Young your stepfather?

Mr. PAINE. That is right

Mr. LIEBELER. And you worked for him immediately prior to your going to Bell Helicopter?

Mr. PAINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to working for Mr. Young, did you have any other employment?

Mr. PAINE. I think I came from the Army. Before that I worked at Bartol Research Foundation in Swarthmore.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were going to tell us what that was.

Mr. PAINE. That was mostly a job of setting up a laboratory to--was nuclear research laboratory, Van Der Graaf generators it had there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the nature of your work with Bartol?

Mr. PAINE. Mostly all the work in making those machines, setting those machines so they would run; making counters, coincidence counters, instrumentation to operate the machine.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you work for Bartol?

Mr. PAINE. That was just about a year, I believe.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to that did you have any other employment?

Mr. PAINE. No, that was Swarthmore.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever work for the Griswold Manufacturing Co.

Mr. PAINE. Oh, I did; yes. That was after--well, after the Army. I think it was only a few months, I don't remember when it fitted in.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the nature of your work with that company?

Mr. PAINE. That was very boring. It was engraving precision scales.

Mr. LIEBELER. You worked in the actual engraving of the scales?

Mr. PAINE. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the nature of your work with Bell Helicopter at the present time?

Mr. PAINE. I am called a research engineer. I work in a lab and design and build and test models of new concepts of helicopter configurations.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you been engaged in that type of work for Bell throughout the entire time you have been employed by them?

Mr. PAINE. I have been in the research laboratory research group that long. It has all been problems----

Mr. DULLES. Are you a helicopter pilot by any chance yourself?

Mr. PAINE. I am an airplane pilot.

Mr. LIEBELER. But your work basically for Bell has been in the research of design and operation of helicopters?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances under which you met your wife and subsequently married her?

Mr. PAINE. I met her at a folk dance party, folk dance meeting, and I had known her for about 2 years before we married.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet her approximately?

Mr. PAINE. We were married, I think, in 1958, it was the end of the year so maybe it was 1957. What was the question again?

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately when you met her.

Mr. PAINE. Two years before that would be, 1957.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1956 or 1957.

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

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

Mr. LIEBELER. We understand that you are a Quaker, Mr. Paine, is that correct?

Mr. PAINE. That is not quite correct.

When I was in Philadelphia, I sang in various churches, and Ruth being a Quaker, started going to Quaker meetings. Had I remained there I would have become a Quaker. Moving to Texas there was a very small Quaker community, and I joined the Unitarian Church after a while.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become interested in the Quaker religion; was it about the time you met your wife or was it before that.

Mr. PAINE. No; I think she was instrumental in bringing me into that circle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Give us a brief description of the outside interests that you and your wife and that your wife had during the time subsequent to your meeting and until the time you left Philadelphia. Was she active in church activities?

Mr. PAINE. No; I wouldn't say so. She was active in the Young Friends Committee of North America which was making an effort to bring a group of Russians on tour of this country. It was in the first flush or enthusiasm of East-West contacts, and after a couple of years they did succeed in bringing those Russians on tour. That was the beginning of her interest in Russian, learning the Russian language. I think that was her only activity that I am aware of or remember right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether your wife engaged in a writing campaign or a pen pal campaign between people in the United States and people in the Soviet Union?

Mr. PAINE. That was another part of this East-West contacts committee's duties or tasks they took upon themselves and I think she was chairman, accepted the chairmanship of that committee.

For a while, it was almost moribund, very inactive.

Mr. DULLES. Which committee was that, the committee to stimulate letters between Russia and the United States?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; to find names and addresses on each side to connect people together.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you yourself ever take part in any activity of that group?

Mr. PAINE. No; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You spoke of the East-West contacts committee as being active in trying to bring a group of Russians to the United States. Did they engage in any activities other than this attempt to bring Russians to the United States that you know of?

Mr. PAINE. That is the only one I know of, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they succeed in bringing some Russians to the United States?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; they did. They brought three Russians, and then the Russians reciprocated by taking a group of Quakers who knew Russian on a tour of Russia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you married to Ruth Hyde Paine at the time these Russian people came to the United States under the auspices of the East-West contacts committee?

Mr. PAINE. I might have been; I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether she actively participated in the program to bring the Russians to the United States?

Mr. PAINE. Well, she participated insofar as going to the meetings. I don't believe she did most of the writing to the State Department and what-not to try to arrange clearances and itineraries and things like that, but she was at the meetings at which those things were discussed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever discuss them with you in any detail?

Mr. PAINE. We, I would often--I went to several of those meetings myself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the names of any of the Russians who came to the United States in connection with this program?

Mr. PAINE. I might recognize them if I saw them again, but right now the names have escaped me.