Part 69

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the manufacturer of each bullet?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; in .38 Special.

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

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

Representative BOGGS. That is this model?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Two and a half million?

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has not been rebarrelled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you administered this test?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Is that when the cast is on?

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, yes.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You slit it.

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

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

Representative BOGGS. The cast?

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

Representative BOGGS. Right. I understand now.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It turns a blue color.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, specks on the cast.

Mr. EISENBERG. Dots?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM RESUMED

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

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on those bullets?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the nose; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify them to us?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. One is a----

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

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

Mr. DULLES. They may be admitted as 606.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph?

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

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

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

Mr. DULLES. All right.

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

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