Part 15

Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is an apparently homemade paper bag which was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD following the assassination, and which, for the record, is a bag which may have been used to carry this rifle, 139, which was used to commit the assassination. 677 is a sample of paper and tape--and parenthetically, tape was used in the construction of 142--677 is a sample of paper and tape obtained from the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, that is, the very day of the assassination.

Mr. DULLES. Obtained by whom, by the FBI?

Mr. CADIGAN. This was obtained by the Dallas police.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to you by the Dallas----

Mr. CADIGAN. By the Dallas police through our Dallas office.

Mr. DULLES. It was obtained after the assassination on that date?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; the night of November 22.

At the same time, on November 23, we had an agent come in from Chicago with samples of paper from Klein's, with the possibility, it was thought, that the paper sack----

Mr. DULLES. Identify Klein's just for the record.

Mr. CADIGAN. Klein's Sporting Goods Store in Chicago, from which the Italian rifle was bought.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 139?

Mr. CADIGAN. Exhibit 139. The agent brought in these paper samples from Klein's for comparison purposes, and the paper tape, this manila gummed tape, had these knurl markings measuring 30 per inch.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the gummed tape you obtained from Klein's?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. It was not identical with this, but merely, you might say, illustrate that the markings will differ depending on the wheel, and if your wheel has 30 lines per inch and your other sample is 24 or 25 lines per inch, you know they didn't come from the same tape dispenser.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, do these wheels differ as to their diameter across the bearing surface, the length across the rolling knurled surface?

Mr. CADIGAN. I imagine there would be a difference.

I have made no precise measurement but I imagine they vary within tolerances of a quarter- or half-inch in width.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the length of the lines produced on 142 be the same--the paper bag--the same as the length of the lines produced on 677?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. At what period in connection with the manufacture of the paper are those lines put on or----

Mr. CADIGAN. These are put on after the paper is complete.

Mr. DULLES. After paper is completely manufactured?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. DULLES. And put on by the dispensing machine?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; the individual buys gummed tape in rolls.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. CADIGAN. Three-inch rolls or inch-and-a-half rolls. He then puts it on a tape-dispensing machine.

Mr. DULLES. In his particular organization?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; or his factory or shipping department or wrapping room.

Mr. DULLES. I understand.

Mr. CADIGAN. Once it is in that machine then that wheel will mark the tape going through the dispenser just before it wets it and you paste it down.

Mr. DULLES. Just before, generally just before it is used, then these markings are put on by the dispensing machine.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

After examining the papers, comparing them visually and under the microscope, I examined them under ultraviolet light. This is merely one additional step.

Here again I found that both of them fluoresced the same way.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain the meaning of that?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Paper, along with many substances, has the property of absorbing or reflecting ultraviolet light rays differently. You can take two 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.

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?

Mr. DULLES. What date?

Mr. CADIGAN. November 22.

Mr. DULLES. On the day of the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. And the Q-10 marking is the same as the paper bag found on the sixth floor, Commission Exhibit 142.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph or was it taken under your supervision?

Mr. CADIGAN. I had it made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have it in evidence?

Mr. DULLES. Admitted.

Mr. CADIGAN. I would like to point out this is only one phase of the examination and this is a black-and-white photograph. In your examination under the microscope you are looking at the surface and memorizing everything about that surface your mind can retain by putting the two pieces of paper together and studying them back and forth. I don't wish to imply that that photograph represents all I can see in a microscope, because it doesn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. We understand that. May I have this, Mr. Reporter, marked as 678.

(Commission Exhibit No. 678 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. That has already been admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Now, what is the magnification in this Exhibit 678?

Mr. CADIGAN. It is about 50 times enlarged.

Mr. EISENBERG. And had you treated the paper chemically before you made this photograph?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us a little bit about that photograph and what it shows?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, actually all this shows is an enlarged area, a very small area, I might point out. It merely shows the surface structure, shows some of the fibers, and shows an imperfection. The dark line down the center of the photograph is actually a fold in both papers, merely to bring them close together so that they can be seen together.

But it gives you some idea of the surface texture, how the fibers lie in there. In this instance you have two little imperfections in these fiber bundles here, you can't see the brown-colored fibers that are actually present.

Mr. DULLES. That imperfection, however, would not be repeated, would it?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, no; it is purely accidental.

Mr. DULLES. They are accidental.

Mr. CADIGAN. They are bundles of fibers in the paper itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion were the two samples identical in the characteristics shown in this photomicrograph?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; they have the same appearance.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also break down the papers to test them, to determine the morphology of the fiber?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Subsequently, I ran a fiber analysis of the paper, the known paper sample from the Texas School Book Depository, Commission Exhibit 677, and the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, and on the same day I had our spectrographic section run a spectrographic test on these same papers.

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different--or approximately 10 days later?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.

Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know whether another roll was put in the machine between the 22d and the 1st of December?

Mr. CADIGAN. May we go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. On the record.

Do you know whether the Dallas office of the FBI has attempted to make a determination as to whether the replica paper bag, the paper in the replica 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 is an iodine-iodide stain, which will distinguish between rag fibers, chemical wood fibers, and ground wood fibers by different coloring. The chemical wood is stained blue, rag fibers are stained red, ground wood stained yellow.

I made and studied specimens or slides of fibers from Commission Exhibit 677, the known sample, and from Commission Exhibit 142, the paper sack, to see if the fiber composition is similar. What that means is, is this chemical wood, is it coniferous or deciduous, are there any rag fibers in there or are there any ground wood fibers in there, and I found here the fiber composition was similar and essentially it is a coniferous woodlike pine. There were a few stray rag fibers, which I think were probably accidental, and a few stray ground wood fragments in there.

Mr. DULLES. Let me get clearly what is similar, that is the paper bag, Exhibit----

Mr. CADIGAN. 142; the paper comprising that sack and the paper comprising the known sample obtained November 22, Exhibit 677.

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. CADIGAN. The papers I also found were similar in fiber composition, therefore, in addition to the visual characteristics, microscopic and UV characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. "UV" being ultraviolet?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir. Then I had a spectrographic examination made of the paper from the sack, 142, and the known sample secured November 22, Commission Exhibit 677.

Spectrographic tests involve, of course, burning the substance and capturing the light on a photographic plate to determine what metallic ions are present. This was done by our spectrographic section, and again the paper of Commission Exhibit 677, the paper sample, secured November 22, was found to be similar spectrographically to the paper of the sack, Commission Exhibit 142.

Now, these were additional tests, the original examinations, under visual and ultraviolet light were made by me on November 23, 1963. Fiber analysis and the spectrographic examination were conducted on March 25, 1964.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were--that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?

Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see--actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or 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?