Part 9

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Mr. EISENBERG. We are just talking now about the shape, of course. We will be getting into composition later.