Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Warren Commission (4 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15)
Author: Kennedy, The President's Commission on the Assassination of President
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Warren Commission (4 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15)" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



www.history-matters.com.



Transcriber's Note: Stylized "S", "U", and "V" symbols are denoted as
=S=, =U=, and =V=. Italicized words are denoted with _underscores_.



    INVESTIGATION OF
    THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

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

PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11130, an Executive order creating a
Commission to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating
to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination and
S.J. RES. 137, 88TH CONGRESS, a concurrent resolution conferring upon
the Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations, examine
witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpenas

_Volume_ IV


UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1964

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



    PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
    ON THE
    ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY


    CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN, _Chairman_

    SENATOR RICHARD B. RUSSELL
    SENATOR JOHN SHERMAN COOPER
    REPRESENTATIVE HALE BOGGS
    REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD
    MR. ALLEN W. DULLES
    MR. JOHN J. McCLOY


    J. LEE RANKIN, _General Counsel_


    _Assistant Counsel_

    FRANCIS W. H. ADAMS
    JOSEPH A. BALL
    DAVID W. BELIN
    WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, Jr.
    MELVIN ARON EISENBERG
    BURT W. GRIFFIN
    LEON D. HUBERT, Jr.
    ALBERT E. JENNER, Jr.
    WESLEY J. LIEBELER
    NORMAN REDLICH
    W. DAVID SLAWSON
    ARLEN SPECTER
    SAMUEL A. STERN
    HOWARD P. WILLENS[A]

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


    _Staff Members_

    PHILLIP BARSON
    EDWARD A. CONROY
    JOHN HART ELY
    ALFRED GOLDBERG
    MURRAY J. LAULICHT
    ARTHUR MARMOR
    RICHARD M. MOSK
    JOHN J. O'BRIEN
    STUART POLLAK
    ALFREDDA SCOBEY
    CHARLES N. SHAFFER, Jr.


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



Preface


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



Contents


                                                                Page
    Preface                                                        v

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


COMMISSION EXHIBITS INTRODUCED

    Exhibit No.:    Page
      142             15
      364             93
      626              3
      627              6
      628              6
      629              6
      630              7
      631              7
      632              7
      633              8
      633-A            8
      634             10
      634-A           12
      635             16
      636             17
      637             23
      638             25
      639             25
      640             25
      641             31
      642             32
      643             33
      644             34
      645             34
      646             36
      647             37
      648             37
      649             38
      650             40
      651             40
      652             41
      653             42
      654             42
      655             45
      656             45
      657             46
      657-A           46
      657-B           46
      657-C           46
      658             46
      659             46
      659-A           46
      659-B           46
      660             46
      661             46
      662             55
      663             57
      664             60
      665             61
      666             62
      667             62
      668             63
      669             63
      670             64
      671             68
      672             64
      673             74
      674             85
      675             86
      676             86
      677             90
      678             95
      679            115
      680            115
      681            108
      682            108
      683            115
      684            115
      685            115
      686            115
      687            115
      688            115
      689            115
      690            119
      691            119
      692            123
      693            123
      694            125
      695            125
      696            125
      697            131
      698            131
      699            142
      700            142
      701            159
      702            202
      703            202
      704            173
      705            184
      706            202
      707            202
      708            202
      709            194
      710            194
      711            194
      712            241
      713            241
      714            241
      715            273
      716            273
      717            273
      718            273
      719            273
      720            273
      721            273
      722            273
      723            273
      724            273
      725            273
      726            273
      727            273
      728            273
      729            273
      730            273
      731            273
      732            273
      733            273
      734            273
      735            273
      736            273
      737            277
      738            277
      739            277
      740            277
      741            277
      742            277
      743            277
      744            277
      745            277
      746            280
      747            281
      748            281
      749            283
      750            284
      751            285
      752            285
      753            286
      754            290
      755            294
      760            317
      761            317
      762            300
      763            317
      764            317
      765            317
      766            317
      767            320
      768            320
      769            320
      770            323
      771            349
      772            349
      773            360
      774            360
      775            360
      776            360
      777            360
      778            360
      779            360
      780            361
      781            361
      782-A          361
      782-B          361
      782-C          361
      783            361
      784-A          365
      784-B          365
      784-C          365
      785            365
      786            367
      787            368
      788            373
      789            374
      790            375
      791            377
      792            377
      793            379
      794            379
      795            380
      796            381
      797            381
      798            382
      799            384
      800            384
      801            384
      802            385
      803            386
      804            386
      805            387
      806            389
      807            389
      808            389
      809            390
      810            390
      811            391
      812            391
      813            394
      814            395
      815            395
      816            396
      817            397
      818            398
      819            398
      820            399
      820-A          401
      821            409
      822            413
      823            419
      824            429
      826            439
      827            439
      828            440
      829            445
      830            458
      831            469
      832            469



Hearings Before the President's Commission

on the

Assassination of President Kennedy



_Thursday, April 2, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA AND ARTHUR MANDELLA

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 2, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale
Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman
Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; and
Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.


TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

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

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?

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

Mr. LATONA. I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Are palmprints as unique as fingerprints?

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

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

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

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

In our civil files, in which are filed the fingerprints of the
various types of applicants, service personnel and the like, we have
fingerprints of approximately 62-1/2 million people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

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

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is all it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask a question here?

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it will.

The CHAIRMAN. From this date?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any other prints?

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I--the ones I developed, I did identify.

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have those with you?

Mr. LATONA. I do.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. They are.

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

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. That may be admitted.

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. They are identical?

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly.

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

Mr. LATONA. How they were obtained?

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

Mr. LATONA. You mean in recording the impressions?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; we did.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive those?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Did this include two palms, or was this simply----

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, I did.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. No; I do not.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you may withdraw it.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Which hand did you say?

Mr. LATONA. The right hand.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

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

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have another photograph there?

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted by that number.

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Is it visible to the naked eye?

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 626.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

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

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.

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

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Very well.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. On which joint?

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

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

Mr. LATONA. Looking at the palm itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would rather----

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you----

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Excuse me.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative FORD. It may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 634.

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

Mr. LATONA. Looking further we notice----

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

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

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

Mr. DULLES. Why do you skip 2?

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

Mr. DULLES. I see.

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. That is No. 2?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. How many times is that magnified?

Mr. LATONA. This is magnified approximately 10 times.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Again you are counting ridges?

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

Mr. DULLES. Is 5 a ridge-end?

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Again a ridge count?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is simply by sheer experience.

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

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely so; yes.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, could you do that?

Mr. LATONA. We require our people before they would be----

Mr. DULLES. This is the FBI?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona----

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

Mr. LATONA. Two.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is an interrupted ridge?

Mr. DULLES. I do not get the distinction.

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

Mr. LATONA. What we call an ending ridge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I could.

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

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

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

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

Representative FORD. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative FORD. Back on the record.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct. For example, on the illustration I have
here----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. But it is somewhere between two and seven--somewhere in
that range?

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

Mr. DULLES. You say you would--or would you?

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

Mr. LATONA. We would.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is what exhibit?

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. In a 3-day period?

Mr. LATONA. In a 3-day period.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Did it start in France?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative FORD. Go ahead, Mr. Eisenberg.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. I'm sorry--the right palmprint.

Mr. LATONA. Right.

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

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. Also, before we get to the palmprint----

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

Mr. EISENBERG. I agree, sir. Mr. Latona----

Mr. LATONA. Do I understand you are asking----

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. No; they would not.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were taken by----

Mr. LATONA. The regular service.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to the FBI?

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were they identical?

Mr. LATONA. They were the same.

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

Mr. LATONA. No; not to my knowledge.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I could.

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

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

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

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

Representative FORD. It will be admitted.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I do not.

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

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. DULLES. Under law?

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. What State was that?

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. LATONA. Offhand, I do not.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. This is the inked--the right inked palmprint, a photograph
of the right inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

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

I am handing you Exhibit 632.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 142.

Mr. LATONA. Exhibit 142--which is indicated by the red arrow A.

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

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

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

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

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

Representative FORD. It will be introduced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing above 4?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative FORD. Mr. Murray?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona----

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

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

Mr. DULLES. And these are exhibits----

Mr. EISENBERG. This is Exhibit 142.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes--marked "A" and "B" respectively.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the weapon?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. The trigger-guard area?

Mr. LATONA. The trigger-guard area.

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

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

I first examine most prints to see----

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Closest to the trigger area.

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

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

Mr. LATONA. Left side.

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

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

Now, I did not stop there.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; they had.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a gray powder?

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

Representative FORD. As far as you are concerned.

Mr. LATONA. That's right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. What do you cover it with?

Mr. LATONA. Gray fingerprint powder.

Representative BOGGS. What is that powder?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. And you testified earlier that that adheres----

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

Representative BOGGS. How long will that condition remain?

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

Representative BOGGS. Why the difference?

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

Representative BOGGS. You mean that it is gone?

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I don't know.

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

Mr. LATONA. No, sir.

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

What does it depend on?

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

Representative BOGGS. Well, I can see it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. It would not.

Representative BOGGS. I see--because it would absorb the moisture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. This is a photograph of that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be No. 637.

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the
powder----

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Representative FORD. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.

Representative FORD. In the fingerprinting business?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Completely.

Mr. DULLES. The original print?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.

Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination.

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

Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. The ulnar----

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

Mr. EISENBERG. This is the right palm?

Mr. LATONA. The right palm.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it prepared under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it an accurate reproduction?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

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

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

(Discussion off the record.)

(The reporter read the last question.)

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

Mr. LATONA. Slightly enlarged; yes, sir.

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

Mr. LATONA. It was.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

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

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

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

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement of this chart?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. 637?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. The inked print?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. No; those were the others.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Fingerprint glass, you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Can they be distorted, destroyed?

Mr. LATONA. They can be destroyed in the sense that----

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

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

Representative BOGGS. That is what I was thinking about.

Mr. LATONA. That can be done, too.

Representative BOGGS. What happens then?

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Do criminals do that?

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

Representative BOGGS. How much would that be?

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

Now, at that particular time----

Representative BOGGS. After all that business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Who are these authorities?

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

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

We can take it off the record.

Mr. LATONA. Nothing is secret about our files.

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

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

Representative BOGGS. How many do you have on file?

Mr. LATONA. We have the fingerprints of 77-1/2 million people?

Representative BOGGS. That includes all of those who were in the Army,
Navy----

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

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

(Discussion off the record.)

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

Mr. DULLES. I will do so.

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

Mr. LATONA. Six all told.

Representative BOGGS. Six altogether?

Mr. LATONA. Six.

Representative BOGGS. That includes these?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Representative BOGGS. How many, three?

Mr. LATONA. Three so far.

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Is what?

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I would assume so.

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Of course not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. Yes. Go ahead.

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

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.

Mr. EISENBERG. You don't?

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are experts unanimous in this opinion?

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Particularly on that weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 139?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. It was processed in your presence?

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

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

Representative BOGGS. It will be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 641.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. It did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the chemical means?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one?

Mr. LATONA. A latent fingerprint; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one identifiable print?

Mr. LATONA. One identifiable print; yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Thirteen identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. "A."

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. That is right.

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Apparently so.

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Yes; I recall that testimony.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. And whose prints were they?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the palm?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Again Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Good, that straightens me out.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

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

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

Mr. DULLES. This will be admitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative BOGGS. No.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. No; I don't.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. Were they full when you got them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Based on reproduction photographs we have seen----

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

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

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.

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

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs?

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

Representative BOGGS. I see the same thing.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. 641, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

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

Mr. LATONA. It is.

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

Mr. DULLES. This is a fingerprint now?

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

Mr. DULLES. Has he identified what fingerprint?

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you testify that this was the fingerprint----

Mr. LATONA. No.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that individual was?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman----

Mr. DULLES. The right index finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 644.

Mr. DULLES. Admitted.

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I do.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. The palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. Or from the palm?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is a partial print.

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. The central portion?

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

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Marked "B."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. That one there?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. What are all these other fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. They are all other fingerprints.

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. The box was carried around probably.

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I don't know.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. No.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

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

Mr. LATONA. I had charts prepared; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. These were prepared under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. They were.

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

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. LATONA. Approximately eight times.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is true.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Sir?

Mr. EISENBERG. You have marked 13?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. On this exhibit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just the more salient points?

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

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

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare a chart, Mr. Latona, of the
fingerprint----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you familiar with this carton, Mr. Latona?

Mr. DULLES. Has that been admitted?

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. When was that received?

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

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

Mr. DULLES. What date?

Mr. LATONA. 27th.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

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

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

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

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

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

Mr. DULLES. "New People and Progress."

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

Mr. DULLES. No.

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

Mr. LATONA. A portion of it had.

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

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

Mr. LATONA. Yes, it was.

Mr. EISENBERG. With the box?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. I think I have that.

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that fit into the box?

Mr. LATONA. It does.

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

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 649.

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

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

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Two Identifiable Fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Palmprints?

Mr. LATONA. No; they were fingerprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. I mean were there any palmprints?

Mr. LATONA. There were no palmprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you process this box?

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

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

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

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

Mr. LATONA. I don't believe there was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of the prints on the carton 648 as
belonging to a specific individual?

Mr. LATONA. The two fingerprints which were developed on commission
exhibit 648 by silver nitrate are not identified as anyone's, but the
print which appears on the piece which was cut out has been identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is 649?

Mr. LATONA. Of exhibit 648--which is exhibit 649----

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. LATONA. Which came from exhibit 648 has been identified as a
palmprint of Harvey Lee Oswald, the right palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, can you tell how this was developed,
this print on 649?

Mr. LATONA. The appearance is it was developed with black powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. You testified before concerning the aging of
fingerprints. Considering the material on which this print was
developed, 649, do you think you could form an opinion, any opinion at
all, concerning the freshness or staleness of this print?

Mr. LATONA. Bearing in mind the fact that this is an absorbent
material, and realizing, of course, that a print when it is left on a
material of this type it starts to soak in. Now, the reason that we in
the FBI do not use powder is because of the fact that in a short period
of time the print will soak in so completely that there won't be any
moisture left.

Accordingly when you brush powder across there won't be anything
developed.

Under circumstances, bearing in mind that here the box was powdered,
and a print was developed with powder, the conclusion is that this is
comparatively a fresh print. Otherwise, it would not have developed.

We know, too, that we developed two other fingerprints on this by
chemicals. How long a time had elapsed since the time this print was
placed on there until the time that it would have soaked in so that the
resulting examination would have been negative I don't know, but that
could not have been too long.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks,
or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.

Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the
print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a
piece of cardboard for 3 days.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?

Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.

Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify
concerning?

Mr. LATONA. We have run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours
on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to
try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum
of 24 hours.

Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as
to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a
series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them,
say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a
latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say,
within a 24-hour period.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. To employ that here, but your experiments produced a
maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. LATONA. Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was
left on there--between the time that the print was left and the time
that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise,
the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

Mr. EISENBERG. You identified that, I believe, as the right palmprint
of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. What portion of the right palm was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. It happens to be the center part of the palm close to the
wrist.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you show how the palm must have lain on the 649, the
part of the 648 carton, to produce that print?

Mr. LATONA. It would have been placed on there in this fashion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you are pointing so that your hand is parallel with
the long axis of the box, and at right angles to the short axis?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And just the bottom of the palm rests on the box, isn't
that correct?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, before going to this fingerprint or this palmprint
rather, Mr. Latona, we have palmprints, a palmprint here on this 649,
and a finger and a palm on 641, and those are the only identified
prints on these two objects.

Is it possible that Lee Harvey Oswald could have touched these two
cartons at other places without leaving identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. He could have.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how would that come about?

Mr. LATONA. Simply by the fact that he did not have any material on his
finger at the time he touched the box.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you can touch a carton at one point and leave a
print, and at another point not, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely, that is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when you say he doesn't have any material, how would
that come about? Will he have used his material up, or not produced
material with the particular finger?

Mr. LATONA. He could have used it up and failed to produce it fast
enough to have left anything at the time he touched that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it uncommon or common for you to find an object which
a person has touched more than once but only left one identifiable
print?

Mr. LATONA. It is very common.

Mr. EISENBERG. It is common?

Mr. LATONA. Especially in, for example, the reading of a letter, a long
letter where the person would run his finger and index finger down the
edges. You might find prints at the top and then you don't find any at
the bottom.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of course. I am not asking you to draw an inference
whether or not Oswald touched the box in more than one place, but I
just want to explore whether he could have touched the box in more than
one place----

Mr. LATONA. Yes; he could.

Mr. EISENBERG. And not left a second imprint?

Mr. LATONA. He very definitely could have and not left one.

Mr. DULLES. May I add for the record, Commission Exhibit 648 apparently
contained books of Scott Foresman and Co., from Scott, Foresman & Co.,
"Building for Today, Pioneering for Tomorrow."

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you take a photograph of the lift, or
the print rather, which we see in 649?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this is an accurate photograph?

Mr. LATONA. It is, it is a true reproduction of the print which appears
on Commission Exhibit 649 and it is enlarged about a time and a half.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 650?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 650, for
identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the known palmprint and
make a red circle around it, as you had in previous cases?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. To show what portion of the palm of Oswald that was?

Mr. LATONA. Showing a portion of the right palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as 651.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 651, and
received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, Mr. Latona, on 649 there seems to be a
scotch tape or cellophane tape over the fingerprint, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, apparently there was no attempt at a lift being
made here?

Mr. LATONA. No. This evidently was a print which was developed directly
on the paper itself. The employing of that adhesive material like
scotch tape was to protect the print itself.

Had they tried to lift that up I am afraid they would have spoiled that
because they would have lifted the fibers of the cardboard along with
it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that why, you think, they didn't lift it?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, did the Dallas police take photographs of
the lift which we had earlier, the lift which was apparently taken from
Exhibit 139, or to put the question--actually I am not interested in
whether they took photographs of the lift; do you know whether they
took photographs of the print?

Mr. LATONA. I don't know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it normal to take a photograph of a print before it is
lifted?

Mr. LATONA. If it is fairly visible, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the purpose of the lift, as opposed to a
photograph reproducing the print?

Mr. LATONA. The purpose of the lift is simply to insure the probability
of getting a good record of the print, because a lot of times when you
photograph a print, you have to go through the process of having it
developed and then printed and at the same time by lifting it you may,
that would be an additional security that you are getting the best
results.

Then you take your choice as to which result turns out the best.

Mr. EISENBERG. So these are alternative routes?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Lifting and photographing?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. Well, primarily our recommendation in the
FBI is simply every procedure to photograph and then lift. Then you
choose the one which you feel gives you the best results in your final
photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the palmprint on 649, taken from the carton
648, did you make up a chart showing some of the points----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which led you to your conclusion that that print was the
print of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And was that prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. Prepared by me--under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this chart admitted as 652?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Exhibit 652.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 652, for
identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, without going into detail, Mr. Latona, could
you show us some of the more salient points which led you to your
conclusion that the print on 649 was the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. The easiest points visible here, right offhand, point
No. 11 which is a black line that goes upward and its relationship
to point No. 10. This is known as the short ending ridge as is seen
here. Its relation to point No. 8. Point No. 11 is a black line going
upward. Point No. 8 is a black line going downward and there are one,
two, three, ridges which are between the two. Over here in the latent
print you find No. 11 which is a black line going upward. It is a short
line to the other end of the point No. 10, and three ridges intervene
between that and point No. 8, which is going downward.

One ridge to the right and going in an upward direction is point No.
7--7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Mr. DULLES. And you identified 11 points of similarity?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. Between the inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald and this
palmprint taken from this cardboard carton?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. What is this white line that goes up through each?

Mr. LATONA. This is a crease in the center of the palm, a flexure
crease of that area.

Mr. DULLES. The palm did not touch the carton at that point?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. And those two creases are in approximately the same
location in the photograph and in the latent palmprint?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, I now hand you two further cartons, which
are labeled Box B and Box C, the B box being a 10 Rolling Reader, and
the C box being also a Scott, Foresman box with printing on the back,
"The Three Pre-primers," apparently the name of the book contained in
this box.

Mr. DULLES. Primers.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you examine Box B, which I have handed
to you, to determine whether it had on it any identifiable latent
fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like that box admitted as 653.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 653 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?

Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed
on Commission Exhibit 653.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?

Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a
specific person?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also
examine Box C?

Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.

(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?

Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you identify them as belonging to a specific
individual?

Mr. LATONA. I did not identify them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey
Oswald's known prints?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive cartons 653 and 654?

Mr. LATONA. I received cartons 653 and 654 November 27.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, with the earlier cartons, Boxes A and D, which
have received Commission exhibit numbers?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Had they been processed? Could you tell whether they had
been processed for latent fingerprints?

Mr. LATONA. I couldn't tell whether they had been or not.

Mr. EISENBERG. You could not tell?

Mr. LATONA. Could not tell. They had the appearance of not having been
processed.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you process them in your laboratory, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Iodine fumes and chemicals.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did the prints react to the iodine fumes at all?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to the chemicals?

Mr. LATONA. The silver nitrate prints which were developed.

Mr. DULLES. Do you mean that the prints were of such a caliber and
character that you couldn't make anything out of them, or that you
couldn't identify them with any known----

Mr. LATONA. They are not identical with those that they have been
compared with.

Mr. DULLES. But the prints themselves were perfectly good prints?

Mr. LATONA. Oh, yes; the prints are good but they are not Lee Harvey
Oswald's.

Mr. EISENBERG. At any subsequent time have you attempted to identify
any of these prints on the boxes as belonging to any person other than
Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how did you proceed with this attempt?

Mr. LATONA. An effort was made to locate the fingerprints of all people
employed in that building in which these cartons were found, on the
basis of the names and birth dates which were furnished, and we located
the fingerprints of 16 of those people who work in that building.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. LATONA. And the fingerprints of those 16 employees were compared
with all of the latent prints which were developed on these boxes. They
do not belong to any of those 16 people.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask for my information here, Mr. Eisenberg, were all
of these cartons, including the last two admitted in evidence, were
they found in the general area of the sixth floor of the building from
which it is believed the shot was fired?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; Mr. Chairman. I believe that the two boxes which
were just admitted into evidence as 653 and 654 were two of the three
boxes which were apparently used as a rest by the assassin. They were
apparently either the two bottom boxes, or there might have been an
arrangement such as that one was stacked on top of the other, and the
box earlier admitted into evidence was some evidence of that.

Mr. DULLES. And in any event, does our evidence indicate that these
boxes were moved from their normal position on the sixth floor to a new
position near the window?

Mr. EISENBERG. Again I believe it does indicate that at least the 10
Rolling Reader carton was moved. There was some other movement of boxes
that morning, and I think they are still in the process of tracing down
all of the movements.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have a letter, Mr. Latona, from Mr. Hoover to Mr.
Rankin, the general counsel of our Commission, setting forth the names
of the employees of the TSBD whose prints were compared in this recent
attempt you mentioned. Would you recognize the names?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I would because I believe that report is based on my
report.

Mr. EISENBERG. If I read the name could you verify whether these
individuals were the ones whose prints you checked out against the
latents?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Haddon Spurgeon Aiken?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Jack Charles Cason?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Warren Cason?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Jack Edwin Doughterty?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Charles Douglas Givens?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mary Madeline Hollis?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. James Earl Jarman?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Spaulden Earnest Jones?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Herbert L. Junker?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Billy Nolan Lovelady?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Joe R. Molina?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Edward Shields?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Joyce Maurine Stansberg?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Roy Sansom Truly?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Lloyd R. Viles?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Troy Eugene West?

Mr. LATONA. Correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now as I understand it, these employees were not
selected because any particular suspicion fell on them, but merely
because of all the employees, those were the ones whose cards you knew
you had in your files?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And it was just accidental----

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That those employees were picked?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is no inference that there was any suspicion
whatsoever attaching to any of these employees?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. We believe all these employees had access to the sixth
floor of the building?

Mr. EISENBERG. We are still looking into that question. This is a
recent effort on your part?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Is that letter to be admitted as evidence or not?

Mr. EISENBERG. I think not----

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Since I don't think the witness could identify the
actual letter.

Mr. DULLES. It will be in the files, though?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; it is a Commission document in the files.

Mr. Latona, I believe that out of the total number of six prints
you have identified today as being Lee Harvey Oswald's, four were
palmprints, is that correct?

Mr. LATONA. Three.

Mr. EISENBERG. Three?

Mr. LATONA. Three, two rights and one left, three palms and three
fingers.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was a palm on----

Mr. LATONA. The bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. A palm on the weapon?

Mr. LATONA. One on the gun and on this box.

Mr. EISENBERG. Four and two then?

Mr. LATONA. Three.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was a palm on each box?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is two palms?

Mr. LATONA. One off the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is three palms, and the palm on the wrapping paper
bag. Here is the wrapping paper bag.

Mr. LATONA. One palm and one finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is four palms all together?

Mr. LATONA. Four palms, okay.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that correct?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is the proportion of recovered fingerprints here
an unusual one in your estimation? That is, we usually hear about
fingerprints rather than palmprints, whereas here we have four palm and
two finger prints. Is there anything unusual in this?

Mr. LATONA. Well, in that manner there is because--well no, I guess
not. It is just as logical to assume that a person will leave a
palmprint as a fingerprint. It depends upon primarily the way he
handles it. Objects of this type being so large you can probably expect
to get a palmprint.

Mr. DULLES. And what he is handling?

Mr. LATONA. That is right. On the other hand, if the object is small
there is probably no reason for the palm to touch it. For example, in a
rearview mirror; ordinarily on a rearview mirror of these stolen cars
we process you get mostly fingerprints.

On the other hand if you get back into the trunk, the chances of
something of a large nature, a stolen wheel, or something of that type,
you will get finger and palm prints. Cartons like this, where you have
to use both hands to pick it up because of its weight, the probability
is that you will get a palmprint as well as a fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the same thing be true of a heavy rifle?

Mr. LATONA. Sure, very definitely.

Mr. EISENBERG. And if the bag contained a heavy object inside?

Mr. LATONA. That is right, it would take more than just the finger area
of the hand to hold on to it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you prepare at my request a series
of photographs for transmission by me to the New York City Police
Department--photographs of finger and palm prints found on some of the
evidence we have been looking at?

Mr. LATONA. I furnished you photographs of all of the remaining
unidentified latent prints from these cartons.

Mr. EISENBERG. And also did you furnish me a photograph--just of the
remaining unidentified prints?

Mr. LATONA. No; including the ones which I identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also furnish me with a photograph of the
two prints you identified--which parenthetically were the only two
identifiable prints--on the brown wrapping paper bag?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is Exhibit 142. And of the lift from the weapon
139?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you also furnished me with photographs of the finger
and palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. As transmitted to you by the Dallas office of the FBI?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify these as the photographs you furnished
to me?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you identified the envelope marked "two photos Box
D"?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted as 655?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 655 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. I think there ought to be some cross-identification inside
the envelope. Because obviously if you take that envelope and put
anything in it, we ought to have the others identified properly.

Mr. EISENBERG. There are two photographs within this. Let the record
show there are two photographs within this envelope, marked "7" and
"13," and I believe these are the only photographs so marked. Each
photograph is marked with an individual number, so these are the only
two photographs in the entire set marked "7" and "13."

Mr. DULLES. Excellent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now I have an envelope marked "10 photos Box A." Have
you identified these photographs Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have these photographs admitted as group 656?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be.

(Commission Exhibit No. 656 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. How many enclosures in that?

Mr. EISENBERG. There are 10 enclosures and numbered as follows: 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.

Mr. DULLES. There is no 33?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit----

Mr. EISENBERG. 656.

Mr. DULLES. That is 656 with the enclosures as noted and identified.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have here photographs--an envelope--labeled
"Photographs, Fingerprints, and Palmprints, Lee Harvey Oswald." These
are accurate reproductions?

Mr. LATONA. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will later put
subnumbers on these.

Mr. DULLES. Seven numbers with seven enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; three enclosures.

Mr. DULLES. With three enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. And I will number the 10-print card--first may I have
the envelope with the photographs admitted as 657?

Mr. DULLES. The envelope shall be admitted with----

Mr. EISENBERG. I will subnumber the cards with your permission at a
later time.

Mr. DULLES. How many enclosures in it, three?

Mr. EISENBERG. Three. I will subnumber the 10-print card 657-A, the
right palm 657-B, and left palm 657-C.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 657-A, 657-B, and 657-C were marked, and
received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I have an envelope with photos marked "one photo of lift
'underside of gun barrel.'" Is this a photograph which you provided me?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 658, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. 658 with how many enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one.

Mr. DULLES. Just one enclosure.

(Commission Exhibit No. 658 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, an envelope marked "two photos brown bag (wrapping
paper)."

This is the two photos, Mr. Latona, which you gave to me?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 659, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 659 with one enclosure in the
envelope. Is it one or two?

Mr. EISENBERG. There are two enclosures.

Mr. DULLES. With two in the envelope.

Mr. EISENBERG. One has printing on it and with your permission I will
mark that "659-A," and the other has no printing and I will mark it
"659-B."

Mr. DULLES. It will be so admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 659-A and 659-B were marked, and received in
evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now an envelope marked "eight photos Box B." This is,
Mr. Latona, the photographs you provided me?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as Exhibit 660, Mr. Chairman,
collectively?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 660 with----

Mr. EISENBERG. With eight enclosures----

Mr. DULLES. Eight enclosures.

Mr. EISENBERG. Marked "15"--the next one has 17 scratched out and also
18 appearing on it--19 for the third enclosure, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Mr. DULLES. With the numbers as indicated in the record.

(Commission Exhibit No. 660 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. And finally an envelope of the same size, marked "three
photos, Box C." Mr. Latona, these are the photos you gave me?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have these admitted as 661, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Exhibit 661, with how many
enclosures?

Mr. EISENBERG. There are three enclosures.

Mr. DULLES. And the three enclosures; are they identified in any way?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; they are subnumbered 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. DULLES. With the subnumbers 10, 11 and 12.

(Commission Exhibit No. 661 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Are all these photographs accurate reproductions of
the prints appearing on the objects whose name is on the front of the
envelope in which the photographs are stored?

Mr. LATONA. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. They were taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. They were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify by number, Mr. Latona, the photographs
of box A which contain prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. I will have to do it in a negative fashion and tell you
that it is not 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, or 35.

Mr. EISENBERG. Then it would be No. 25 which is in that sequence?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you mention 34?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. So 34 would also be an identified print in that sequence?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you print anything on the back of these photographs,
Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. At the time I gave you the photographs I marked nothing on
them.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that any printing here would have been put on
subsequent to the time you prepared them?

Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Referring specifically to a photograph I take at random,
which is No. 35, is this your handwriting?

Mr. LATONA. It is not.

Mr. EISENBERG. None of the printing appearing on the back of that
photograph?

Mr. LATONA. It is not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record state that, as will be dealt with
later, this printing was put on by Mr. Mandella of the New York
Police Department. Now in the case of box D, of which there are two
photographs, 7 and 13, could you state which was the photograph of
Oswald's print?

Mr. LATONA. Thirteen.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to reiterate, in no case did you put writing on the
back of these photographs?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did anyone else in the FBI examine the
objects which you have been discussing today----

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether the fingerprints of Lee Harvey
Oswald appeared on them?

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was that person's name?

Mr. LATONA. His name is Ronald G. Wittmus.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was his examination conducted independently of yours?

Mr. LATONA. It was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who conducted the examination first?

Mr. LATONA. In the case of the wrapping paper, I did. In the case of
the boxes I believe he did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the rifle?

Mr. LATONA. I conducted the examination of the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. The lift from the rifle?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; directly.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the----

Mr. LATONA. Brown wrapping paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. In any case when you conducted your examination first
did you tell Wittmus of your conclusions?

Mr. LATONA. I did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. When Mr. Wittmus conducted his examination first did he
tell you of his conclusions?

Mr. LATONA. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were his conclusions the same as yours?

Mr. LATONA. Ultimately, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "ultimately"?

Mr. LATONA. When the whole thing was completed.

Mr. DULLES. There was no difference of views between you at any stage?

Mr. LATONA. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did anyone who examined these various objects--as to
which you have testified--in the FBI laboratory come to a conclusion
different from the one you did?

Mr. LATONA. They did not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any identifications of fingerprints as being
Lee Harvey Oswald's in addition to the ones which you have given us?

Mr. LATONA. There were a number of identifications effected with latent
prints developed on personal effects.

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; on the material you have testified as to today.

Mr. LATONA. No; there were no others.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were any prints found--were the three fragmentary
prints found on the rifle, which were not sufficient for purposes of
identification, in any way inconsistent with the prints of Oswald which
you found?

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely, no. I might point out that actually
what was visible was consistent, in the sense that even though there
were no ridge formations available for purposes of making a positive
conclusion, the indications were that the pattern types were there,
were consistent with the pattern types which were on the hands of Lee
Harvey Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. As far as you know the conclusions of the Texas police
authorities who examined these objects, were your conclusions the same
as theirs, or was there any differences between you on this subject?

Mr. LATONA. Frankly, I don't know what there conclusion was.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. Have you any questions, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I have not.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions. Thank you very much indeed,
Mr. Latona. You have been very helpful. I have learned a great deal
myself.

Mr. LATONA. Thank you very much.


TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR MANDELLA, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. JOSEPH A. MOONEY, NEW
YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Mandella, will you raise your right hand.

Do you swear that the testimony you give before this Commission will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. MANDELLA. I do.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, could you give us your full name and
position?

Mr. MANDELLA. Arthur Mandella. I am a detective on the New York Police
Department and I work at the bureau of criminal identification in that
department.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly outline your qualifications as a
fingerprint identification expert, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. In 1945 to 1948 I was a fingerprint technician in the
U.S. Navy. My principal duties were the classification and filing of
fingerprints, the developing and photographing of latent fingerprints
found at crime scenes, the comparison of latent fingerprints with
suspects, and the searching of fingerprint files in general.

From 1948 to 1953 I was employed by the U.S. Government as a criminal
investigator. However, my principal duties were the lifting and
developing and identification of latent fingerprints, also the
preparation of fingerprint exhibits for court presentation. From 1955
to the present I have been employed by the New York Police Department
and assigned to the bureau of criminal identification as a fingerprint
technician and performing the same duties that I just outlined. During
these past 17 years I have been examining not only fingerprints but
palmprints and infant footprints as well.

I graduated from the following fingerprint schools: in 1945, the U.S.
Naval Air Station; in 1948 I graduated from the Institute of Applied
Sciences, which is a fingerprint school, fingerprint and identification
school; in 1955 I graduated from the New York Police Fingerprint School
at the police academy; and in 1958 I attended an advanced latent
fingerprint course conducted by the FBI at the New York Police Academy.

I am a fingerprint instructor for the New York Police Department Bureau
of Criminal Identification and lecture at various hospitals relative to
the proper techniques involved in footprinting the newborn.

I am a qualified fingerprint expert and have testified in New York
State and Federal courts, including court-martials, relative to all
phases of fingerprints, palmprints, and footprints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you venture a guess as to how many identifications
you have been called upon to make in the course of your work?

Mr. MANDELLA. General identifications, I suppose, it runs into many
thousands. It is hard to pick a number. But it is certainly well into
the thousands of examinations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be permitted to testify
as an expert witness on the subject of fingerprints?

Mr. DULLES. Yes; he may.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, did you at my request examine certain
photographs of latent prints and compare them with photographs of inked
or known prints to determine whether there were identities between the
known and latent prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibits 656, 658, 659, 655,
657, 661, and 660. Could you briefly look through these and determine
whether these are the photographs which you examined? As you finish an
item, could you take a look at the Commission number and verify that
you looked at the photographs in that Commission envelope?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I have examined the photographs contained in
Commission Exhibit No. 656.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you would just state the number, in each case,
in each envelope?

Mr. MANDELLA. In Commission Exhibit 656 there are 10 photos, 10
photographs. And I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 658, which
is one photograph. I also examined Commission Exhibit No. 659, which is
two photographs. I have also examined Commission Exhibit No. 655, which
is two photographs. I have examined Commission Exhibit No. 661, which
contains three photographs. I have examined Commission Exhibit No.
660, which contains eight photographs. I have also examined Commission
Exhibit No. 657, which contains three photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. 657 contains photographs of inked prints, is that
correct?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. The standard 10-finger chart and a right and left
palmprint?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you have been informed by me and you see on the
writing on these charts are the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any other knowledge that these are the
prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; none whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining prints are photographs of what you
would call latent prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make markings on the backs of these prints, Mr.
Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; on quite a few of them I did. However, not all of
them.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you made those markings on the basis of--in your own
hand printing?

Mr. MANDELLA. My own hand printing, for certain observations I wanted
recorded.

Mr. DULLES. What is the nature of the marking?

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's take a sample. I will pull one out at random
from Commission Exhibit 660. The topmost card says "Box B," which
corresponds to the label or the envelope 660--and that is No. 17.

Mr. DULLES. Will you show those to the witness and see if he identifies
his own writing?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I have made these notations. Yes; I do recognize
these.

Mr. EISENBERG. The next one says "Box B" and "Negative--same as box 'D'
No. 7."

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have seen these as you flipped through to identify
that these are the same photographs?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that these photographs are
photographs of latent prints taken by or under the supervision of Mr.
Sebastian Latona, and he has just testified that these photographs
were taken of objects which were identified earlier in Commission
proceedings. Mr. Latona transmitted these photographs to me directly,
and I in turn transmitted them to Mr. Mandella and Mr. Mooney, who is
also present in this hearing room.

Mr. Mandella, do you know what total number of identifiable
latent prints were contained in these exhibits that you just
identified--exclusive of 657, which contained the inked or known finger
and palm prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; but I have this outline here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just approximately would you say how many identifiable
prints there were?

Mr. MANDELLA. Thirty.

Mr. EISENBERG. Some 30 odd prints?

Mr. MANDELLA. Some 30.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you identify certain of those prints as being
the finger or palm prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us which of those prints you so
identified?

Mr. MANDELLA. There was a photograph, a photograph of the underside of
the gun barrel, Commission Exhibit No.----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Commission Exhibit No. 658, and I will hand you
that photograph now. You are referring to this photograph?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you read the writing on the back of that?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Right palm Oswald underside gun barrel."

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that in your handwriting?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is in my handwriting.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you determine what portion of the right palm that
was, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is the right side of the right palm, this area
right here.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the ulnar portion?

Mr. MANDELLA. Pardon?

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that sometimes called the ulnar portion?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; the ulnar side, or the small-bone side; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make any other identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give the next one, please?

Mr. MANDELLA. The photo marked "brown bag wrapping paper" Exhibit
No.----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 659, and that exhibit contains two
photographs which I now hand you, which are marked 659-A and 659-B?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you identify the prints in those photographs?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; on photograph No. 1----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you refer to the print on the back, 659-A or B?

Mr. MANDELLA. On 659-B, as I called it, photo 1, is the No. 7 finger
which is the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have a note on the back of that picture?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you read us that?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Left index, Oswald brown bag wrapping paper."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is in your handwriting?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say what portion of the left index finger of Lee
Harvey Oswald that is?

Mr. MANDELLA. It is the bulb of the finger, a little to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, by bulb you mean the central portion of the
distal phalanx?

Mr. MANDELLA. The central portion to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the distal phalanx?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; the flesh joint; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And 659-A?

Mr. MANDELLA. Commission Exhibit No. 659, as I call it, photo No. 2, is
a palmprint and I identified this as the right side of the right palm
of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. The right side would again be the ulnar?

Mr. MANDELLA. It would be the ulnar side, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. The little finger side?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. That also has writing on the back of it, does it?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you read that to us?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Right palm, Oswald brown bag wrapping paper."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is in your own handwriting?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any handwriting when you got any of these
prints, by the way?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; there wasn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. All the prints were blank on the reverse side?

Mr. MANDELLA. They were blank on the reverse side. There was
handwriting within the photographs but not----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the face of the photographs?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you proceed, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Box A, photo No. 25.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Commission Exhibit 656, and I will hand you
photo No. 25.

Mr. MANDELLA. What was that number, 656? Numbers 25 and 34.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Nos. 25 and 34. Could you identify No. 25
first Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. No. 25, Commission Exhibit No. 656, contains three
identifiable fingerprints, one of which, located in the center in a
whorl-type pattern, is the No. 2 finger or the right index finger of
Lee Harvey Oswald. The fingerprints on the right and the left do not
belong to Lee Harvey Oswald but the one in the center, the whorl-type
pattern, is his No. 2 finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is that now again, the right-hand index finger?

Mr. MANDELLA. The No. 2 finger, which is the right index finger, and
again the first joint, the bulb of the finger.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bulb of the distal phalanx?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the right index finger?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. For clarity, where were these taken? What were these taken
from?

Mr. EISENBERG. This was taken from box A----

Mr. DULLES. Box A?

Mr. EISENBERG. Which I believe is a 10 rolling reader carton. Is there
printing or handwriting on the back of that photograph 25?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you read it to us?

Mr. MANDELLA. "Center impression No. 2 finger Oswald from Box
A photo--latent on left unidentified--Photo Nos. 25 and 27
identical--Negative with Oswald unidentified."

Mr. EISENBERG. "Negative with Oswald," are you referring now to two
of the three photographs--two of the three prints appearing on the
photograph?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, two prints, exactly, the one in the
center, of course I am not in reference to the one in the center, which
is his. The two on the right and left are unidentified.

Mr. EISENBERG. And No. 34, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. No. 34, Commission Exhibit 656, is a palmprint from the
left palm of Lee Harvey Oswald, the left palm section of course, the
ulnar side again of the left side of the left palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do you have a note on the back of that?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I do. "Oswald's left palm--left side."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that again is in your own handwriting, is it Mr.
Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any other identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there is one more on box D, photo No. 13.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 655, which contains two photographs, and
I will extract the photograph labeled "13."

Mr. MANDELLA. Commission Exhibit 655, photo No. 13, the right palmprint
of Lee Harvey Oswald. The section here is at the heel of the palm in
the center.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the center of the palm?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You were just pointing to the lower portion of the palm,
which you refer to as the heel?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; this is the portion of Oswald's palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there handwriting or printing on the back of that
photograph?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; there is. "Right palm--Oswald--heel of hand."

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is your handwriting, is it, Mr. Mandella?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you made a total of six identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now when you made these identifications--or, I
should say, when you received the photographs and when you made the
identifications, did you have any knowledge of any kind as to how many,
if any, prints of Oswald's were found among the many impressions which
were given to you?

Mr. MANDELLA. I had no idea, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you aware in any way of the conclusions of any
other body concerning these impressions?

Mr. MANDELLA. I knew nothing about any examination by anyone.

Mr. EISENBERG. At an unofficial level, had you seen anything in the
newspapers which would indicate any information on these?

Mr. MANDELLA. In the newspaper several months ago there was reference
to a--I don't even recall whether it was fingerprints or palmprints or
both but there was some reference in the newspaper I had seen, and that
is all.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is all you recall about it?

Mr. MANDELLA. That is all I recall.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you pay any attention to that in making your
identifications?

Mr. MANDELLA. No; it didn't affect me at all, nothing to do with the
identifications.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your general attitude toward items you see like
this in the newspapers, by the way?

Mr. MANDELLA. In the newspapers? It doesn't mean a thing. Attitude
relative to fingerprints?

Mr. EISENBERG. I am trying to determine how far this might influence
you in your evaluation, and I wonder as a police officer what your
opinion is when you read accounts in newspapers of evidence in crimes.

Mr. MANDELLA. No; it doesn't affect me other than for general
information purposes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did I transmit to you any information whatsoever
concerning these prints?

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.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I cannot think of anything else at this time.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the blanket have made a secure
package wrapped in the way and manner that it appeared to you?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it would have. With the crease at fold "A,"
had it been folded down, it would have made a very snug and secure
package containing some type of item in it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, was there anything about the string,
Paine Exhibit 2, which would make an identification possible?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; the string is just common white cotton string.
It is found in most stores throughout the country, and used for, well,
many uses. There is nothing distinctive about the string itself which
could be traced as to manufacturer or any definite use it was made for.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any distinctive accidental markings on it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I found none.

Mr. EISENBERG. What kind--was it tied in a knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was tied in a granny knot, and also a bow
knot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you illustrate that for us? You are holding up a
piece of string?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is another piece of string, not the original.

Mr. EISENBERG. Not the original.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. A granny knot is a common knot, tied with two simple
thumb knots. It is a very hard knot to open as opposed to the boy scout
knot, or the square knot rather, which is tied in this manner. This
knot is very easy to open because all one has to do is to pull one free
end of it and the other free end slides out.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to the so-called "boy scout" knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is actually not a boy scout knot but a square knot.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you tie that left over right, right over left, is
that the formula?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; left over right and right over left.

Mr. EISENBERG. How do you spell that, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. G-r-a-n-n-y.

Mr. EISENBERG. The granny knot, Mr. Stombaugh, is this a common or an
uncommon knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is a very common knot. I believe that knot is tied
more than any other knot because it is right over right, right over
right, and it is usually used by people wrapping packages who want it
tied securely so the package will not come open.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you say there was also a bow knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you illustrate that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the type of knot we use when we tie our shoe
strings. It is made by forming a loop with the one free end, and
wrapping the other free end around it and pulling it through.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a hard or an easy knot to slip out, Mr.
Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is very easy, because you just take one of the
loose ends and pull it and the knot falls apart.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was the relationship between the granny knot and
the bow knot?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I don't know. I have seen this numerous times, on
numerous different occasions when one would either tie a granny knot or
a square knot and follow it up with a bow knot. The granny knot would
be to secure the package so it would not come loose. The bow knot is a
temporary knot tied by one who wants the string to come off easily.

Now why they would tie a granny knot and follow this up with a bow knot
I don't know, unless they had some long loose ends which they wanted to
slacken up, shorten up, rather, so as they would not be hanging down.

Mr. EISENBERG. The Exhibit Paine No. 2 is tied into a knot at this
point. Can you tell us what kind of a knot that is?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was a simple bow knot which I put into it.

Mr. EISENBERG. You put it into it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the knot does not reproduce the knots as you found
them originally?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they do not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I wonder if you could tie the
demonstration piece of string you have been using into the granny knot
and bow knot, in the manner in which you received it.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is the granny knot and here is the bow knot.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are not here trying to approximate the diameter or
the circumference of the string, but only the knots?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I admit this string as an illustrative
exhibit?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be done.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 664, Mr. reporter.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 664, and
received into evidence.)

Now, Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine its
composition?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The blanket is composed of a very small percentage of
brown and green woolen fibers; an average of about 30 percent to 40
percent of brown and green cotton fibers, and the remaining portion
brown and green delustered viscose fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "a very small portion of brown and green
woolen fibers," could you be more specific; was it in the neighborhood
of 1 percent or 10 percent?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was unable to obtain a definite percentage. This is a
rather long, involved, and inaccurate method of determination because
one would need a brand new blanket to get a good quantitative analysis.

However, in the samples of the fabric that I made, I found
approximately 1 to 2 percent woolen fibers, 20 to, I would say, 30, 35
percent cotton fibers, and the remainder of it viscose fibers. This is
just an approximation from the microscopic slide that I made.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you have any reason to believe that the
approximation was not made from a fair sample of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I wouldn't. I took the sample myself.

However, the blanket is very well worn. Most of the nap has been
worn off of it. It has had a lot of use, and much of the original
composition has been worn off. Now, whether or not this same percentage
of composition is missing from use or not I wouldn't be able to
determine, but I would say that the approximation that I had given is
fairly accurate for the blanket in its present condition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you explain to us briefly how you
were able to distinguish the three fibers, cotton, wool, and viscose?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. This chart shows the difference in the textile
fibers when one observes them under a microscope. A cotton fiber
appears to be, or rather, might be compared with an ordinary soda straw
which has been flattened. You can see here that the fiber is hollow.
The hollow is known as the lumen in cotton. The fiber is flattened and
twisted much as teenagers do to soda straws in drug stores when they
twist and crush the soda straws.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Stombaugh: this chart is a chart labeled
"Textile Fibers," and having three illustrations labeled "Cotton,"
"Wool," and "Viscose"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

A woolen fiber actually is a hair which originates from an animal and
is composed of three basic parts, the outer part being the scales
which are the rough area on the outside of the hair, the inner portion
known as the cortex, and a center portion known as the medulla.
Microscopically this is what you would look for to identify wool.

Viscose is a synthetic fiber that is made by man. It is composed of
chemicals, and is very rough around the outside area, having many
striations running through it. The viscose fiber I have drawn here is
what we would term a lustrous fiber. It does not have the delustering
agent added to it, to cut down the luster. If this were a delustered
fiber then we would have millions of small spots on the outside of this
fiber which have been placed there chemically so as to cut down the
luster of the fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was the viscose in the blanket that we have been
examining lustered or delustered?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was delustered.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce the chart which the
witness has been discussing as 665?

This chart was prepared by you or under your supervision, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was prepared by me.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the number?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 665.

(Commission Exhibit No. 665 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine this blanket to determine
whether any debris was present?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. I scraped the blanket and removed all the
foreign textile fibers and hairs and placed them into a pillbox.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us how this scraping was performed?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. We suspend the blanket from a rack in the
laboratory, place a clean sheet of kraft paper on a table directly
under it and, using a spatula, thoroughly scrape it down. This knocks
all the foreign material adhering to the blanket from the blanket,
and it falls down to the paper. After we have thoroughly cleaned the
blanket, then we scrape up all the debris and place it in the pillboxes
for a microscopic examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you use this scrape method, as opposed to a
fine-filter vacuum cleaner?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. We have found that the fine-filtered vacuum cleaner
pulls all of the dirt and old debris from a blanket which are embedded
on the inner portion of the fabric. We are not interested in this
material. We are interested only in what is adhering to the top
surface, which has been put there most recently. Through experience in
the laboratory we have found this method to be the best so far.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that by use of the scrape you gathered the more
recent debris, as opposed to the older debris?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what type of debris did you find, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types
and colors, as well as a number of limb and pubic hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you draw any conclusions as to those hairs upon your
initial examination of them?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. They all had originated from a person of the
Caucasian race and I compared these hairs with hair samples obtained
from Harvey Oswald----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I found that of the limb
and pubic hairs I removed from the blanket, several matched Oswald's in
all observable microscopic characteristics and could have originated
from Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. You said these hairs were from a person of Caucasian
race. Can you explain how you can tell the difference between hairs of
the various types of races?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. Going back to my charts, I have a chart here
which contains a diagram of a hair. This isn't any particular hair,
this is a type of hair that could be animal or human. I am just using
this to give one an idea of what a hair looks like.

First, we have the root, which is the portion of the hair embedded in
the scalp or in the skin, whichever type hair it might be.

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

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And from the root, extending out and growing, is the
shaft of the hair, and the very distal end of that is the tip.

If we were to take this hair and place it under a microscope, this
is what we would see. We find that the hair basically consists, in
the shaft area, of scales composing the outside portion of the hair.
Directly under the scales is the cortex. Now the scales vary in size
and shape among animal and human hairs. The cortex also varies. Running
through the center of the hair shaft, much as the lead in the center of
a lead pencil, is what is known as the medulla.

The medulla is nothing more than air cells running through the center
of the hairshaft.

In the cortex of the hair are small granules which appear under a
microscope like tiny grains of sand. These are known as the hair
pigment. This is the part of the hair that gives the hair its color,
whether it is blond, dark brown, black, or what-have-you.

Also present in the cortex you will occasionally find air spaces
located among the pigment granules which are known as cortical fusi.
These will vary in size, shape, form, and location on the hair. Many
hairs do not have any.

Basically that is what a hair looks like, and the basic component parts
of the hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 666, this diagram of the
hair?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 666 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Now, keeping the diagram of the hair on the side
where we can refer to it, our first differentiation in the hair, of
course, would be separating the human from the animal hairs. These are
photomicrographs of human hairs which I took through a microscope.

Here are the animal hairs.

The first thing we look for, of course, would be the color, length,
and texture of the hair. This comes from experience from looking at
thousands of hairs, and we can usually pick one up and tell by the
naked eye whether it is animal or human.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me. You are referring to a chart which has on the
upper right, "Human Hairs" and on the upper left, "Animal Hairs" as
captions?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

However, when we place these hairs under a microscope we find that
animal hairs vary from human hairs in many different aspects.

One, the medullary structure. In animal hair the medullary structure
is much wider than that in a human hair. You will find that it exceeds
more than one-third of the width of the hair shaft.

Secondly, the shape of the medulla, as in this rabbit hair, varies
greatly. You can see the individual medullary cells very distinctly. In
this chart I have some photographs of human hairs in which a medulla is
not present. But the medulla in a human hair would look just about like
this, very thin.

We move down to the pigmentation of the hair, which is located in the
cortex. In the human hair the pigmentation is very fine and granular,
and in this animal hair it is very coarse and elongated.

The size and shape of a root on the animal hair differs from the size
and shape of the root in the human hair. Here we see the root of a dog
hair which is very long and very thin. The root of a human hair is more
or less shaped similar to a light bulb. The scales of animal hairs are
very large. The scales of the human hairs are much smaller.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this chart which the witness
has been using introduced as 667?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 667, and
received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You are looking at a new chart called "Racial
Determination of Hairs" with the subcaption "General Appearance of
Shaft"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Once we have separated the animal hairs from the human hairs, our
next problem is determining the race of the individual from whom the
particular human hairs in which we are interested originated.

Looking at the hair under low power--under a low-power microscope--we
find that a Caucasian hair differs from the hair of the Negroid or
Mongoloid race in diameter fluctuation. The hair shaft varies in width
through its entire length. I might take, for instance, this yellow or
this black pencil. Here we find that the diameter of the pencil is
uniform through the entire length. Now, if we would twist this pencil
we would change the diameter of the pencil slightly. This would be so
in a Caucasian hair, where there might be slight fluctuations in a
hair, such as a person with wavy hair would have a slight fluctuation.
The person with straight hair has hair shafts which for all practical
purposes, are uniform in diameter the entire length.

In Negroid hair, there is great fluctuation. Their hair is very curly
and kinky. This is caused by the great fluctuation present in their
hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean in the diameters?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; diameters.

In Mongoloid hair, which includes Asiatic and North American Indians,
there is little or no fluctuation present in their hairs.

Going back to the Caucasian hair, the color of the Caucasian
individual's hair differs from black to blond and, of course, white.

Negroid hairs are dense black usually; some are white. There are a few
exceptions here where we find some redheaded persons of this race. The
Mongoloids are always black, but not quite as dense black as those of
the Negroid race.

The texture of the hair: Caucasian head hairs, are very soft, flexible;
Negroid hairs are very stiff and wiry; and Mongoloid hairs are
flexible, but not as soft and flexible as the Caucasian.

Now, as to the general width, or rather diameter, of the shaft, we find
Caucasian is medium, the Negroid is medium, the Mongoloid hairs are
much larger than either the Negroid or the Caucasian.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this chart which the witness has been
discussing marked as 668, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Commission's Exhibit No. 668 was marked, and received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. May we take a recess at this time just for a few moments.

(Short recess.)

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Eisenberg, would you proceed?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. Stombaugh, you were discussing the
characteristics of Caucasian as opposed to Negroid and Mongoloid hair.
Could you proceed with that discussion?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have another chart here.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is labeled "Racial Determination of Hairs" and
unlike chart 668 it has no subcaption under that general caption, is
that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. In the previous chart I used I had
taken some photographs of hairs under relatively low power, 100
diameters.

In this chart I have enlarged the hairs, taking them under
approximately 400 diameters, so we can look into the hair. Here we
begin to see the real differences between the hairs among the various
races.

In the Caucasian race, the cuticle, in other words, the layer of scales
around the outside of the hair, is medium to thick.

In the Negroid hair the cuticle is very thick. In the Mongoloid hair
the cuticle is very thick.

Pigmentation in the cortex, which gives the hair the color, in
Caucasian hair is very fine to coarse and is very evenly distributed
throughout the cortex of the hair. In Negroid hair the pigment is
medium to coarse, but the big difference is that the pigment granules
are clumped together, leaving large white-gapped areas throughout the
cortex of the hair.

In the Mongoloid hair, the pigment is medium to coarse but it is
very heavily distributed throughout the hair. As you can see, in the
Caucasian hair the cortex is relatively light. In Negroid hair it is
clumped, and in Mongoloid hair it is dense.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this chart admitted as 669?

Mr. DULLES. It is admitted as 669.

(Commission Exhibit No. 669 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You have a chart here "Racial Determination of Hairs,"
and no subcaption, is that right?

Mr. DULLES. You haven't asked for this other to be admitted, have you?

Mr. EISENBERG. No; I will ask after he has finished with it.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Occasionally we will run into situations in hairs,
where we cannot determine with any certainty whether or not the hairs
are of the Caucasian or Negroid or Mongoloid race, by examining it
longitudinally, and we have to make a cross-section of the hair. If
we make a cross-section of the hair it is the same as taking a banana
and cutting off a very thin slice of the banana and placing it under a
microscope and examining it. We find in the Caucasian race the hairs
are oval in shape. In the Negroid race the hairs are flat, and have
a flattened appearance, and in the Mongoloid race they are perfectly
round. This is another characteristic which we use in determining the
racial origin of hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this chart admitted as 670?

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 670 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it definitely established in your mind as a result
of the various characteristics you have explained that the hairs found
in the blanket were Caucasian hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; they were all Caucasian hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine those hairs and compare them with any
known samples to determine whether they might have come from any
specific individual?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion on that score?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I examined the hairs found on the blanket and determined
that most of them were limb and pubic hairs. In other words, they
originated either from the leg or the arm or from the pubic area. I
found several head hairs on the blanket also.

These hairs I compared with known hair samples from Lee Harvey Oswald.
I found several of the limb hairs from the blanket and several of the
pubic hairs from the blanket matched in all observable microscopic
characteristics, and concluded these hairs could have come from Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Where did you get the known sample, Mr. Stombaugh, of
Lee Oswald's hair?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These were obtained and were sent to the laboratory by
the FBI office in Dallas.

I do not know whether the agent in Dallas personally took the samples
or had a member of the Dallas Police Department take the samples.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these hairs taken from one area or were they a
representative sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was a fairly good representative sample.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you review the microscopic characteristics which
led you to your conclusion, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This chart contains a photomicrograph of Oswald's pubic
hairs. This is just a very small area taken of a glass microscope slide
containing the hairs. There were numerous other hairs. The photograph
on the right shows one of the hairs I removed from the blanket, and one
of the hairs from Oswald, showing, generally, the match.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you take these photographs on the left and
right side yourself?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. This chart is captioned on the left "Photomicrograph
of Oswald's Pubic Hairs" and on the right "Hair from the Blanket" and
"Hair from Oswald"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have it admitted?

(The item referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 672, and
received into evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question? The one on the right seems darker
than the one on the left, the hair itself.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This one and this one?

Mr. DULLES. What is it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Are you referring----

Mr. EISENBERG. The hair shown on the right appears darker.

Mr. DULLES. There are two specimens there or two----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Two.

Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You are thinking this hair looks darker than this one?

Mr. DULLES. No; I was thinking that both the hairs on the right, which
I understand were taken from Oswald----

Mr. EISENBERG. One hair was actually from the blanket, one from Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Seems darker than the ones taken from the blanket. Is the
left the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This portion here is one separate hair. This was taken
from the blanket.

Mr. DULLES. That was taken from the blanket. The right-hand is taken
from the blanket and the left-hand hairs were taken from Oswald himself?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; these are from Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a comparison shot. This photograph was taken
through two microscopes simultaneously showing how this portion of a
pubic hair from the blanket matched a pubic hair from Oswald, which is
this portion of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to the right side of the chart 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this photograph was taken at 100 diameters and this
photograph was taken at 400 diameters. There is a difference there also.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state that again please?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The photograph on the left was taken approximately at
100 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is Oswald's pubic hairs, a known sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this is a general shot of his known sample.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the one on the right?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The one on the right was taken at approximately 400
diameters.

Mr. DULLES. This is the blanket sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a hair from the blanket compared with Oswald's.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have three photographs on this chart, of which two
are known Oswald hairs, the photograph on the left and one of the two
photographs on the right?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Actually, this is one photograph taken through a
comparison microscope. We are looking at two different hairs at the
same time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Well, when you say this is one photograph you
are pointing to the one on the right but, as I understand it, the
photograph on the right shows two different hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. One of which is Oswald's hair, a known sample?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the other of which was obtained from the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the photograph on the left shows known samples of
Oswald's pubic hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. So we have in effect two views of Oswald's pubic hairs,
one on the left and one half of the composite photograph on the right?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Following up on Mr. Dulles' question, the photograph on
the right seems to have a much coarser and somewhat darker structure
in both the known and the questioned sample than the photograph on the
left, which is simply a known sample.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you said that was because of the enlargement?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The difference in the enlargement. The photograph on
the left was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 100
times. The photograph on the right was taken with the microscope set
to magnify the specimen 400 times.

Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph on the right does not seem to show a hair
four times larger, so I don't understand it.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was on the enlarging of the photograph itself.

Had these two prints been enlarged at the same enlarging factor, the
hairs on the left, would be much, much smaller than the ones on the
right. This was just blown up to this size so the hairs could be seen.

For instance, had we not blown these up, here we see them magnified 400
times, and this other photograph is a natural shot.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, here you are pointing to photograph 669, and the
second shot which you call "natural" is 668?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. You can see the difference in the diameter and
the difference in the detail of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were those photographs of the different magnifications?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was 669, do you recall?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I believe it was approximately 400.

Mr. EISENBERG. And 668?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Approximately 100.

Mr. EISENBERG. So it corresponds to the difference in the right- and
left-hand portions of 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; it would.

Now, the characteristics we look for in making a hair match. First
would be the color.

The matches I found in Oswald's hairs. His hairs vary from light brown
to a medium brown shade.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you talking about the known samples now?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is his known sample. In this particular match the
color was medium brown, and looking at the hair throughout its entire
length, it ranged from a medium brown, and this color remained constant
to the tip, where the color changed to a light brown and the very tip
of it was transparent, it was clear, had no color at all. There were no
color pigments in the tip of the hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you referring now to the pubic hair which you
illustrate on the right-hand side of 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am referring to the pubic hair.

This is the gross appearance. I looked at it under low power where I
could see the entire length of the hair.

Next, the thickness of the hair, or the diameter of the hair shaft. I
found this diameter to be rather narrow for pubic hairs. Pubic hairs
ordinarily are rather thick. Oswald's hairs were relatively narrow.
Pubic hairs also have what we term nobbiness. You can see a nob right
here, it is twisted----

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on
chart 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Here we see that it twists and it is very uneven. The
shaft of the hair is generally very uneven in pubic hairs.

However, in Oswald's pubic hairs we had very little of this. The hairs
were very smooth. They lacked this nobbiness. The upper two-thirds were
extremely smooth for pubic hairs. This was an unusual characteristic.

The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. They had a very sharp
tip and very clear. Ordinarily pubic hairs are rounded at the tips, and
not pointed--this is from wearing against clothing--at all. This would
indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher
than the average persons.

The cuticle, in other words the very thin layer of scales covering his
hairs, is very thin for pubic hairs. The scales exhibited a very small
protrusion on the outside. The distance they protruded from the shaft
of the hair is very slight.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you talk about the protrusion, do you mean the
distance between the point of the scale and the balance of the cuticle,
the center of the cuticle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Some hairs will have a sawtooth effect,
will look just like saw teeth do when you look at the blade of a saw.

Mr. EISENBERG. From the protrusion of the scales?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the protrusion of the scales. Others will be very
small, have a slight protrusion.

Mr. EISENBERG. How was Oswald's?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was a very small protrusion. The gapping of Oswald's
hair was very slight. In other words, between the cuticle and the
cortex, the cortex of course containing the color pigment in the hair,
occasionally you will find hairs where there will be no color pigment
in areas up near the cuticle. There will be a gap there.

Oswald's hairs, as you can see here, have some gapped areas in there
but not too many. They are very irregular, and the gapping does not go
down too deeply into the cortex.

Pigmentation of his hairs was very fine, equally dispersed, and there
was some chaining together of the larger pigment granules noted.
In other words, three or four of the pigment granules were chained
together. Instead of being dispersed such as they are in Exhibit No.
666, you would have five or six of them chained together, forming a
slight irregular-appearing streak.

Cortical fusi, the air spaces present in the hairs such as I have drawn
here on Exhibit 666, were for the most part absent in his hairs. I
found very, very few of them, and would term them absent in his hairs.

The medulla in the hairs, those that contained a medulla, was constant.
It was a continuous streak for the most part. There were some slight
broken areas in it. The hairs of Oswald, that did not have a medulla,
there was not a trace of one present. It was completely absent. This is
unusual. Usually, you will find that the hairs will contain a medulla
and if not in the ones that appear not to, you can find traces of a
medulla present. In his I didn't find any medulla at all in several of
the hairs.

The root area of his hairs was rather clear of pigment and there was
only a fair amount of cortical fusi present. As in drawing No. 666, in
the root area, you ordinarily would find a large amount of cortical
fusi which rapidly diminish as you proceed out the hair shaft, and in
his there was just a relatively few cortical fusi in the root area. I
found this characteristic also in some of the hairs removed from the
blanket.

Basically, that is the--those are the characteristics I used in
matching Oswald's pubic hairs with pubic hairs from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have been discussing the characteristics of Oswald's
pubic hairs. In each case were the characteristics of the pubic hairs
you found in the blanket the same as those you have noted as being
present in Oswald's pubic hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; they were all identical.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is as to protrusion of scale, absence of cortical
fusi, chaining together to some extent of pigments, and so forth?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without going through every item, every item you have
named was identical?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Every item I have found in hair from the blanket?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go on, please?

Mr. DULLES. Just one second, off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have presented at this point a chart labeled
"Microphotograph of Oswald's Limb Hairs" on the left, and on the right
two subcaptions, "Hair from Blanket" and "Hair from Oswald," and do
these--were these photographs taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were taken by me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they accurate reproductions of the material which
according to the captions they are photographs of?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like this admitted as 671, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as 671.

(Commission Exhibit No. 671 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly discuss this exhibit?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Exhibit 671 is similar to Exhibit 672 in that both
contain two photographs. The photograph on the left is an overall shot
of Oswald's limb hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is the known?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is the known from Oswald.

The photograph on the right contains photographs of two hairs, in this
same photograph, the hair on the right being a limb hair from Oswald,
and the hair on the left being a hair removed from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification there, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The magnification of these is approximately the same as
in the previous submission, the one on the right being approximately
400 diameters and the one on the left 100 diameters.

Now, the one on the right is a limb hair. A limb hair is much smaller
in diameter than a pubic hair. That is why there will appear to be some
slight change in the size of these hairs.

I compared the limb hair from the blanket with the limb hair from
Oswald which matched in all observable microscopic characteristics. The
characteristics I found in this match were the color of the hair was
light brown through its entire length, and the width of the hair shaft
or the diameter was very fine. There was no fluctuation that one could
readily see. The diameter of the hair shaft remained constant to the
tip, where it diminished down to a point.

The tips of the hairs were very sharp and no abrasion was noted. In
other words, the tips of these limb hairs were not rounded as one
ordinarily finds. This would indicate the hairs were very tough, the
same as the pubic hairs were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you describing now the known hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These are known hairs and the match I made; both.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The scales were of medium size, had very slight
protrusion, and there was very slight gapping in the pigmentation
located in the cortex right against the cuticle of the hair. There was
a fair amount of cortical fusi equally distributed throughout the hair
shaft.

This is not unusual in itself, but the amount of cortical fusi that I
did find present is unusual.

The medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and very uneven.
It was not a constant, smooth straight line such as one might find over
here in this pubic hair on 672.

There was nothing unusual noted about the root area of these hairs.

Mr. EISENBERG. And again you are describing the characteristics of both
hairs, and they were identical in all these characteristics?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any characteristics in which they were not
identical?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; not on the limb hair, as I found it matched. I did
find limb hairs and pubic hairs and head hairs in this blanket which
were dissimilar to Oswald's and definitely did not come from him
but the hairs I have talked about here matched in all microscopical
characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. The other hairs, Mr. Stombaugh, could you make a
determination as to race?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all Caucasian.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to sex or age?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it is not possible to determine sex or age from an
examination of a hair.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to the number of
individuals who had contributed these hairs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't. You would have to have a hair sample
from any suspected person, and hairs vary tremendously. Even on the
same individual head hairs from the same individual can vary from one
head area to another.

I have found as many as 12 to 15 different types of hair on the same
person's head.

So, therefore, it would not be possible to estimate the number of
different people whose hairs have appeared on this blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, are you able to say that the limb
hairs and pubic hairs which you found in the blanket and which you have
matched with Oswald's in observable microscopic characteristics came
from Oswald to the exclusion of any other individual?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't say that. I could say that these hairs
could have come from Oswald. I could not say they definitely came from
him to the exclusion of all other Caucasian persons in the world.

In order to say this, one would have to take hair samples from all of
these people and compare them and this, of course, is impossible.

Mr. EISENBERG. What degree of probability do you think there is that
these hairs came from Oswald? And without putting a precise number on
it, let's suppose you took head hairs from 100 Caucasian individuals,
how many matches would you expect to find among those hundred different
hairs on the basis of your experience?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the basis of my experience I would expect to find
only one match.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say that the 100 hairs would be different
from each other?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your experience, therefore, that the hairs of
different individuals do not match in observable microscopic
characteristics--within the basis of your experience?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Within the basis of my experience, I have examined
thousands of hairs and I have never found Caucasian hairs from two
different individuals that match.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say that, Mr. Stombaugh, have you been
presented with hairs in your laboratory from Caucasian individuals
which you knew before the examination came from two or more individuals?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

We have obtained samples of hairs from a hundred different people, and
would select one hair, give it to an examiner and ask who it originated
from, and invariably he would be able to find in the hundred different
samples the individual the hair originated from.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when a specimen comes into your laboratory, does
it frequently come in--and I am talking now about specimens that come
in from a crime--does it frequently come in such, so that you have two
specimens, two or more specimens, which you know before you begin are
from two different people?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are told before you begin that they come from two
different people?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; ordinarily a case such as a murder or a rape,
you will obtain the clothing of the victim, the clothing of the suspect
in the case, as well as hair samples from the victim and hair samples
from the suspect.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many types of cases like this do you think you have
processed?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Processed approximately 500 a year.

Mr. EISENBERG. For how many years?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Four years--no, three years.

Mr. EISENBERG. In any of these approximately 1,500 cases, have you
found a case involving Caucasian hairs in which the hairs from the
known two different individuals matched in observable physical
characteristics microscopically?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I have never found hair from two different
Caucasian persons that matched.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you found any in non-Caucasian hairs, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have found several cases in which hairs from two
different persons of the Negroid race, although the hairs did not match
completely, the characteristics were such that I felt that I could not
go further with the examination because I could not exclude the hairs.
The hairs were too similar. When I make a hair match. I know that any
case might go to court, and of course I want to be absolutely certain
in my mind.

In these cases I am referring to right now, the hair sample from the
victim and the hair sample from the suspect were pubic hairs. They were
so similar to each other that I could not find any pubic hairs that I
could match with the suspect's pubic hairs, and be certain in my mind
that these hairs came from him rather than her. I couldn't do this.

So, therefore, I sent the evidence back without further conclusion.
This has happened in approximately three cases. However, I would like
to point out that I could not take his, the suspect's pubic hairs,
and the victim's pubic hairs and completely match them up under a
microscope slide such as the match shown in the chart. They did not
absolutely match, but they were too similar for a good determination to
be made.

Mr. EISENBERG. What proportion of the 1,500 cases that you have
described--approximately 1,500 cases--have involved Negroid as opposed
to Caucasian hairs, just roughly?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I would say about approximately a third. Of course, a
lot of these cases we don't know the race. They don't list the race,
but in examining the hairs I can tell the race----

Mr. EISENBERG. So in 1,000-odd cases of the Caucasian hair examinations
you haven't 2 matches between hairs from different individuals?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in the 500-odd cases of Negroid, 500-odd cases
involving hairs from two different Negroid individuals, you have found
three cases where although the hairs were not identical they were so
close that you felt you didn't want to go further in your examination,
is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a fair recapitulation?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Could I just ask a question here?

There is a distinction then, as I gather from your testimony, an
understandable one, between the comparison of hairs and, say, the
comparison of fingerprints, because obviously the hair that you find on
the victim has left the assailant and, therefore, you are not looking
at the same hair but you are looking at a different hair?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. And that, therefore, distinguishes testimony in regard to
hair, we will say, with regard to fingerprint examination?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; that, and also a fingerprint will remain the
same throughout one's life. It will never change. A hair will.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You can see my hair, I am starting to get white at the
temples. Mine is changing characteristics.

Mr. DULLES. We all do.

But is there--let's say you examine 100 hairs, let's say, that
are found on the victim, and 100 hairs that are different hairs
that are found on the assailant; let us say that there are certain
characteristics common to all of these hairs.

Do you get my question? Let's say 10, not 100, whatever number you want
to take.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Ordinarily, you would find one or two.

Mr. DULLES. That have certain characteristics. You have pointed out on
exhibit--on the left-hand side of Exhibit 672, the circle you have made
on 672, circle A.

Is there a common characteristic that you have marked on one of the
other hairs? I believe the hair marked with the "A," was taken from
Oswald himself, the hair on which you have marked that particular
characteristic.

Is there any corresponding characteristic that should be marked or
indicated on a hair that was found on the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, I testified as to all the characteristics I found.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Now, the difficulty in using a photomicrograph, you are
trying to photograph a round object and as a result of this all of
these characteristics just won't appear in focus.

Mr. EISENBERG. To be more specific, Mr. Stombaugh, that circle marked
"A" was to show a nobbiness in Oswald's hair. As I recall, you
testified there was very little nobbiness present in that pubic hair,
as opposed to the normal amount of nobbiness of pubic hair?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the right-hand side of 672, I suppose we don't see
much or any nobbiness in either the known or----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; there is none present here.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that would correspond with the point you made as to
"A," that there was very little nobbiness?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Very little.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is why there is no corresponding mark for
nobbiness characteristic on the right-hand side, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. The right-hand side of 672?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Oswald's hairs, where the nobbiness did
appear was in the lower third, in other words, the area from the root
out on the shaft approximately one-third. The remaining two-thirds of
the hair shaft all the way out to the tip was relatively straight, no
nobbiness at all present. This was characteristic. Ordinarily a pubic
hair will have this nobbiness two-thirds to three-fourths of the way
up. So this was a characteristic which exists in Oswald's pubic hairs
which is different from the ordinary or average.

Mr. DULLES. And you found that both on the hairs taken from Oswald
himself and on the hairs found in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, on this general point, when you make your
comparison examination, do you come to your conclusions on the basis of
what you see under the microscope, or on the basis of the photographs
you take?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the basis of what I see under the microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you usually take photographs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you took them--can you explain why you took them
here?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I took these at your request as an exhibit just to show
what the hairs looked like. In a photograph it is very hard to try to
point out the characteristics of hairs because they aren't clear. Under
a microscope you can see each of these points by focusing up and down.
If I am looking at the pigment on the hair, I can focus the comparison
microscope up and down and see exactly the same characteristics, the
pigment is exactly the same size, dispersed about the same, and there
is approximately the same amount of pigment in a given area.

Also, the cuticle is of the same thickness. I can line the hairs up
longitudinally and see that the tips of the scales match equally as far
as protrusion and distance goes.

This you couldn't show in the photographs. In order to show each and
every characteristic in photographs, I would have to take 500 or 600
different photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. So these photographs are just as a general illustration
of the kind of thing you see, rather than being given to the Commission
as photographs from which the Commission is to make an identification?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. If I were to look at these photographs
myself, I couldn't make an identification on them because I wouldn't be
able to see enough and I would say this looks like this and this looks
like this, but so what?

What about the size of the pigments, what about the size of the
scales, what about the thickness of the cuticle? I see a medulla here,
I don't see a medulla over here. So you just couldn't see all the
characteristics in a photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. But these characteristics you do see as you change the
focus on the microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; these appear by looking through different areas of
the hair shaft itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, getting to the microscope itself, suppose a person
without experience looked through the microscope directly at the
hairs. Would he be able to directly interpret the hairs--a known and a
questioned hair--to see if they are probably identical, or does it take
experience even to interpret what you see through a microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This takes experience to interpret what you see.

We get quite a few people through the lab on tours and every now and
then I will set up some hairs. I had one man making a match with a dog
hair and a human hair, and he said they came from the same person,
because he couldn't interpret what he saw. He just thought he saw
something which he didn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell from these hairs that you
found in the blanket, and let me add parenthetically we sometimes have
been calling this blanket a rug but we have been talking about the
object----

Mr. DULLES. You call it a blanket, technically.

Mr. EISENBERG. Technically a blanket, and it is Exhibit 140. This
Exhibit 140, Mr. Stombaugh, could you tell whether these hairs had been
pulled out or had fallen out?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These hairs had fallen out naturally. They have died and
fallen from the body. This is a very normal occurrence. When one combs
one's hair, ordinarily you will find one or two strands of hair on the
comb, because hair is constantly being replaced in most people.

Mr. EISENBERG. How can you tell it had fallen out?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the shape of the root.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the difference of the shape of the root where a
hair falls out and the shape of the hair of a root where it has been
taken out artificially or unnaturally?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In Exhibit 667, I have a photomicrograph of a root of
a human hair. Now, this hair has died and has fallen out naturally,
you can tell by the shape of it here. The follicle has just come right
along with it. It is starting to shrivel. If this hair was a healthy
hair and had been forcibly removed, this root would have been collapsed
and twisted. It is very characteristic, it is easy to tell whether a
hair has been forcibly removed or whether it fell out naturally.

Mr. EISENBERG. Suppose it is cut, suppose the hair was cut, can you
tell that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, we can tell from looking at the tip of a hair
whether it has been cut, burned, crushed, and whether it has been cut
with a sharp instrument, such as a razor, or whether it has been cut
with a dull instrument.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these hairs cut, the hairs in 140, that you found
in Exhibit 140?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Some of the tips of the head hairs had been cut, but the
limb hairs and the pubic hairs had not.

Mr. EISENBERG. But they all had roots on them?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They all had roots on them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the blanket for a moment, as to the
composition, you testified that there were woolen, viscose, and cotton
fibers. I don't recall whether you said that there were green and brown
fibers of each type of textile?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, each type had green and brown fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, also getting back to the shape of the blanket when
you received it, the shape of 140 and its folds, we had discussed a
crease which you marked "C," which you said was caused by an object 10
inches long, and we discussed whether the object was 10 inches long or
could have been longer.

How long was the crease "C"?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The crease "C," the hump in the blanket itself, was
approximately 10 inches long.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did that run--as the blanket is folded, and looking
from "A" to the general area of "D"--and putting "A" at the left-hand
side--can you tell us how that crease ran, did it run from left to
right or from top to bottom?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It ran from left to right.

Mr. EISENBERG. It ran from left to right, and about 10 inches long?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Approximately 10 inches long.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I recall, you testified it was caused by a distortion
in the fibers, that is to say, the fact the crease was still present
even though there was no object in the blanket was caused by a
distortion of the fibers?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; the fibers had been stretched in this
area--not the fibers, the yarns.

Mr. DULLES. Can one see that on the blanket itself?

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's take a look at 140, Mr. Stombaugh, and see if it
is still present?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. If I can find where it was here. I doubt if it will
still be present because the creases on the edges of the blanket are
gone. I can't tell. It has been folded so much. No. I can't see it.

When I received the blanket in the laboratory, I noticed, when I put
the blanket down flat, it had an area that was humped just like this.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have put a pencil underneath?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have picked it up an inch or two, you have made
a hump of about an inch or an inch and a half up from the rest of the
blanket, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. But it was very slight and you could hardly notice
it, but I happened to look at the blanket from a distance and saw the
hump and went over to measure it. But we tried to photograph it and we
just couldn't get it. We tried various ways of lighting.

So I made a notation in my notes regarding that slight hump.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to make the record clear, the hump was 10
inches long, and therefore you felt that the object immediately causing
the hump must have been approximately 10 inches long, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. The object causing the hump itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. But could it have been attached to an object which was
longer than 10 inches, or could it have been attached to an object,
running underneath the object causing the protrusion, which was longer
than 10 inches?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay. That is what I think was the source of the
confusion earlier.

Now, you placed this mark "C" on this paper illustration, Exhibit 663.
Does that--does the placement of the mark approximate the general area
where you found the hump?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, approximately, according to my notes. It could be
to the left a little or to the right a little. This isn't to scale.

Mr. EISENBERG. One last question on the blanket, Mr. Stombaugh. Could
you form any opinion as to the quality of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, the composition of the blanket being mostly
viscose, a very cheap synthetic, indicated to me that it was an
inferior blanket, relatively inexpensive.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you determine whether it was a domestic or a
foreign product?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, I couldn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. It might have been either?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Could have been either, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you a photograph which is
labeled on the bottom "C 11, Commission Exhibit 150." It is a color
photograph of a brownish textured shirt, long-sleeved, with a hole in
the right elbow, and I ask you whether you recognize the shirt that is
pictured in that photograph?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see your mark anywhere on that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, my mark is in red, initials "PMS" are in the collar
of the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this photograph admitted?

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted, 673.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 673, and
was received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Let me state for the record we are introducing the
photograph at this point rather than the shirt itself because
depositions are being taken in Dallas simultaneously with the testimony
being elicited today, and the shirt is being used by those members of
the staff who are in Dallas.

Mr. DULLES. I understand.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this shirt that is pictured in
Exhibit 673, said shirt being Commission Exhibit 150?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I received this shirt the same day I received the
blanket, which was November 23, 1963, approximately 7:30 a.m.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you conduct an examination to determine the
composition of this shirt?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you do that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I did this later on that morning.

Mr. EISENBERG. What were your conclusions as to the composition, Mr.
Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The shirt is composed of gray-black cotton, dark blue
cotton, and orange-yellow cotton fibers. The dark yarn in the shirt is
composed of a mixture of dark blue and gray-black cotton fibers twisted
together, and the light yellowish orange looking colors here, the yarns
in this part of the shirt were composed of orange-yellow cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the shirt to determine--pardon me, Mr.
Dulles, were you going to put a question on the composition?

Mr. DULLES. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the shirt to determine the presence of
hairs or other debris?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, I didn't.

Mr. EISENBERG. You did not?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Neither then or at any subsequent time?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a look at your notes on that, Mr.
Stombaugh, to make sure about that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I did not remove the debris from the shirt. I
noted in my notes the two buttons from the top were forcibly removed,
the right elbow area was worn through, the bottom front inside of the
shirt was ripped forcibly, and that I had made a known sample of this
shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I had been under the impression you found
some wax on that shirt.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; down the face of the shirt I did find some
wax adhering to it, and this wax I removed and delivered to the
spectrographic unit for a spectrographic examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that show in your notes?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I was looking for debris and hairs. I knew I had
not scraped the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am using the wrong term, I guess.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I recall doing this. This was later in the afternoon
when I removed this wax and took it to the spectrographic unit. This
was after I had conducted other examinations on some other items.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, we had an earlier discussion, and you
had mentioned this to me in an earlier discussion, as I recall----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find
any body hairs on this shirt--or any hairs, I should say?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of
examination had not been requested. It seemed unnecessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, were you able to determine the quality of
the shirt or did you form any opinion as to the quality of the shirt?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; it was an inexpensive shirt. I found no labels in
it indicating the manufacturer.

Mr. DULLES. Any indication that labels had been torn out?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Not that I recall, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine, Mr. Stombaugh, whether this
was a domestic, whether this was of domestic or foreign origin?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; there are so many different shirt manufacturers in
this country, that there is little value in trying to trace down a
particular source unless we can find a manufacturer's marking in the
shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any laundry marks which you attempted to trace down?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found no laundry marks. The shirt was well worn and
appeared to have been hand laundered.

Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the shirt, I will
move on to another item.

Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit
142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626,
and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for
latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like
this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might
cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore
obscure it.

In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes
with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a
later date.

Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember
now--this is the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and
the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What
was the color when you originally received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown
color.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and
the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows
as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m., 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you form any opinions as you examined it, concerning
the construction of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I looked at the bag and examined it, it struck me
as being a homemade bag such as I could make. Occasionally I will have
a need for something like this at home. Therefore, I will take some
brown paper and a strip of tape home with me. Then when I get home I
will fold the tape--fold the paper rather--in the shape I need--and to
seal it up I will tear strips of the sealing tape from the little piece
I have.

Here we find that this tape has been torn at several places, such
as one would do in an instance like that. Due to these torn edges,
I was under the impression, from looking at the bag, that it was a
homemade bag which someone had made at home and they did not have a
tape dispenser which machine-cuts tape. Therefore, they had to tear it,
which they did--or cut it, of course--with a knife. And this is the
case where pieces of tape were torn.

Mr. EISENBERG. You were pointing to various torn edges as you
testified, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many, if any, square-cut edges did you notice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found--according to my drawing--two machine-cut edges.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that indicate--well, do you form any opinion as
to, on the basis of that, as to the origin, possible origin, of the
tape?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The origin of the tape as far as the manufacturer----

Mr. EISENBERG. What I am referring to is this: on the basis of that
would you draw an inference that the person had taken--whoever made
this bag--had taken two lengths of tape from a dispensing machine and
had subsequently torn it up into smaller strips, or do you think he had
one length of tape from a dispensing machine which he subsequently tore
up into smaller strips?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the ends that I could see, now I don't know whether
there were any ends underneath which I did not have a chance to look
at, I don't have anything in my notes, but from what I can see it would
appear he took a strip of tape, machine-cut from a dispenser, and used
that entire strip, thus using up both ends of the tape because we have
two machine-cut ends.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, it would be a machine-cut strip at the
beginning of the tape which the person pulled out, left over from the
last cut?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And a machine-cut at the end, where the person himself
ripped the tape from the machine?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you infer that he then divided it into smaller
strips on the occasion when he made the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; he pulled one strip, of course, he could have
pulled two or three strips, I don't know, but it would appear he took
one strip of tape and tore it into smaller pieces to be used on the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice any bulges or creases or folds apart from
the fold used in making of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I didn't. I noticed that one end of the bag had been
torn.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would you say that the absence of bulges would be
inconsistent with the carrying of a heavy object or an irregularly
shaped object in the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, I don't believe I am qualified to answer that
question, because I actually am not an expert in paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right. We will leave that to the questioned document
examiner and we will take it up with him.

Did you notice anything else about the bag relating to its gross
physical characteristics and its shape, apart from any debris which you
may have found inside or outside the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; just an oblong homemade bag was the impression
I received from looking at it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think it was, if it was in fact a homemade bag,
do you think it was a well-made bag, Mr. Stombaugh? Did you form any
opinion as to that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In my opinion, just a personal opinion, the person was
aware as to how to make a bag, to seal the ends by folding both corners
in and then folding them flat.

Mr. EISENBERG. You just demonstrated that both corners originally were
folded by the crease lines, and you folded it over again to show how it
was made?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this makes a neat and also a secure corner or end
to the bag, to prevent losing any of the contents.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, did you examine the outside of this paper
bag----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit 142 and also 626, to see if there were any
foreign items on the surface?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what did you find?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found that the bag had previously been dusted for
latent fingerprints because I found traces of what appeared to be
fingerprint powder on it.

I was using white gloves at the time I examined this and the gloves
became quite soiled from the fingerprint powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find anything else?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; nothing on the outside of the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did you conduct that examination, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. With a low-power microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any cotton fibers on the outside of the bag
at all, Mr. Stombaugh, white or colored?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There were white cotton fibers on the outside but I
was using a pair of white cotton gloves, so these would be of no
value. White cotton is the most common thing we have in the way of
textiles, and therefore it just doesn't have sufficient individual
characteristics to be of value for comparison and identification
purposes. It is for this reason that we use gloves of this material.

Mr. EISENBERG. And those fibers may have come from your white cotton
gloves?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they could very easily have come from my gloves
from handling the object with a pair of gloves on.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you proceed to examine the inside of the paper bag
to see if there were any foreign objects?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What were your conclusions?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed the debris from the inside of the bag by
opening the bag as best I could, and tapping it and knocking the
debris on to a small piece of white paper, and I found a very small
number of fibers. Upon examining these fibers, I found a single brown,
delustered, viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers from
the inside of the bag. I also found a minute particle of wood and a
single particle of a waxy substance.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attach any significance to the particle of wood,
Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it was too minute for identification purposes. It
could have come from any surface, including the bag itself. Sometimes
all of the wood used in the manufacture of paper doesn't go into a
pulp, and this might be a very tiny such fragment.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the wood fragment?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I looked at it microscopically.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to compare it with the wood of the
Exhibit 139, which is a rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the wood particle from the bag was too minute for
comparison purposes. There wasn't much you could do with it, it was
very small.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attach any significance to the body wax--or to
the wax, I should say?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The wax particle I noticed, and I recalled having seen
wax on the shirt, Exhibit No. 673, so therefore I put that aside for a
spectrographic examination and comparison of the wax particle from the
inside of the bag with the wax from the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what were the results?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were entirely different.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any analysis made of the wax in the bag as to
its origin, do you know?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was examined by the spectrographic examiner and he
found it was just common wax.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say common wax, do you mean the kind you wax a
floor with?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; more like that which could have come from a candle,
candle wax.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the wax on the shirt as to origin?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was paraffin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now you also said there were several fibers, Mr.
Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. There was a single brown delustered
viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did this single brown viscose fiber match the fibers
from the blanket, Exhibit 140?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; it did.

Mr. EISENBERG. In what characteristics were they matched?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The fibers in the blanket had a large number of brown
viscose fibers, delustered and one fiber I found in the bag was also a
viscose fiber of the same type and color as seen under a low-powered
microscope. The delustering spots seen on the fiber were the same size,
and both fibers were approximately the same diameter.

Mr. EISENBERG. How common is viscose, Mr. Stombaugh, as a fiber?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Viscose is fairly common. It is used in many types of
garments; it depends on the quality of the garment.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this was delustered viscose, did you say?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. How common is delustered viscose?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is most common, I would say. It is more common than
lustrous.

Mr. EISENBERG. Generally speaking, how many variations of diameter
would a delustered viscose come in?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is entirely up to the manufacturer. He can
make viscose any diameter he wants, and there could be hundreds of
variations in the diameter of viscose fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. But the fiber you found in the paper bag, 142, matched
the fibers you found in the Exhibit 140?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; but the viscose fibers in the blanket varied
in size also.

Mr. EISENBERG. To what extent?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There were 10 to 15 different diameters of viscose in
this blanket. It appeared to me as if the blanket was made of scrap
viscose, scrap fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the diameters would be random?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were random; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the color, was the color a match
between the fiber found in 140--in 142--and the fiber which is in the
composition of 140, the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the color matched some of the viscose fibers, the
brown viscose fibers in the blanket. Of course, these colors also
varied slightly but not to any great extent, not like the diameter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other common characteristics between the
viscose fibers found in the blanket and the viscose fibers found in the
paper bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all
observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers found
in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter, the
diameter of that same fiber would have the same size of delustering
markings, same shape, same form, and also same color.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you found
in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the green
cotton fiber--was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony mentioned?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which
are contained in the composition of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These matched in all observable microscopic
characteristics.

Mr. EISENBERG. And those were what?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The color and the amount of twist of the cotton fibers
were the same as the color and twist found in these. Mainly the color
is what we go by on cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were they mercerized or unmercerized?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were not mercerized.

Mr. EISENBERG. How common is cotton as a fiber, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Cotton is the most common fiber used.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what about nonmercerized cotton, as to commonness?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You would find more unmercerized cotton in use than
mercerized, because to mercerize cotton is an added production factor
used in cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. How great a variation do you get in degree of twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You are referring to between mercerized and un----

Mr. EISENBERG. No; within unmercerized cotton.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This would depend on the quality of the cotton and the
length of the cotton also.

Mr. EISENBERG. But I mean as samples come across your desk in your
office, or as you read about them in books, is there a great variation
in twist or a small variation?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It depends--there is a small variation but this would
depend on the type of cotton. There are different types of cotton, and
each is determined from the length of the individual cotton fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell what kind of cotton you were dealing with
in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because here we are not dealing with a full-length
cotton fiber. We are dealing with a fragment of a single fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you determine whether there was a variation
in the twist of the cotton fibers within the blanket itself as there
was, you say, in the diameter of the viscose fibers?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The twist seemed to coincide with the twist found in the
cotton from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. But looking just to the blanket now for a second,
you said the brown viscose or the viscose generally in the blanket
itself varied as to diameter. Did the cotton in the blanket vary within
itself as to twist or was the cotton of a fairly uniform twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it was fairly uniform twist.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you said the fibers you found, the green cotton
fibers you found, in the bag were the same twist as the twist of the
cottons which composed the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And just to tie this into the questions I was asking a
few seconds ago, would this degree of twist be significant, that is
can you determine under the microscope 4 different kinds of degrees
of twist or 20--how many different degrees of twist can you determine
under a microscope, just approximately?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Are you referring to the same type of cotton----

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, when you get a piece of cotton?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or cotton as a whole?

Mr. EISENBERG. When you get a piece of cotton under the microscope and
you don't know what type it is? I am referring to cotton as a whole.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I see. The degree of twist could be--now if we are
dealing with fresh cotton, cotton running right from the plant, then
the degree of twist, this varies, and this could be used in the
identification of the type of cotton. But in the manufacturing process
quite frequently when the cotton is spun into yarns then this twist is
affected.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, at this point I am not interested in determining
the type of cotton. What I am interested in is determining how
significant the degree of twist is as an identifying factor.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I would say no significance at all as far as the sole
identifying characteristic goes, whether or not this cotton of this
cotton has the same twist. The twist we use is for identification
purposes only, supplementing other identifying characteristics.

Mr . EISENBERG. That is the only purpose I am interested in.

Mr . STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is the only purpose.

Mr . EISENBERG. But in getting to that, how valuable is it for
identification purposes? I am curious as to how many--how much a
twist can vary. As you pick up a random fiber, and put it under your
microscope, I am interested in how much the twist can vary. For
example, if there are only two possibilities, then it isn't too helpful
that you get a match in twist, but if there are great variations in
twist in cotton fibers as they come under your microscope, it would be
helpful in making your identification.

Mr . STOMBAUGH. I see what you are getting at. There are great
variations. Sometimes in a cotton fiber, the twist will be rather far
apart. Other times it will be rather close together. This piece----

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the fibers, the cotton fibers, to begin with,
matched in twist, that is, the cotton fibers you found in the paper bag
matched the twist of the ones that are contained in the blanket, and
you said they also matched in color?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to ask you the same question as to color
that I asked you as to twist. How many different shades do you think
you can distinguish under the microscope in a green cotton? Would
the range be just 2 or 3 different shades, or do you think you could
distinguish between 20 or 30 different types of green cotton if you
laid them next to each other under the microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; the range in green cotton fibers, for that matter in
any color, is tremendous. This could go to 50 sometimes 100 different
shades which you can distinguish under a microscope. To the naked
eye, it would look as if it is just green. But you could take, say
five different fabrics of the same type that have been dyed exactly
the same color or rather you think they are the same shade, and put
the individual fibers under the microscope and there will be a big
difference noted in shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now were the green cotton fibers in the blanket uniform
as to shade between themselves?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; these varied.

Mr. EISENBERG. To what extent?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They go from a green to a very pale green.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Might be seven or eight different shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. So when you say there is a match, you mean the green
cotton fibers you found in the paper bag were within the spectrum
of shades that are laid out in the green cotton fibers from the
blanket--is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No. I forget how many different shades of green I found
in this blanket. Under the circumstances, I considered the exact
number of no particular significance. But we will say it might be
possibly eight different separate shades, and the fibers I found from
the blanket matched some of these shades. Not all of them; but there
might be a medium-green fiber that I found in the bag, which I matched
with a medium-green fiber from this blanket. It might have been one
that had a yellowish-green tinge to it, which I also matched with the
yellowish-green tinged cotton fibers from the blanket.

So unless the colors match absolutely, there is no match.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many green cotton fibers you found in
the paper bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have here in my notes "several"--

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have here in my notes "several light green cotton
fibers," which would be approximately two or three.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall whether they represented two or three
different shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all different from each other but each
matched the cotton fibers in the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you had two or three cotton fibers of two or three
shades of green in the bag, and they matched against these two or three
of the seven or eight shades of green cotton which were in the blanket,
is that a correct recapitulation?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you say there are 50 to 100--approximately--green
shades of cotton that can be distinguished under the microscope?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I would say that is true. This would vary from dark
green, of course, all the way up to light-pale green.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find anything else within the bag, Mr. Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; that is all I found inside the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if
you can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibers in the
bag, ultimately came from the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is
something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown
factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers
could have come from this blanket, because this blanket is composed
of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose
fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers.

Now these 3 different types of fibers have 6 different general colors,
and if we would multiply that, say by a minimum of 5 different shades
of each so you would have 30 different shades you are looking for, and
3 different types of fibers. Here we have only found 1 brown viscose
fiber, and 2 or 3 light green cotton fibers. We found no brown cotton
fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.

So if I had found all of these then I would have been able to say these
fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few,
then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come
from this blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr.
Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of
a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which
is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up
fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions as to the blanket?

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I have none, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recognize Exhibit 139? Are you familiar with that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine that in the laboratory?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when you made that examination?

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; here is my mark.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which consists of your initials?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. My initials, and the date 11-23-63. Do you mind if I
check to see if this is unloaded?

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the rifle to determine whether it
contained on its surface or crevices any hair or other debris?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you made that examination?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent
fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect
any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under
a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the
barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from
crevices adhering to the gun.

I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been
dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent
fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted
off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if
there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I
possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the
latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use
a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the
gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really
examine the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were you unhappy at all about that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint
processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know
whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been
stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices
on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty
well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it
on the floor and it is lost.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in
wanting to know this fact.

Mr. EISENBERG. Proceed.

Mr. DULLES. It was dusted by the Dallas police, was it, first?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I don't know who dusted it.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, I believe that will be shown later that
it was dusted by Dallas police.

As far as you know, did it come into your office, into your laboratory
before it went to the identification division, latent fingerprint
section?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I received this gun from Special Agent Vincent
Drain of the Dallas FBI office. It was crated very well. I opened the
crate myself and put my initials on the gun and at that time I noted it
had been dusted for latent prints.

So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small
crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun.

At this point of the butt plate, the end of the stock----

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you
point to that again?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a
metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the left side of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is on the left side; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge,
jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the
wood, is that what you are referring to?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here,
according to my notes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that
jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them,
he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there,
and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide,
and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of
fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.

The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy,
oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and
apparently very old.

You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or
exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.

Mr. EISENBERG. "These" being the ones that you found in the butt plate
crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; adhering to this small jagged edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we get to those, were there any other fibers of
value on the rest of the Exhibit 139?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease
and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well
fragmented.

Mr. EISENBERG. You could not make a determination as to their nature?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I could tell what type they were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Meaning textile type?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; such as wool, cotton, what-have-you, but the grease
and the dirt had changed the colors which ruined the characteristics
for comparison purposes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell whether they were old or new?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They all appeared old.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about----

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by old, 2 or 3 months old, 2 or 3 weeks
old?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, a length of time, I would say that in excess of a
month or 2 months.

Mr. DULLES. In that area?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In that area or longer. They weren't recently put in
there. Let's say that.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the grease, did you attempt to examine the
grease?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why was that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I could see no need of it at that time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let's return then to the fibers which you referred to as
being fresh, which you said you found in the crevice of the butt plate,
and I will ask Mr. Dulles' question in reverse: What do you mean by
fresh, why do you call these fresh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. In the first place, this was just a small tuft. They
were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the
gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They
were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them
and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been
picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these fibers in a position where they could have
easily been knocked off by rough use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers
were folded around it and resting in the crevice.

Mr. DULLES. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in
part by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he
probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded
these down into the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had
been folded into the crevice by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down
in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted
with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now assuming your conclusion is accurate that they were
dusted into the crevice, and had not been in the crevice originally but
had merely adhered to the jagged edge, how much--how rough a handling
would it have taken to have gotten them loose from that jagged edge?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started
brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would the use of the weapon itself have jarred them
loose?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I doubt it. I doubt it.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am talking now about the jagged edge position, and not
the crevice position.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You mean breaking them loose? They were adhering to the
jagged edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. It might, of course--there are a lot of factors here you
don't know, but they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe
through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked
loose and fallen off.

Mr. EISENBERG. What I can't understand is, when you are talking about
the handling of the gun are you talking about the position in which you
found them, or are you talking about the position which you deduced
they were in before you found them brushed into the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, both. The position I found them in. I had to take
a pair of tweezers and work them out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have
been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off.
They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness.
Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1
week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time.
I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other
fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where
these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the
exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned
off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented.
They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun
put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would
have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on
the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on
my part.

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you concluded they were fresh--well,
you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite
understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a
specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter. I
couldn't--this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say
this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.

But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for
this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago,
and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off.

Am I making myself a little more clear?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; you are making yourself clear; yes.

Now, looking at Exhibit 139, the weapon, and Exhibit 140, the blanket,
do you think it is possible that the bulge you described before, which
you marked "C," might have been caused by some component part of 139,
the rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. At the time I found the hump in the blanket which I
believed you have marked point C.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is point C on the replica piece of paper you have
folded up, marked Exhibit 663?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I checked the telescopic sight on Exhibit 139, and noted
that the approximate length and general shape of the scope----

Mr. DULLES. Exhibit 139 being the blanket?

Mr. EISENBERG. Being the rifle.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Were approximately the same so far as length and shape
went, and at the time I thought to myself it is quite possible the hump
in the blanket could have been made by that telescopic sight.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to match up the rifle into the blanket
to see if that could be true?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I didn't want to handle the rifle any more than
possible. I took a ruler and measured the scope and then compared the
measurement with the hump in the blanket and it was approximately the
same.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the relationship, the spatial relationship
of the scope to the end of the gun, as compared with the spatial
relationship of the hump in the blanket to the end of the blanket? Were
those matching?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. From the way the blanket was folded at the time, and
from measuring this, and not using the gun itself and putting it in
contact with the blanket, just from measurements, I determined it is
possible that the scope could have made the hump. In other words, the
gun could have fitted in there. But I couldn't be absolutely certain on
any of this. This is just from measurements.

Mr. EISENBERG. And visual comparison?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And visual comparison; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any further information you would like to
give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the
blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just the fibers I removed.

Mr. DULLES. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers
that were found in the jagged edge?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the
origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the
fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the
blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors.
So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the
shirt fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. What does that mean?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the
composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was
composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton
fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on
the butt plate of the gun.

Mr. DULLES. Did you find all three shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. All three shades; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. All three shades were found on the fragments that were
found in the butt of the gun?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made photographs showing these, color
photographs showing these?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. Color photographs are very difficult to make
microscopically because the color isn't always identical to what you
see in the microscope. So these colors are slightly off.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have shown a chart captioned "Microphotograph
Showing Match Between Orange-Yellow Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of
Assassination Rifle and Orange-Yellow Cotton Fibers From Oswald's
Shirt." Did you take this photograph?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it was taken under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. It was taken under your supervision.

Mr. Chairman, may I submit this as 674.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted, 674.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 674, and was
received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I believe this was 400 also. I am not certain of this,
because the shot itself has also been enlarged.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now you were discussing the reproduction of the color in
the photomicrograph?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. These are the orangish-yellow fibers.
The color is not exactly the same as what one would see under the
microscope.

However, you can see that the fibers on both sides, namely, the fiber
from the rifle here, and this----

Mr. DULLES. On the right-hand side----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the right-hand side.

Mr. DULLES. Of Exhibit 674?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. And the fibers from the shirt, which are on the
left-hand side of Exhibit 674, do match. The colors are the same and
also, we find the same twist in the fiber.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was the orange-yellow cotton fiber--were the
orange-yellow cotton fibers in the shirt of a uniform shade?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all of a uniform shade. It was what we
would call a uniform dye job.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The twist was about normal. These, you can see here.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to the right-hand side and left-hand
side of 674?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. You can see the twist to these fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they have a uniform twist?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Uniform.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the match was identical as to twist and shade,
and the fibers in the shirt were uniform in themselves as to these two
characteristics, is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the gray-black cotton
fibers?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. These are the gray-black cotton fibers and the color
didn't come out well on these in this instance because of time and
color process limitations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just a second. You have a chart here--a
photomicrograph--captioned "Microphotograph Showing Match Between
Gray-Black Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination Rifle, etc.
and Gray-Black Cotton Fibers From Oswald's Shirt."

Did you take these photographs or were they taken under your
supervision?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 675?

Mr. DULLES. 675, it will be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 675, and
received in evidence.)

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The same would apply to Exhibit 675 as to 674, with the
exception of the color. The color on these is much darker and we tried
up to last night to duplicate the exact color and this is the best I
could come up with under the time and color process limitations. It
took us about 4 hours to make a photograph such as this.

Mr. EISENBERG. There is an apparent match of colors in the
photograph----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. But there is one----

Mr. EISENBERG. I say, there is an apparent match in photographs, in
color, or is that just my eyes deceiving me?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This one appears to be slightly lighter than this shade.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. But actually they are both a gray black, almost black in
color.

Mr. EISENBERG. But under the microscope they were identical, and a
different shade than what we see in Exhibit 675?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases did you make your determination of
color and match under the microscope, or by use of the photographs?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Under the microscope.

Mr. EISENBERG. And these are illustrative and prepared for the
Commission's use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have a chart of photomicrograph captioned
"Match Between Dark Blue Cotton Fibers From Butt Plate of Assassination
Rifle, etc." Did you prepare these photographs or were they prepared
under your supervision?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have these received as Exhibit 676?

Mr. DULLES. 676.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 676, and was
received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification of 675 and 676, by the way?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. All of these were made at approximately 400 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find a color match here?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the color match of the dark blue cotton fibers
shows rather well in this photograph, Exhibit 676.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now there is also a violet-colored fiber running through
the right-hand side of 676.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I asked the photographer about this when he
developed this and I said, "Why did we get this, this is not in the
slide at all," and he said that is one of the orange fibers. They use
different techniques in bringing out the blue and the yellow-orange in
a photomicrograph.

Mr. DULLES. The shades are the fiber of the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; this shade in the photograph is different from what
that fiber actually is. It is in the development process. I am not too
familiar with color photography. There is an art to it. However, I do
know that there are times and technical limitations on the accuracy of
color reproductions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, were the shades in--were the shades of
the dark blue cotton fibers uniform throughout the shirt which is
pictured in Commission Exhibit 673?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No sir; the dark blue fibers had some lighter shades and
some slightly darker shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. About how many different shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There were only about three in this.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many dark blue fibers you got from the
butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I believe a total of six or seven fibers from the butt
plate and three of them are blue fibers and all matched.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall whether they were one or more shades?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Two shades.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that two of the fibers were two different shades of
blue?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they matched two different shades of blue in the
shirt out of a total of three different shades of blue?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you testified before there were about 50 to 100
ranges of shade of green cotton. What about the ranges in shades of
blue cotton?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The same would apply to blue cotton.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the ranges in shades of orange yellow cotton?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The orange-yellow cotton I have here----

Mr. EISENBERG. 674.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a shade of a yellow cotton fiber, it appears
orange yellow under a microscope. Sometimes you get greenish yellow.
These will vary, the orange-yellow shade itself might be only two
variations in orange yellow, but in a greenish yellow it might be 50 to
100.

Mr. EISENBERG. There was a gray-black cotton fiber in the shirt. Were
they uniform between themselves as to color?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; these were uniform.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many shades of gray, in the gray-black area, can you
distinguish?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. The gray-black in itself would be similar to the
orange-yellow and would be possibly two or three.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in the black taken as a broader----

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Black taken in itself would go from, all the way from,
very grayish-light gray all the way down to dense black.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many different shades can you distinguish?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Black is different. There are only about 25 or 30
shades, I would say, in black.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you identified the fibers you found on the butt plate
as matching the fibers you found in the shirt, not only as to color but
as to shades within those colors, out of a range going from 25 in the
gray-black or black area to 50 to 100 in the yellow and blue areas?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And degrees of twist were all the same?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Any other characteristics?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just type of fibers, they were all cotton fibers.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a
conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt
plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could
easily have come from the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you go into that in a little more detail, Mr.
Stombaugh?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed
of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all
three colors together on the gun.

Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and
types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that
I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could
match with the fibers composing this shirt, so I feel the fibers could
easily have come from the shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question
before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for
transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I
recall you said it could have.

Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on
the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any
fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.

The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate
is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and
adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I
feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into
that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off.

In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen
off the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, is there anything you would like to add
to your testimony?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I can think of nothing else.

Mr. DULLES. And you found no other pieces of fabric or other foreign
material on the gun?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Nothing that I could associate with either the blanket
or the shirt. I found----

Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It
was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you
estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt,
the fibers in the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many
different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that
matter how many identical shirts are in existence.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am
wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer
to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities,
is that correct?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many
times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in
1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and
been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong,
insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to
positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from
a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic
characteristics present in these fibers.

We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion
of all other shirts."

Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission,
of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out
is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the
inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or
reflect your own doubts?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could
have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the
possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of
the fibers you found in the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
opinion on those.

Now if I would have found, say 15 or 20 fibers and all 15 or 20 matched
the fibers from the blanket, then I could say, "Yes, I feel that these
very easily could have come from the blanket." But I didn't. I only
found two of the many types.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay. I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any further questions?

Mr. MURRAY. No; I have no further questions.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Stombaugh, we appreciate your coming.


TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN

Mr. DULLES. Would you mind standing and raising your right hand?

Do you swear the testimony you give before the Commission is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?

Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an
examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. I have a Master of Science degree from Boston College in
Newton, Mass. Upon being appointed in the FBI, I was given on-the-job
training, which consisted of working with various examiners, conducting
experiments, reading books, attending lectures, and so forth.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, how long have you been in the questioned
document field?

Mr. CADIGAN. Twenty-three and a half years.

Mr. EISENBERG. And during that time have you examined papers to
determine their possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of such examinations you
have conducted?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; not with any degree of accuracy, except many, many
specimens, many, many comparisons.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified on that subject in court?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Many times?

Mr. CADIGAN. I won't say many, no; because most of the testimony I have
given in court relates to other phases of the work. Strictly on paper,
I would say not more than two or three times.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you have made more than two or three examinations of
paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes; far more.

Mr. DULLES. Running into the hundreds and thousands?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this witness admitted as an
expert witness?

Mr. DULLES. He shall be admitted as an expert on this subject.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you an object made of paper,
Commission Exhibit 142, also known as Commission Exhibit 626, and ask
you if you are familiar with this object?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this object, this paper bag, to
determine its origin, possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory,
along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book
Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that the sample that you are referring to, that you
are holding in your hand?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is marked, as you said, "Paper sample from
first floor Texas School Book Depository" and has certain other
markings including the words "shipping department"?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. That may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be No. 677.

Mr. DULLES. 677 may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 677 was marked, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find out from precisely what portion of the
Texas School Book Depository Building this was obtained, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this comes from the first floor, main floor of the
Texas School Book Depository, referred to as the shipping room, the
whole floor.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you--who supplied you with this sample, this
Exhibit 677?

Mr. CADIGAN. This exhibit was brought to the laboratory by Special
Agent Drain of our Dallas office, who brought all of this evidence in
for examination.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether Exhibit 142 had the
same origin as the paper in Exhibit 677, or might have had the same
origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I examined the two papers--do you wish me to state my
opinion?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; please.

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, initially, I was requested to compare the two papers
to see if they could have originated from the same source. I first
measured the paper and the tape samples. Then I looked at them visually
by natural light, then incident light and transmitted light.

Mr. EISENBERG. What do you mean by transmitted light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, light coming right on through the paper.

Mr. EISENBERG. Then----

Mr. DULLES. Natural light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; natural light.

Mr. DULLES. As distinct from electric light?

Mr. CADIGAN. Both. In the room I am in you can go over to the window
for natural light and use ceiling light for artificial light which has
a little different property than the outside light.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. CADIGAN. I looked at the papers under various lighting
conditions----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me a minute, Mr. Cadigan, by "transmitted light"
you mean the light transmitted when you hold the object between the
light source and your own eyes?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; then I put it under the microscope, and again looked
at it from the standpoint of the surface, paper structure, the color,
any imperfections. I further noted that on both of the tapes----

Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is the paper bag.

Mr. CADIGAN. On 142 and on the tape on 677 there were a series of marks
right down about the center of the tape.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see those visually with the unaided eye, or only
under a microscope?

Mr. CADIGAN. I can see them visually. The microscope makes it look
clearer.

Mr. DULLES. What are you pointing to now?

Mr. EISENBERG. This line here.

Mr. DULLES. Where is this?

Mr. CADIGAN. These are a series of lines running right here about a
half-inch high, they are very closely spaced.

Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; these are perpendicular lines.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Would you like to see these, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. Yes; thank you.

Mr. DULLES. They are quite clear, about a tenth of an inch apart or
less than that.

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, actually they are 24-1/2 spaces per inch, which
would be about 25 lines per inch.

Mr. MURRAY. Pockmarks?

Mr. CADIGAN. A series of little short marks right close together.

Mr. MURRAY. Oh, yes.

Mr. DULLES. And they run along about how far on this particular exhibit?

Mr. CADIGAN. They run the whole length of the tape.

Mr. MURRAY. A comb design.

Mr. EISENBERG. Comb in the sense that it is a series of----

Mr. MURRAY. Comb or rake.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that on 677, and mark the portion "A"?
Can you still make out the lines on Exhibit 640?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle a portion of the lines on 640 and mark
it--I am sorry, that is 142.

Mr. CADIGAN. I have marked it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Dulles, would you care to look at it?

Mr. DULLES. And--oh, yes--and they go over a good deal further than
your circle?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. They run right across.

Mr. CADIGAN. I might explain that these are made by a wheel in the
paper-tape dispenser. [Referring to an object in the room.] It is
not quite this size, but it is similar to this and it has horizontal
markings running all around the wheel.

As you pull the operating handle that pulls the paper tape from the
roll through the machine and over the wetting brush, the wheel, in the
process leaves these markings on the tape.

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, Mr. Cadigan, would this be in the type
of tape dispenser which is operated not merely by a handle--by a
handpull--to the tape from the dispenser, but is operated--that is
operated by a lever?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; a lever, a handle.

Mr. EISENBERG. And a given quantity of tape is dispensed, which you can
cut off or not as you choose--if you want to, you can pull some more
tape and cut it off, is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this wheel, as I understand it, when you pull the
lever this wheel forces the paper out?

Mr. CADIGAN. It turns, and it is really pulling the paper from the roll
and pushing it out from the slot.

Mr. EISENBERG. That has a slight knurl which grasps the paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. It has a slight ridge all around it which is the cause of
these marks on the paper tape.

Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.

Mr. DULLES. Is that a defect in the mark or a peculiar----

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, no; it is designed that way. Those little, you might
say, in effect, teeth, go into the paper and pull it through smoothly.

Mr. EISENBERG. If I went into Woolworths and bought a roll of gummed
tape, would it have those marks on it?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Because it only gets the marks when you put it in the
dispensing machine that you have in commercial establishments?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be common to have this type of dispensing
machine in a home, by the way?

Mr. CADIGAN. I doubt very much that you would find it in a home.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, within a commercial establishment, are there more
than one type of dispensing machines?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are there types that won't produce these lines at all?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out, too, that the number of lines
per inch will vary depending on the diameter of that wheel. In this
particular instance I found that there were 24-1/2 spaces, which would
be 25 lines per inch, on both.

Mr. EISENBERG. I believe that is 142, the bag you are handling, and
677, the sample?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; the markings on the manila tape in both 142 and 677
were the same. Now, at that time I also had----

Mr. DULLES. Could we get just before you continue there, would you
identify what 142 is and 677 is?

Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is an apparently homemade paper bag which was found
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?

Mr. CADIGAN. Normally they are supplied in, I believe, 1-, 1-1/2-, 2-,
2-1/2-, and 3-inch widths.

Mr. EISENBERG. So this was basically of a 3-inch width variety out of
several possible alternatives?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other information you would like to give us
or any other testimony you would like to give us on the subject of the
origin of the paper in the 142 bag?

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, possibly the comparisons made of paper samples from
Jaggars Chiles-Stovall and from the William B. Riley Co.

Mr. EISENBERG. These are, you have mentioned two companies at which
Oswald was employed at one time?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You obtained paper from these companies, did you?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you matched them to see if they matched--you tested
them to see if they matched the paper in the bag 142, is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And your conclusion was what?

Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Anything else?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is about it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman----

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Murray, do you have any questions?

Mr. MURRAY. I don't believe I have, Mr. Commissioner, but I would like
to mention this off the record, if I may.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. We have now the ultraviolet machine set up.

Could you just show us the difference in fluorescence?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what you have set up here, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. This is a portable ultraviolet viewer I used to examine
the papers and I think probably what is most noticeable is in the
manila tapes. The tape on the right is the sample secured November 22.
The tape at the top is from the bag 142, and then the one in the, you
might say, lower left, toward the bottom, is the tape that was secured
December 1.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to positions in the bottom of the
ultraviolet machine?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; relative position.

Mr. DULLES. The one at the left is the one taken from the paper sack,
isn't it?

Mr. CADIGAN. Top left; yes; that would be from 142.

Mr. DULLES. 142, and the other is----

Mr. CADIGAN. The one on the right is 677.

Mr. DULLES. What am I supposed to see?

Mr. CADIGAN. A difference in the appearance, difference in color.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean? I see the violet and I see the white.

Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you look at the two tape samples----

Mr. DULLES. This tape sample on upper left hand is covered up by this
one. I wonder whether you shouldn't take out the later one?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I think probably that would be better.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you show Mr. Dulles the paper bag, 142, and
the sample obtained November 22?

Mr. DULLES. Yes; those are the two we are most interested in.

Mr. CADIGAN. The observation I would make there is that the color of
the tape on Exhibit 142, the sack, and the color of the paper of the
sack 142, under UV, is the same as the color of the tape on 677 and the
color of the paper.

Mr. DULLES. I agree on that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show that Mr. Dulles makes the statement
as he is looking in the machine. Mr. Cadigan, why don't you compare
it----

Mr. CADIGAN. By comparison----

Mr. DULLES. This is only as to color, that is all I saw. I saw some
markings on it.

Mr. CADIGAN. That is right. This is only for color appearance under the
ultraviolet light.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you compare the sack found at the TSBD and the
replica sack obtained 10 days later?

Mr. CADIGAN. Here again all that should be observed is the color under
UV of both the paper and tape of the sample and the paper and tape of
Exhibit 364.

Mr. DULLES. 364 is the paper bag, isn't it?

Mr. CADIGAN. 364 is the replica sack obtained on December 1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Ten days later.

Mr. DULLES. That is on the left?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And the other is the sack?

Mr. CADIGAN. No; the other on your right is the sample of paper
obtained on November 22.

Mr. DULLES. November 22, just after the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. There is a clear distinction here. The sample to the right,
that is, as I understand it, paper obtained on the evening of November
22, has a more, a deeper violet shade, and on the other hand, the tape
is much lighter than the tape on the sample obtained 10 days later.
That is to say that the sample 10 days later is darker as to the tape
but lighter as to the paper.

Would you like the opportunity, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. We are putting in the sack and 364, the 10-day later
sample.

Mr. DULLES. Sack and 10-day later sample. Which is on which side?

Mr. CADIGAN. The sack is on the left and the replica bag obtained on
December 1 is on the right.

Mr. DULLES. Yes. I find there that the sample obtained 10 days later,
and the sack which is on the left, that the sample obtained 10 days
later shows a lighter shade of purple than the sack, and that the tape
shows a darker shade of, I would call it, almost gray as against almost
white for the tape which is on the sack.

Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. DULLES. Have you anything that you feel you should add, anything in
this general field that would help the Commission?

Mr. CADIGAN. No, sir; not as it relates to this paper and these paper
bags.

Mr. EISENBERG. You will be called later for testimony on handwriting--I
suppose you will be the person to testify?

Mr. CADIGAN. Whenever you want me I will be available.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the tape for microscopic--to determine
the morphology of the fibers in the paper?

Mr. CADIGAN. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us why?

Mr. CADIGAN. I didn't feel it was necessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could do that, Mr. Cadigan, and
send us a letter as to the results?

Mr. CADIGAN. Certainly.

(The letter referred to was later supplied and is set forth at the end
of this testimony.)

Mr. EISENBERG. And also, did you notice how the glue had been applied
to the tapes?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; you might say glue was applied all the way across the
tapes.

Mr. EISENBERG. There are no discernible differences in them?

Mr. CADIGAN. The glue on the tapes would be applied with a brush at the
time of manufacture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there more than one way of applying glue?

Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes. On some tapes, if you look at them either
before or after they are used you will see a continuous line running
right down the tape where they have used a wheel applicator, merely a
difference in manufacturing methods.

Mr. EISENBERG. But you found a brush applicator?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will the same manufacturer use two different methods?

Mr. CADIGAN. He might or might not.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your experience, is it likely that he would use two
different methods?

Mr. CADIGAN. I really couldn't say.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Cadigan, I thank you very much for your most
interesting and helpful testimony.

(Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

(Following is the text of a letter relating to the fiber composition of
the gummed tapes in Exhibits 142 and 677.)


    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
            FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
              _Washington, D.C., April 8, 1964_.
                               [By Courier Service].

Hon. J. LEE RANKIN,

_General Counsel, the President's Commission, 200 Maryland Avenue NE.,
Washington, D.C._

DEAR MR. RANKIN: During the testimony of Special Agent James C. Cadigan
on April 3, 1964, before the President's Commission, Mr. Melvin
Eisenberg of your staff orally requested Special Agent Cadigan to make
a fiber analysis of the gummed tape on the paper sack found on the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Commission
Exhibit 142, and of the sample of gummed tape in Commission Exhibit
677 Obtained November 22, 1963, at the Texas School Book Depository
Building.

Fiber analysis of the two gummed tapes in Commission Exhibits 142 and
677 revealed that they were similar in fiber composition.

    Sincerely yours,
        J. EDGAR HOOVER.



_Tuesday, April 21, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW, DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY, GOV.
JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR., AND MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

The President's Commission met at 1:30 p.m., on April 21, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B.
Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, John
J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Francis
W. H. Adams, assistant counsel; Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel;
David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel;
Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne,
observers; and Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas.


TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW

Senator COOPER. The Commission will come to order.

Dr. Shaw, you understand that the purpose of this inquiry is taken
under the order of the President appointing the Commission on the
assassination of President Kennedy to investigate all the facts
relating to his assassination.

Dr. SHAW. I do.

Senator COOPER. And report to the public.

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

Dr. SHAW. I do.

Senator COOPER. Do you desire an attorney to be with you?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. SHAW. Robert Roeder Shaw.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession, please?

Dr. SHAW. Physician and surgeon.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you outline briefly your educational background?

Dr. SHAW. I received my B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in
1927, and my M.D. degree from the same institution in 1933.

Following that I served 2 years at the Roosevelt Hospital in New York
City from July 1934, to July 1936, in training in general surgery. I
had then 2 years of training in thoracic surgery at the University
Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich., from July 1936 to July 1938.

On August 1, 1938, I entered private practice limiting my practice to
thoracic surgery in Dallas, Tex.

Mr. DULLES. What kind of surgery?

Dr. SHAW. Thoracic surgery or surgery of the chest. I have practiced
there continuously except for a period from June 1942, until December
1945, when I was a member of the Medical Corps of the Army of the
United States serving principally in the European theater of operations.

I was away again from December 1961, until June of 1963, when I was
head of the MEDICO team and performed surgery at Avicenna Hospital in
Kabul, Pakistan.

Mr. DULLES. Will you tell us a little bit about MEDICO. Is that the
ship?

Dr. SHAW. No; that is HOPE. MEDICO was formed by the late Dr. Tom
Dooley.

Mr. DULLES. Yes; I know him very well. He was the man in Laos.

Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir; this was one of their projects.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Dr. SHAW. I returned to----

Mr. DULLES. An interesting project.

Dr. SHAW. I returned to Dallas and on September 1, 1963, started
working full time with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
School as professor of thoracic surgery and chairman of the division of
thoracic surgery.

In this position I also am chief of thoracic surgery at Parkland
Memorial Hospital in Dallas which is the chief hospital from the
standpoint of the medical facilities of the school.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you licensed to practice medicine in the State of
Texas?

Dr. SHAW. I am.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you certified?

Dr. SHAW. By the board of thoracic surgery you mean?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; by the board of thoracic surgery.

Dr. SHAW. Yes; as of 1948.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience, if any, have you had, Dr. Shaw, with
bullet wounds?

Dr. SHAW. I have had civilian experience, both in the work at Parkland
Hospital, where we see a great amount of trauma, and much of this
involves bullet wounds from homicidal attempts and accidents.

The chief experience I had, however, was during the Second World War
when I was serving as chief of the thoracic surgery center in Paris,
France. And during this particular experience we admitted over 900
patients with chest wounds of various sort, many of them, of course,
being shell fragments rather than bullet wounds.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the total number of
bullet wounds you have had experience with?

Dr. SHAW. It would be approximately 1,000, considering the large number
of admissions we had in Paris.

Mr. SPECTER. What were your duties in a general way on November 22,
1963.

Dr. SHAW. On that particular date I had been at a conference at
Woodlawn Hospital, which is our hospital for medical chest diseases
connected with the medical school system. I had just gone to the
Children's Hospital to see a small patient that I had done a
bronchoscopy on a few days before and was returning to Parkland
Hospital, and the medical school.

Woodlawn and the Children's Hospital are approximately a mile away from
Parkland Hospital.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render any aid to President
Kennedy on November 22?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B.
Connally on that day?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe briefly the circumstances surrounding
your being called into the case.

Dr. SHAW. As I was driving toward the medical school I came to an
intersection of Harry Hines Boulevard and Industrial Boulevard.

There is also a railroad crossing at this particular point. I saw an
open limousine pass this point at high speed with a police escort.
We were held up in traffic because of this escort. Finally, when we
were allowed to proceed, I went on to the medical school expecting to
eat lunch. I had the radio on because it was the day that I knew the
President was in Dallas and would be eating lunch at the Trade Mart
which was not far away, and over the radio I heard the report that the
President had been shot at while riding in the motorcade. I went on to
the medical school and as I entered the medical school a student came
in and joined three other students, and said the President has just
been brought into the emergency room at Parkland, dead on arrival.

The students said, "You are kidding, aren't you?" and he said, "No,
I am not. I saw him, and Governor Connally has been shot through the
chest."

Hearing that I turned and walked over to the emergency room, which
is approximately 150 yards from the medical school, and entered the
emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. At approximately what time did you arrive at the emergency
room where Governor Connally was situated?

Dr. SHAW. As near as I could tell it was about 12:45.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was with Governor Connally, if anyone, at that time,
Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. I immediately recognized two of the men who worked with me in
thoracic surgery, Dr. James Duke and Dr. James Boland, Dr. Giesecke,
who is an anesthesiologist, was also there along with a Dr. David
Mebane who is an instructor in general surgery.

Mr. SPECTER. What was Governor Connally's condition at that time, based
on your observations?

Dr. SHAW. The Governor was complaining bitterly of difficulty in
breathing, and of pain in his right chest. Prior to my arriving there,
the men had very properly placed a tight occlusive dressing over what
on later examination proved to be a large sucking wound in the front of
his right chest, and they had inserted a rubber tube between the second
and third ribs in the front of the right chest, carrying this tube to
what we call a water seal bottle.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the purpose?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; this is done to reexpand the right lung which had
collapsed due to the opening through the chest wall.

Mr. SPECTER. What wounds, if any, did you observe on the Governor at
that time?

Dr. SHAW. I observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't
until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him
from the standpoint of the wound.

Mr. SPECTER. How long after your initial viewing of him was he taken to
the operating room?

Dr. SHAW. Within about 5 minutes. I stepped outside to talk to Mrs.
Connally because I had been given information by Dr. Duke that
blood had been drawn from the Governor, sent to the laboratory for
cross-matching for blood that we knew would be necessary, that the
operating room had already been alerted, and that they were ready and
they were merely awaiting my arrival.

Mr. SPECTER. How was Governor Connally transported from the emergency
room to the operating room?

Dr. SHAW. On a stretcher.

Mr. SPECTER. And was he transported up an elevator as well?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is two floors above the emergency rooms.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe what happened next in connection with
Governor Connally's----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question, putting in this tube is prior to
making an incision?

Mr. SHAW. Yes; a stab wound.

Mr. DULLES. Just a stab wound?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What treatment next followed for Governor Connally, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. He was taken to the operating room and there Dr. Giesecke
started the anesthesia. This entails giving an intravenous injection of
sodium pentothal and then after the Governor was asleep a gas was used,
that will be on the anesthetic record there.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know at approximately what time this procedure was
started?

Dr. SHAW. I will have to refresh my memory again from the record. We
had at the time I testified before, we had the----

Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to make available to you a copy of the Parkland
Memorial Hospital operative record and let me ask you, first of all,
if you can identify these two pages on an exhibit heretofore marked
as Commission Exhibit 392 as to whether or not this constitutes your
report?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; this is a transcription of my dictated report of the
operation.

Mr. SPECTER. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. On this it states that the operation itself was begun at
1300 hours or 1 o'clock, 1 p.m., and that the actual surgery started at
1335 or 1:35 p.m.

The operation was concluded by me at 3--1520 which would be 3:20 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. You have described, in a general way, the chest wound.
What other wounds, if any, was Governor Connally suffering from at the
time you saw him?

Dr. SHAW. I will describe then the wound of the wrist which was
obvious. He had a wound of the lower right forearm that I did not
accurately examine because I had already talked to Dr. Gregory while
I was scrubbing for the operation, told him that this wound would
need his attention as soon as we were able to get the chest in a
satisfactory condition. There was also, I was told, I didn't see the
wound, on the thigh, I was told that there was a small wound on the
thigh which I saw later.

Mr. SPECTER. When did you first have an opportunity then to examine
Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. SHAW. After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was
asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary
for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be
controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately examine
the wound entrance.

We knew this was the wound exit.

Mr. SPECTER. This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the
body]?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. How did you know it was a wound exit.

Dr. SHAW. By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound. This
wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until the
Governor was anesthetized.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; the front part.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound
on the posterior side of the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a
half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just
medial to the axillary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could
tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the
shoulder blade.

Mr. SPECTER. What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to
you that it was a wound of entrance then?

Dr. SHAW. Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound
as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Now I hand you a diagram which is a body diagram on
Commission Exhibit No. 679, and ask you if, on the back portion of
the figure, that accurately depicts the point of entry into Governor
Connally's back?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. The depiction of the point of entry, I feel is quite
accurate.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the front side of the body, is the
point of exit accurately shown on the diagram?

Dr. SHAW. The point is----

Mr. SPECTER. We have heretofore, may the record show the deposition
covered much the same ground with Dr. Shaw, but the diagrams used now
are new diagrams which will have to be remarked in accordance with your
recollection.

Dr. SHAW. Yes. Because I would have to place--they are showing here the
angle.

Mr. DULLES. Is this all on the record?

Mr. SPECTER. It should be.

Dr. SHAW. We are showing on this angle, the cartilage angle which it
makes at the end of the sternum.

Mr. SPECTER. That is an inverted =V= which appears in front of the body?

Dr. SHAW. Now the wound was above that. They have shown it below that
point so the wound would have to be placed here as far as the point is
concerned.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you draw on that diagram a more accurate depiction
of where the wound of exit occurred?

Dr. SHAW. Do you want me to initial this?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; if you please, Dr. Shaw.

I hand you another body diagram marked Commission Exhibit 680 and I
will ask you if that accurately depicts the angle of decline as the
bullet passed through Governor Connally?

Dr. SHAW. I think the declination of this line is a little too sharply
downward. I would place it about 5° off that line.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you redraw the line then, Dr. Shaw, and initial it,
indicating the more accurate angle?

Dr. SHAW. The reason I state this is that as they have shown this, it
would place the wound of exit a little too far below the nipple. Also
it would, since the bullet followed the line of declination of the
fifth rib, it would make the ribs placed in a too slanting position.

Mr. SPECTER. What operative procedures did you employ in caring for the
wound of the chest, Dr. Shaw.

Dr. SHAW. The first measure was to excise the edges of the wound of
exit in an elliptical fashion, and then this incision was carried in a
curved incision along the lateral portion of the right chest up toward
the right axilla in order to place the skin incision lower than the
actual path of the bullet through the chest wall.

After this incision had been carried down to the level of the muscles
attached to the rib cage, all of the damaged muscle which was chiefly
the serratus anterior muscle which digitates along the fifth rib at
this position, was cleaned away, cut away with sharp dissection.

As soon as--of course, this incision had been made, the opening through
the parietal pleura, which is the lining of the inside of the chest was
very obvious. It was necessary to trim away several small fragments
of the rib which were still hanging to tags of periosteum, the lining
of the rib, and the ragged ends of the rib were smoothed off with a
rongeur.

Mr. SPECTER. What damage had been inflicted upon a rib, if any, Dr.
Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. About 10 centimeters of the fifth rib starting at the, about
the mid-axillary line and going to the anterior axillary line, as we
describe it, or that would be the midline at the armpit going to the
anterior lateral portion of the chest had been stripped away by the
missile.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the texture of the rib at the point where the
missile struck?

Dr. SHAW. The texture of the rib here is not of great density. The
cortex of the rib in the lateral portions of our ribs, is thin with the
so-called cancellus portion of the rib being very spongy, offering very
little resistance to pressure or to fracturing.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect, if any, would the striking of that rib have
had to the trajectory of the bullet?

Dr. SHAW. It could have had a slight, caused a slight deflection of the
rib, but probably not a great deflection of the rib, because of the
angle at which it struck and also because of the texture of the rib at
this time.

Mr. SPECTER. You say deflection of the rib or deflection of the bullet?

Dr. SHAW. Deflection of the bullet, I am sorry.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the
thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the
Governor's body?

Dr. SHAW. No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray
that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the X-rays with you, Dr. Shaw, from
Parkland Hospital?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; we have them here.

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show we have available a viewer for the
X-rays.

Dr. Shaw, would you, by use of the viewer, exhibit the X-rays of
the Governor's chest to show more graphically that which you have
heretofore described?

Dr. SHAW. This is the first X-ray that was taken, which was taken in
the operating room with the Governor on the operating table, and at
this time anesthetized. The safety pin that you see here is used, was
used, to secure the tube which had been put between the second and
third rib in expanding the Governor's lung.

We can dimly see also the latex rubber tube up in the chest coming to
the apex of the chest.

The variations that we see from normal here are the fact that first,
there is a great amount of swelling in the chest wall which we know was
due to bleeding and bruising of the tissues of the chest wall, and we
also see that there is air in the tissues of the chest wall here and
here. It is rather obvious.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say here and here, you are referring to the outer
portions, showing on the X-ray moving up toward the shoulder area?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; going from the lower chest up to the region near the
angle of the shoulder blade.

The boney framework of the chest, it is obvious that the fifth rib,
we count ribs from above downward, this is the first rib, second rib,
third rib, fourth rib, fifth rib, that a portion of this rib has been
shattered, and we can see a few fragments that have been left behind.

Also the rib has because of being broken and losing some of its
substance, has taken a rather inward position in relation to the fourth
and the sixth ribs on either side.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect was there, if any, on the upper portion of
that rib?

Dr. SHAW. This was not noticed at the time of this examination, Mr.
Specter. However, in subsequent examinations we can tell that there was
a fracture across the rib at this point due to the rib being struck and
bent.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say this point, will you describe where that
point exists on the X-ray?

Dr. SHAW. This is a point approximately 4 centimeters from its
connection with the transverse process of the spine.

Mr. SPECTER. And is the fracture, which is located there, caused by a
striking there or by the striking at the end of the rib?

Dr. SHAW. It is caused by the striking at the end of the rib.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine. What else then is discernible from the viewing of
the X-ray, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. There is a great amount of, we would say, obscuration of
the lower part of the right lung field which we know from subsequent
examination was due to blood in the pleural cavity and also due to a
hematoma in the lower part of the right lower lobe and also a severe
laceration of the middle lobe with it having lost its ability to
ventilate at that time. So, we have both an airless lung, and blood in
the lung to account for these shadows.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there anything else visible from the X-ray which is
helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition?

Dr. SHAW. No; I don't think so.

Mr. SPECTER. Would it be useful--As to that X-ray, Dr. Shaw, will
you tell us what identifying data, if any, it has in the records of
Parkland Hospital, for the record?

Dr. SHAW. On this X-ray it has in pencil John G. Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that G or C?

Dr. SHAW. They have a "G" November 22, 1963, and it has number 218-922.

Mr. SPECTER. Were those X-rays taken under your supervision?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, by a technician.

Mr. SPECTER. And that is, in fact, the X-ray then which was taken of
Governor Connally at the time these procedures were being performed?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, would any of the other X-rays be helpful in our
understanding of the Governor's condition?

Dr. SHAW. I believe the only--perhaps showing one additional X-ray
would show the fracture previously described which was not easily
discernible on the first film. This is quite often true but not
important to the--here is the fracture that can be easily seen.

Mr. SPECTER. You are now referring to a separate and second X-ray.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you start out by telling us on what date this X-ray
was performed.

Dr. SHAW. This X-ray was made on the 29th of November 1963, 7 days
following the incident.

Mr. SPECTER. What does it show of significance?

Dr. SHAW. It shows that there has been considerable clearing in the
lower portion of the lung, and also that there is a fracture of the
fifth rib as previously described approximately 4 centimeters from the
transverse process posteriorly.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there anything else depicted by that X-ray of material
assistance in evaluating the Governor's wound?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. McCLOY. Were there any photographs taken as distinguished from
X-rays of the body?

Dr. SHAW. There were no photographs.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, we shall then, subject to the approval of the
Commission, for the record, have the X-rays reproduced at Parkland
Memorial Hospital, and, if possible, also have a photograph of the
X-ray made for the permanent records of the Commission to show the
actual X-ray, which Dr. Shaw has described during his testimony here
this afternoon.

Senator COOPER. It is directed that it be made a part of the record of
these hearings.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what additional operative procedures did you
perform on Governor Connally's chest?

Dr. SHAW. I will continue with my description of the operative
procedure. The opening that had been made through the rib after the
removal of the fragments was adequate for further exploration of the
pleural cavity. A self-retaining retractor was put into place to
maintain exposure. Inside the pleural cavity there were approximately
200 cc. of clotted blood.

It was found that the middle lobe had been lacerated with the
laceration dividing the lobe into roughly two equal parts. The
laceration ran from the lower tip of the middle lobe up into its root
or hilum.

However, the lobe was not otherwise damaged, so that it could be
repaired using a running suture of triple zero chromic catgut.

The anterior basal segments of the right lower lobe had a large
hematoma, and blood was oozing out of one small laceration that was
a little less than a centimeter in length, where a rib fragment had
undoubtedly been driven into the lobe. To control hemorrhage a single
suture of triple zero chromic gut was placed in this laceration. There
were several small matchstick size fragments of rib within the pleural
cavity. Examination, however, of the pericardium of the diaphragm and
the upper lobe revealed no injury to these parts of the chest.

A drain was placed in the eighth space in the posterior axillary line
similar to the drain which had been placed in the second interspace in
the front of the chest.

The drain in the front of the chest was thought to be a little too long
so about 3 centimeters of it were cut away.

Attention was then turned on the laceration of the latissimus dorsi
muscle where the missile had passed through it. Several sutures of
chromic gut where used to repair this muscle.

The incision was then closed with interrupted No. zero chromic gut in
the muscles of the chest wall--first, I am sorry, in the intercostale
muscle, and muscles of the chest wall, and the same suture material was
used to close the serratus anterior muscle in the subcutaneous tissue,
and interrupted vertical sutures of black silk were used to close the
skin.

Attention was then turned to the wound of entrance which, as previously
described, was about a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter,
roughly elliptical in shape. The skin edges of this wound were
incised--excised, I beg your pardon--I have to go back just a little
bit.

Prior to examination of this wound, a stab wound was made at the
angle of the scapula to place a drain in the subscapular space. In
the examination of the wound of entrance, the examining finger could
determine that this drain was immediately under the wound of entrance,
so that it was adequately draining the space.

Two sutures were placed in the facia of the muscle, and the skin was
closed with interrupted vertical matching sutures of black silk.

That concluded the operation. Both tubes were connected to a water seal
bottle, and the dressing was applied.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was in charge then of the subsequent care on the
Governor's wrist?

Dr. SHAW. Dr. Charles Gregory who had been previously alerted and then
came in to take care of the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the wound on the wrist, did you have
any opportunity to examine it by way of determining points of entry and
exit?

Dr. SHAW. My examination of the wrist was a very cursory one. I could
tell that there was a compound comminuted fracture because there was
motion present, and there was a ragged wound just over the radius above
the wrist joint. But that was the extent of my examination of the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, did I take your deposition at Parkland Memorial
Hospital on March 23 of 1964?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; you did.

Mr. SPECTER. Has that deposition been made available to you?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. To you here this afternoon?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you subsequent to the giving of that deposition on
March 23, 1964, had an opportunity to examine Governor Connally's
clothing which we have available in the Commission room here today?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, based on all facts now within your knowledge, is
there any modification which you would care to make in terms of the
views which you expressed about entrance and exit wounds back on March
23, based on the information which was available to you at that time?

Dr. SHAW. From an examination of the clothing, it is very obvious that
the wound of entrance was through the coat sleeve.

Mr. SPECTER. While you are testifying in that manner, perhaps it would
be helpful if we would make available to you the actual jacket, if it
pleases the Commission.

We shall reserve Exhibits Nos. 681 for the X-ray of November 22; 682
for the X-ray of November 29; and we shall now mark a photograph of the
coat for our permanent records as "Commission Exhibit No. 683".

Dr. Shaw, I hand you at this time what purports to be the coat worn
by Governor Connally, which we introduce subject to later proof when
Governor Connally appears later this afternoon; and, for the record,
I ask you first of all if this photograph, designated as Commission
Exhibit No. 683, is a picture of this suit coat?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. I had interrupted you when you started to refer to the
hole in the sleeve of the coat. Will you proceed with what you were
testifying about there?

Dr. SHAW. The hole in the sleeve of the coat is within half a
centimeter of the very edge of the sleeve, and lies----

Mr. DULLES. This is the right sleeve, is it not?

Dr. SHAW. I am sorry, yes. Thank you. Of the right sleeve, and places
it, if the coat sleeve was in the same position, assuming it is in the
same position that my coat sleeve is in, places it directly over the
lateral portion of the wrist, really not directly on the volar or the
dorsum of the surface of the wrist, but on the lateral position or the
upper position, as the wrist is held in a neutral position.

Mr. SPECTER. With the additional information provided by the coat,
would that enable you to give an opinion as to which was the wound of
entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. SHAW. There is only one tear in the Governor's garment as far as
the appearance of the tear is concerned, I don't think I could render
an opinion as to whether this is a wound of entrance or exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Then, do you have sufficient information at your disposal
in total, based on your observations and what you know now to give any
meaningful opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the
wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. SHAW. I would prefer to have Dr. Gregory testify about that,
because he has examined it more carefully than I have.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine.

Mr. DULLES. Could you tell at all how the arm was held from that mark
or that hole in the sleeve?

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was
wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit
harder to explain.

I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out
through the chest with the Governor's arm held in approximately this
position.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right hand held close to the body?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that
it is the only possibility.

Senator COOPER. Why do you say you don't think it is the only
possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location----

Dr. SHAW. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will
be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be
caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not
seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet
actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.

Mr. DULLES. Or whether it was one or two wounds?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Or two bullets?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; or three.

Mr. DULLES. Why do you say three?

Dr. SHAW. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a
wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.

Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; we haven't come to the wound of the thigh yet,
have we?

Mr. McCLOY. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
caused by one bullet?

Dr. SHAW. I have no firm opinion.

Mr. McCLOY. That is right.

Dr. SHAW. Asking me this now if it was true. If you had asked me a
month ago I would have.

Mr. DULLES. Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion?

Dr. SHAW. They could.

Mr. McCLOY. I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is
possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he
has no firm opinion now that they were.

Mr. DULLES. As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. When you say all three are you referring to the wounds
you have just described to the chest, the wound in the wrist, and also
the wound in the thigh?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Senator COOPER. It was possible?

Dr. SHAW. Our original assumption, Senator Cooper, was that the
Governor was approximately in this attitude at the time he was----

Senator COOPER. What attitude is that now?

Dr. SHAW. This is an attitude sitting in a jump seat as we know he
was, upright, with his right forearm held across the lower portion of
the chest. In this position, the trajectory of the bullet could have
caused the wound of entrance, the wound of exit, struck his wrist and
proceeded on into the left thigh. But although this is a possibility,
I can't give a firm opinion that this is the actual way in which it
occurred.

Mr. SPECTER. If it pleases the Commission, we propose to go through
that in this testimony; and we have already started to mark other
exhibits in sequence on the clothing. So that it will be more
systematic, we plan to proceed with the identification of clothing and
then go on to the composite diagram which explains the first hypothesis
of Dr. Shaw and the other doctors of Parkland. And then proceed from
that, as I intend to do, with an examination of the bullet, which will
explore the thinking of the doctor on that subject.

Dr. Shaw, for our record, I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 684
and ask you if that is a picture of the reverse side of the coat, which
we will later prove to have been worn by Governor Connally, the coat
which is before you?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, appears on the back of that coat and
also on the picture in line with the wound which you have described on
the Governor's posterior chest?

Dr. SHAW. The picture--the coat and the picture of the coat, show a
rent in the back of the coat approximately 2-centimeters medial to
the point where the sleeve has been joined to the main portion of the
garment.

The lighter-colored material of the lining of the coat can be seen
through this rent in the coat.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, I show you a shirt, subject to later proof that
it was the shirt worn by Governor Connally, together with a photograph
marked "Commission Exhibit No. 685," and ask you if that is a picture
of that shirt, the back side of the shirt?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; it is a picture of the back side of the shirt. However,
in this particular picture I am not able to make out the hole in the
shirt very well.

Now I see it, I believe; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the hole as you see it to exist in the
shirt? Aside from what you see on the picture, what hole do you observe
on the back of the shirt itself?

Dr. SHAW. On the back of the shirt itself there is a hole, a punched
out area of the shirt which is a little more than a centimeter in its
greater diameter. The whole shirt is soiled by brown stains which could
have been due to blood.

Mr. SPECTER. How does the hole in the back of the shirt correspond with
the wound on the Governor's back?

Dr. SHAW. It does correspond exactly.

Mr. SPECTER. Now turning the same shirt over to the front side, I
ask you if the photograph, marked "Commission Exhibit No. 386," is a
picture of the front side of this shirt?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. What does the picture of the shirt show with respect to a
hole, if any, on the right side of the front of the shirt?

Dr. SHAW. The picture and the shirt show on the right side a much
larger rent in the garment with the rent being approximately 4
centimeters in its largest diameter.

Mr. SPECTER. What wound, if any, did the Governor sustain on his thigh,
Dr. Shaw?

Mr. DULLES. Just one moment, are you leaving this?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder whether or not it would not be desirable for
the doctor to put on this photograph where these holes are, because
they are not at all clear for the future if we want to study those
photographs.

Dr. SHAW. This one is not so hard.

Mr. DULLES. That one appears but the other one doesn't appear and I
think it would be very helpful.

Dr. SHAW. How would you like to have me outline this?

Mr. SPECTER. Draw a red circle of what you conceive to be the hole
there, Doctor.

Mr. DULLES. The actual hole is not nearly as big as your circle, it is
the darkened area inside that circle, is it not?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; the darkened area is enclosed by the circle.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to note on the photograph of the back of the
shirt, 685?

Will you draw a red circle around the area of the hole on the
photograph then, Dr. Shaw?

Mr. DULLES. Would you just initial those two circles, if you can.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on
his left thigh?

Dr. SHAW. He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect
of the left thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine it sufficiently to
ascertain its location on the left thigh?

Dr. SHAW. No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general
location.

Mr. SPECTER. Where was it with respect to a general location then on
the Governor's thigh?

Dr. SHAW. It is on the medial anterior aspect of the thigh.

Mr. DULLES. Nontechnically, what does it mean?

Dr. SHAW. Well, above, slightly above, between, in other words, the
medial aspect would be the aspect toward the middle of the body, but as
far as being how many centimeters or inches it is from the knee and the
groin, I am not absolutely sure.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a pair of trousers which we shall later
identify as being those worn by the Governor. I will, first of all, ask
you if a photograph bearing Commission Exhibit No. 687 is a picture of
those trousers?

Dr. SHAW. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. And what hole, if any did you observe on the trousers and
on the picture of the trousers?

Dr. SHAW. There is a hole in the garment that has been made by some
instrument which has carried away a part of the Governor's garment. In
other words, it is not a tear but is a punched out hole, and this is
approximately 4 centimeters on the inner aspect from the crease of the
trousers.

Mr. DULLES. Can you tell where the knee is there and how far above the
knee approximately?

Dr. SHAW. I can't tell exactly.

Mr. DULLES. I guess you can't tell.

Dr. SHAW. From the crotch I would say it would be slightly, it is a
little hard to tell, slightly more toward the knee than the groin.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that hole in the left leg of the trousers match up to
the wound on the left thigh of the Governor?

Dr. SHAW. To the best of my recollection it does.

Mr. DULLES. Are there any other perforations in these trousers at all,
any other holes?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. DULLES. So that means that whatever made the hole on the front side
did not come through and make a hole anywhere else in the trousers?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct. It had to be a penetrating wound and not a
perforating wound, it didn't go on through.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you turn those trousers over, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. I believe we had already looked at it.

Mr. SPECTER. On the reverse side, and state whether or not this picture
bearing Commission Exhibit No. 688 accurately depicts the reverse side
of the trousers?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; it does.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any hole shown either on the picture or on the
trousers themselves?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, I now show you a body diagram which is marked
"Commission Exhibit No. 689."

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question before you ask that question?

When you first saw Governor Connally in the emergency room was he
dressed or undressed?

Dr. SHAW. His trousers were still on. He had his shorts on, I should
say, Senator Cooper, but his coat, shirt, and trousers had been removed.

Mr. SPECTER. Were his clothes anywhere in the vicinity where you could
have seen them?

Dr. SHAW. No; I never saw them. This is the first time that I saw them.

Mr. SPECTER. That is earlier today when you examined them in this room?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing
which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the
earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted by
a single missile?

Dr. SHAW. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. With reference to that diagram, would you explain the
position that you had earlier thought the Governor to have been in when
he was wounded here?

Dr. SHAW. We felt that the Governor was in an upright sitting position,
and at the time of wounding was turning slightly to the right. This
would bring the three wounds, as we know them, the wound in the chest,
the wound in the wrist, and the wound in the thigh into a line assuming
that the right forearm was held against the lower right chest in front.

The line of inclination of this particular diagram is a little more
sharply downward than is probably correct in view of the inclination of
the ribs of the chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you redraw that line, Dr. Shaw, to conform with what
you believe to be----

Dr. SHAW. The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the
fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile to strip away 10
centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its
line of inclination.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could use that red pencil to make it a
little clearer for us?

Dr. SHAW. I think these would probably work well on this paper. Perhaps
this isn't a tremendous point but it slopes just a little too much.

Mr. SPECTER. You have initialed that to show your incline?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the wound you described on the thigh, Dr.
Shaw, was there any point of exit as to that wound?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one more question there, how deep was the wound
of entry, could you tell at all?

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I
can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time
that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I
have.

Mr. DULLES. We will hear Dr. Gregory later?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; he is scheduled to testify as soon as Dr. Shaw
concludes.

Dr. Shaw, I now show you Commission Exhibit 399 which has heretofore
been identified as being a virtually whole bullet weighing 158 grains.

May I say for the record, that in the depositions which have been taken
in Parkland Hospital, that we have ascertained, and those depositions
are part of the overall record, that is the bullet which came from the
stretcher of Governor Connally.

First, Dr. Shaw, have you had a chance to examine that bullet earlier
today?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; I examined it this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it possible that the bullet which went through the
Governor's chest could have emerged being as fully intact as that
bullet is?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; I believe it is possible because of the fact that the
bullet struck the fifth rib at a very acute angle and struck a portion
of the rib which would not offer a great amount of resistance.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal
flaked off?

Dr. SHAW. I have been told that the one point on the nose of this
bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination.
With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost
literally none of its substance.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have
gone into the Governor's thigh without causing any more damage than
appears on the face of that bullet?

Dr. SHAW. If it was a spent bullet; yes. As far as the bullet is
concerned it could have caused the Governor's thigh wound as a spent
missile.

Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate
on what your thinking is on that issue?

Dr. SHAW. Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr.
Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous
tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that
missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you
correctly, Dr. Gregory?

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this
testimony and----

Dr. GREGORY. I will say yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And indicates in the affirmative. Do you have sufficient
knowledge of the wound of the wrist to render an opinion as to whether
that bullet could have gone through Governor Connally's wrist and
emerged being as much intact as it is?

Dr. SHAW. I do not.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true
in hypothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the
upper portion of the back or lower portion of the neck with a 6.5-mm.
missile passing between the strap muscles of the President's neck,
proceeding through a facia channel striking no bones, not violating
the pleural cavity, and emerging through the anterior third of the
neck, with the missile having been fired from a weapon having a muzzle
velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the muzzle being
approximately 100 to 250 feet from the President's body; that the
missile was a copper jacketed bullet. Would it be possible for that
bullet to have then proceeded approximately 4 or 5 feet and then would
it be possible for it to have struck Governor Connally in the back and
have inflicted the wound which you have described on the posterior
aspect of his chest, and also on the anterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what would your reason be for giving an affirmative
answer to that question, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. SHAW. Because I would feel that a missile with this velocity and
weight striking no more than the soft tissues of the neck would have
adequate velocity and mass to inflict the wound that we found on the
Governor's chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet
identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which
inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile
similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical
question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in
accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission
Exhibit No. 689?

Dr. SHAW. Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck
you mean?

Mr. SPECTER. No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next
question.

Dr. SHAW. All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned,
I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the
examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery
showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that
the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be
more than three grains of metal missing as far as the--I mean in the
wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption
that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet
which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that
is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.

Dr. SHAW. I see.

Mr. SPECTER. Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have
described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted all of the
wounds on the Governor?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet
are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone
through the President in the way that I have described and proceed
through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to
whether or not it was bullet 399?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. When you started to comment about it not being possible,
was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?

Dr. SHAW. I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as
Exhibit 399.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have
inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at
this point to the wound of the President's neck?

Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all
of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing
more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of
the bullet.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, have you had an opportunity today here in the
Commission building to view the movies which we referred to as the
Zapruder movies and the slides taken from these movies?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if any, light did those movies shed on your
evaluation and opinions on this matter with respect to the wounds of
the Governor?

Dr. SHAW. Well, my main interest was to try to place the time that the
Governor was struck by the bullet which inflicted the wound on his
chest in reference to the sequence of the three shots, as has been
described to us.

(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

This meant trying to carefully examine the position of the Governor's
body in the car so that it would fall in line with what we knew the
trajectory must be for this bullet coming from the point where it has
been indicated it did come from. And in trying to place this actual
frame that these frames are numbered when the Governor was hit, my
opinion was that it was frame number, let's see, I think it was No. 36.

Mr. SPECTER. 236?

Dr. SHAW. 236, give or take 1 or 2 frames. It was right in 35, 36, 37,
perhaps.

Mr. SPECTER. I have heretofore asked you questions about what
possibly could have happened in terms of the various combinations of
possibilities on missiles striking the Governor in relationship to
striking the President as well. Do you have any opinion as to what, in
fact, did happen?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. From the pictures, from the conversation with Governor
Connally and Mrs. Connally, it seems that the first bullet hit the
President in the shoulder and perforated the neck, but this was not the
bullet that Governor Connally feels hit him; and in the sequence of
films I think it is hard to say that the first bullet hit both of these
men almost simultaneously.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that view based on the information which Governor
Connally provided to you?

Dr. SHAW. Largely.

Mr. SPECTER. As opposed to any objectively determinable facts from the
bullets, the situs of the wounds or your viewing of the pictures?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. I was influenced a great deal by what Governor Connally
knew about his movements in the car at this particular time.

Mr. DULLES. You have indicated a certain angle of declination on this
chart here which the Chief Justice has.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know enough about the angle of declination of the
bullet that hit the President to judge at all whether these two angles
of declination are consistent?

Dr. SHAW. We know that the angle of declination was a downward one from
back to front so that I think this is consistent with the angle of
declination of the wound that the Governor sustained.

Senator COOPER. Are you speaking of the angle of declination in the
President's body?

Dr. SHAW. Of the first wound?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Dr. SHAW. First wound.

Mr. SPECTER. What you have actually seen from pictures to show the
angle of declination?

Dr. SHAW. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. In the wounds in the President's body?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; that is right. I did not examine the President.

Mr. DULLES. And that angle taking into account say the 4 feet
difference between where the President was sitting and where the
Governor was sitting, would be consistent with the point of entry of
the Governor's body as you have shown it?

Dr. SHAW. The jump seat in the car, as we could see, placed the
Governor sitting at a lower level than the President, and I think
conceivably these two wounds could have been caused by the same bullet.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything else to add, Dr. Shaw, which you
think would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Dr. SHAW. I don't believe so Mr. Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission then I would like to move
into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 679 and 680, and then reserve
Nos. 681 and 682 until we get the photographs of the X-rays and I now
move for admission into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 683 through
689.

Senator COOPER. They have all been identified, have they?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; during the course of Dr. Shaw's testimony.

Senator COOPER. It is ordered then that these exhibits be received in
the record.

(The documents referred to, previously identified as Commission
Exhibits Nos. 679, 680, and 683-689 for identification were received in
evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Just one or two questions. It is perfectly clear, Doctor,
that the wound, the lethal wound on the President did not--the bullet
that caused the lethal wound on the President, did not cause any wounds
on Governor Connally, in your opinion?

Dr. SHAW. Mr. McCloy, I couldn't say that from my knowledge.

Mr. McCLOY. We are talking about the, following up what Mr. Dulles
said about the angle of declination, the wound that came through the
President's collar, you said was consistent between the same bullet. I
just wondered whether under all the circumstances that you know about
the President's head wound on the top that would also be consistent
with a wound in Governor Connally's body?

Dr. SHAW. On the chest, yes; I am not so sure about the wrist. I can't
quite place where his wrist was at the time his chest was struck.

Mr. McCLOY. Now perhaps this is Dr. Gregory's testimony, that is the
full description of the wrist wound, that would be his rather than your
testimony?

Dr. SHAW. I think he could throw just as much light on it as I could.
And more in certain aspects.

Mr. McCLOY. It did hit bone?

Dr. SHAW. Obviously.

Mr. McCLOY. And there must have been a considerable diminution in the
velocity of the bullet after penetrating through the wrist?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. The wound inflicted on it, the chest wound on Governor
Connally, if you move that an inch or two, 1 inch or the other, could
that have been lethal, go through an area that could easily have been
lethal?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; of course, if it had been moved more medially it could
have struck the heart and the great vessels.

Mr. McCLOY. Let me ask you this, Doctor, in your experience with
gunshot wounds, is it possible for a man to be hit sometime before he
realizes it?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. There can be a delay in the sensory reaction.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes; so that a man can think as of a given instant he was
not hit, and when actually he could have been hit.

Dr. SHAW. There can be an extending sensation and then just a gradual
building up of a feeling of severe injury.

Mr. McCLOY. But there could be a delay in any appreciable reaction
between the time of the impact of the bullet and the occurrence?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; but in the case of a wound which strikes a bony
substance such as a rib, usually the reaction is quite prompt.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Now, you have indicated, I think, that this bullet traveled
along, hit and traveled along the path of the rib, is that right?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet
could not have hit the rib at all but it might have been the expanding
flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you
would call it on the rib itself?

Dr. SHAW. I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the
rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without
doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it.

Mr. McCLOY. Was--up until you gave him the anesthetic--the Governor was
fully conscious, was he?

Dr. SHAW. I would not say fully, but he was responsive. He would answer
questions.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions of the doctor.

Mr. DULLES. There were no questions put to him that were significant as
far as our testimony is concerned?

Dr. SHAW. No; we really don't have to question him much. Our problem
was pretty clearcut, and he told us it hurt and that was about his only
response as far as----

Senator COOPER. Could I ask you a question, doctor?

I think you said from the time you came into the emergency room and the
time you went to the operating room was about 5 minutes?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; it was just the time that it took to ask a few simple
questions, what has been done so far, and has the operating room been
alerted, and then I went out and talked to Mrs. Connally, just very
briefly, I told her what the problem was in respect to the Governor and
what we were going to have to do about it and she said to go ahead with
anything that was necessary. So this couldn't have taken more than 5
minutes or so.

Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything or did anyone say anything there about
the circumstances of the shooting?

Dr. SHAW. Not at that time.

Mr. DULLES. Either of Governor Connally or the President?

Dr. SHAW. Not at that time. All of our conversation was later.

Mr. DULLES. Was the President in the same room?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. DULLES. Did you see him?

Dr. SHAW. I only saw his shoes and his feet. He was in the room
immediately opposite. As I came into the hallway, I could recognize
that the President was on it, in the room to my right. I knew that my
problem was concerned with Governor Connally, and I turned and went
into the room where I saw that he was.

Mr. DULLES. Did you hear at that time or have any knowledge, of a
bullet which had been found on the stretcher?

Dr. SHAW. No; this was later knowledge.

Mr. DULLES. When did you first hear that?

(At this point Senator Russell entered the hearing room.)

Dr. SHAW. This information was first given to me by a man from the
Secret Service who interviewed me in my office several weeks later. It
is the first time I knew about any bullet being recovered.

Senator COOPER. I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony
you have had wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the
chest.

What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would
this experience--you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by
bullets--have provided you knowledge also about the characteristics of
missiles, particularly bullets of this type?

Dr. SHAW. No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics
is just that of an average layman, no more. Perhaps a little more since
I have seen deformed bullets from wounds, but I haven't gone into that
aspect of wounds.

Senator COOPER. In the answers to the hypothetical questions that were
addressed to you, based upon the only actual knowledge which you could
base that answer, was the fact that you had performed the operation on
the wound caused in the chest, on the wound in the chest?

Dr. SHAW. That is true. I have seen many bullets that have passed
through bodies or have penetrated bodies and have struck bone and I
know manners from which they are deformed but I know very little about
the caliber of bullets, the velocity of bullets, many things that other
people have much more knowledge of than I have.

Senator COOPER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Shaw.


TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY

Senator COOPER. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are going to
give to this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. GREGORY. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. GREGORY. Doctor Charles Francis Gregory.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession, sir?

Dr. GREGORY. I am a physician and surgeon.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline your educational background briefly,
please?

Dr. GREGORY. I received a bachelor of science degree from the
University of Indiana in 1941, and an M.D. degree in medicine from the
Indiana University School of Medicine in 1944.

Following 1-year internship and a tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, I
undertook 5 years of postgraduate training in orthopedic surgery at
Indiana University Medical Center.

Upon completing that training I became a member of the faculty at
Indiana University Medical School, and remained so until November of
1952, when I reentered the U.S. Navy for another 20 months.

In 1956 I was appointed professor and then chairman of the Division
of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
School, where I presently am.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you certificated by the American Board of Orthopedic
Surgery?

Dr. GREGORY. I am, in 1953.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience, if any, have you had with bullet wounds,
Doctor?

Dr. GREGORY. Beyond the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the
main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School, my experience
has covered a tour of duty in the Navy during World War II, and a
considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of
the 1st Marine Corps Division.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the total number of
bullet wounds you have had an opportunity to observe and treat?

Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that I have dealt directly with
approximately 500 such wounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you a licensed doctor in the State of Texas at the
present time?

Dr. GREGORY. I am.

Mr. SPECTER. What were your duties in a general way back on November
22, 1963, with Parkland Hospital?

Dr. GREGORY. On that date, November 22, 1963, I was seeing patients in
the health service of the adjacent medical school building when about
noon I was advised that the President of the United States had been
admitted to Parkland Hospital due to gunshot injuries.

I went immediately to the emergency room area of the Parkland Hospital,
and upon gaining admission to the emergency room, I encountered the
hospital superintendent.

I inquired of him then as to whether or not the President had injuries
which might require my attention and he indicated that they were not of
that nature.

I, therefore, took a number of unnecessary onlookers like myself from
the emergency area in order to reduce the confusion, and I went to the
fifth floor of the hospital, which is the orthopedic ward.

And after attending a number of patients there, I prepared to leave the
hospital, but stopped by the surgical suite on my way out, to check and
see if any need for my services might have come up, and encountered
there Dr. Shaw who indicated to me that Governor Connally had also been
injured, and that these included injuries to his extremities for which
I would be retained.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Dr. Shaw then call upon you to perform operative aid
for Governor Connally?

Dr. GREGORY. He did.

Mr. SPECTER. And when did you first see Governor Connally then?

Dr. GREGORY. I first saw Governor Connally after Dr. Shaw had prepared
him and draped him for the surgical procedures which he carried out on
the Governor's chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you have any opportunity to observe the wound on
the Governor's chest?

Dr. GREGORY. I could see the wounds on the Governor's chest, but I
could see them only through the apertures available in the surgical
drapes, and therefore I had difficulty orienting the exact positions of
the wounds, except for the wound identified as the wound of exit which
could be related to the nipple in the right chest which was exposed.

Mr. SPECTER. Now what did you observe with respect to the wound on the
Governor's wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I did not have an opportunity to examine the wound on the
Governor's wrist until Dr. Shaw had completed his surgical treatment of
the Governor's chest wound.

At that time he was turned to his back and it was possible to examine
both the right upper extremity and the left lower extremity for wounds
of the wrist and left thigh respectively.

The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by
assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is
the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
centimeters above the wrist joint.

There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in
the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters,
something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal
wrist crease.

Mr. SPECTER. You say that the wound on the dorsal or back side of the
wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance. What factors, if any, led
you to that assumption?

Dr. GREGORY. I assumed it to be a wound of entrance because of the
general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I
can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the
operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent
by the X-rays.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you proceed to tell us, even though it is out of
sequence, what those factors, later determined to be, were which led
you to assume that it was the wound of entrance?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. Assuming that the wrist wound, which included a
shattering fracture of the wrist bone, of the radial bone just above
the wrist, was produced by a missile there were found in the vicinity
of the wound two things which led me to believe that it passed from
the dorsal or back side to the volar. The first of these----

Mr. SPECTER. When you say volar what do you mean by that?

Dr. GREGORY. The palm side.

Mr. SPECTER. Proceed.

Dr. GREGORY. The first of these was evidence of clothing, bits of
thread and cloth, apparently from a dark suit or something of that sort
which had been carried into the wound, from the skin into the region of
the bone.

The second of these were two or three small fragments of metal which
presumably were shed by the missile after their encounter with the firm
substance which is bone.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the bits of cloth which you describe, have you had
an opportunity earlier today to examine a coat, heretofore identified
and marked by a picture bearing Commission Exhibit No. 683, which we
will have later testimony on as being Governor Connally's coat?

Dr. GREGORY. I have.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, did your examination disclose with
respect to the wound of the right wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Well, the right sleeve of the coat has a tear in it close
to the margin at a point which is, I think, commensurate with the
location of the dorsal surface, the back side of the wrist, forearm
where the two may have been superimposed and both damaged by the same
penetrating body.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the nature of the material of the suit coat the same as
that which you found in the wound of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. It is. As a matter of fact, at the time that the wound was
treated, and the cloth was found, the speculation was made as to the
kind of--the color of the suit the Governor was wearing and moreover
the thread was almost identifiable as mohair or raw silk or something
of that nature and entirely consistent with this fabric.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the color, which you speculated about, the same as
which you see in this jacket?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; it was my impression it was black or either dark blue.

Mr. SPECTER. You say there was something in the X-ray work which led
you to further conclude that that was the wound of entrance?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you proceed now to show the Commission those X-rays,
please?

Dr. GREGORY. This is an X-ray made in the lateral view of the
Governor's wrist at the time he was brought to the hospital prior to
any surgical intervention.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the first X-ray, Dr. Gregory, would you identify the
date when it was taken?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; this film was made on November 22, 1963, as indicated
by a pencil marking on that film, and it further bears the assigned
X-ray number of 219-992, which was that of the patient, Governor John
Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission we shall reserve number 690
and 691 for later identification of those photographs and X-rays.

Senator COOPER. So ordered.

Dr. GREGORY. If you will notice in addition to the apparent fracture of
this, the radial bone here.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you now describing a second X-ray?

Dr. GREGORY. No; these are two taken at right angle of the Governor's
wrist prior to attention. These are diagnostic film, one made with the
hand palm down and one with the hand turned 90°.

Mr. SPECTER. Do they bear identical numbers then?

Dr. GREGORY. They do.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any mark on them at the present time which
distinguishes them by way of marking or number?

Dr. GREGORY. Other than the pencil markings on each of these two films
and my own which I attached last evening for convenience.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you mark one of them as "A" and one as "B," so that
when you describe them here we will know which you are referring to?

Dr. GREGORY. Very well. Let the record show that "A" stands for the
anteroposterior view, Exhibit No. 691, and "B" stands for the lateral
view, Exhibit No. 690, of the right wrist and forearm. "A" then
demonstrates a comminuted fracture of the wrist with three fragments.

Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by comminuted?

Dr. GREGORY. Comminuted refers to shattering, to break into more than
two pieces, specifically many pieces, and if I may, I can point out
there is a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment here, a fragment
here, and there are several smaller fragments lying in the center of
these three larger ones.

Mr. SPECTER. How many fragments are there in total, sir, in your
opinion?

Dr. GREGORY. I would judge from this view that counting each isolated
fragment there are fully seven or eight, and experience has taught that
when these things are dismantled directly under direct vision that
there very obviously may be more than that.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you continue to describe what that X-ray shows with
respect to metallic fragments, if any?

Dr. GREGORY. Three shadows are identified as representing metallic
fragments. There are other light shadows in this film which are
identified or interpreted as being artifacts.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the basis of distinction between that which is an
artifact and that which is a real shadow of the metallic substance?

Dr. GREGORY. A real shadow of metallic substance persist and be seen in
other views, other X-ray copies, whereas artifacts which are produced
by irregularities either in the film or film carrier will vary from one
X-ray to another.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it your view that these other X-ray films led you to
believe that those are, in fact, metallic substances?

Dr. GREGORY. As a matter of fact, it is the mate to this very film,
the lateral view marked "B", which shows the same three fragments in
essentially the same relationship to the various levels of the forearm
that leads me to believe that these do, in fact, represent metallic
fragments.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as specifically as you can what those
metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?

Dr. GREGORY. I would identify these fragments as varying from
five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately 2 millimeters
in diameter, and each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in
thickness. They would represent in lay terms flakes, flakes of metal.

Mr. SPECTER. What would your estimate be as to their weight in total?

Dr. GREGORY. I would estimate that they would be weighed in micrograms
which is very small amount of weight. I don't know how to reduce it to
ordinary equivalents for you.

It is the kind of weighing that requires a microadjustable scale, which
means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all the metallic substances which
you observed either visually or through the X-rays in the Governor's
wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. These are the three metallic substance items which I saw.

Now if I may use these to indicate why I view the path as being from
dorsal to volar, from the back of the wrist to the palm side, these
have been shed on the volar side suggesting that contact with this bone
resulted in there being flaked off, as the remainder of the missile
emerged from the volar side leaving the small flakes behind.

Mr. SPECTER. Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining
the point of entry and the point of exit?

Dr. GREGORY. There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral
view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft
tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is
evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway
was something like this.

Mr. SPECTER. And when you say indications of air on which side did you
mean by "this side," Doctor?

Dr. GREGORY. Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence
of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different
levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in
this fashion.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this
fashion," indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which
suggest that conclusion to you?

Dr. GREGORY. Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance,
certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist
joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the
wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an
oblique one.

Mr. DULLES. Would you show that on your own wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. We have to explain this a little for the record but I think
it would be very useful.

Dr. GREGORY. I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing
a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.

But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand,
of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the
wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve
held at a casual position.

Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist,
which are in the same position as that which you have described
heretofore in technical language.

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator
from the air levels which you had mentioned before?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal
surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower
portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of
the emergence.

Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to the other factors indicating point
of entry and point of exit, Dr. Gregory, I call your attention to
Commission Exhibit No. 399, which is a bullet and ask you first if you
have had an opportunity to examine that earlier today?

Dr. GREGORY. I have.

Mr. SPECTER. What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that
bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and
remained as intact as it is at the present time?

Dr. GREGORY. In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been
either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile.

(At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.)

I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only
other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the
point where it joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume,
and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some
irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent
lead.

The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in
my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not
inconsistent with one of the characteristics known for missiles which
is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a
linear motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion
which is a spinning motion having to do with maintaining the integrity
of the initial linear direction, but if they strike an object they
may be caused to turn in their path and tumble end over, and if they
do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the
strike time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air
upon emergence, tumble into another target backward. That is the only
possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this
particular wound.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there sufficient metallic substance missing from the
back or rear end of that bullet to account for the metallic substance
which you have described in the Governor's wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. It is possible but I don't know enough about the structure
of bullets or this one in particular, to know what is a normal
complement of lead or for this particular missile. It is irregular, but
how much it may have lost, I have no idea.

Mr. DULLES. Would the nature of the entry wound give you any indication
as to whether it entered backward or whether it entered forward?

Dr. GREGORY. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound
of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as
the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things.
The size of the wound of entrance, and the fact that it is irregular
surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads,
and carry them into the wound with it.

Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of
my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such
loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which
I have examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I
think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of
fabric lost, and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we
recovered them.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the back of that bullet characteristic of an irregular
missile so as to cause the wound in the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I would say that the back of this being flat and having
sharp edges is irregular, and would possibly tend to tear tissues more
than does an inclined plane such as this.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the back of the missile be sufficiently irregular to
have caused the wound of the right wrist, in your opinion?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it could have; yes. It is possible.

Mr. SPECTER. Would it be consistent with your observations of the wrist
for that missile to have penetrated and gone through the right wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. It is possible; yes. It appears to me since the wound of
exit was a small laceration, that much of the energy of the missile
that struck the Governor's wrist was expended in breaking the bone
reducing its velocity sufficient so that while it could make an
emergence through the underlying soft tissues on his wrist, it did not
do great damage to them.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any indication from the extent of the damage
to the wrist whether the bullet was pristine, that is: was the wrist
struck first in flight or whether there had been some reduction in the
velocity of the missile prior to striking the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I would offer this opinion about a high velocity rifle
bullet striking a forearm.

Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to inject factors which we have not put on the
record although it has been brought to your attention previously:
Assume this is a 6.5-millimeter missile which was shot from a rifle
having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with
a distance of approximately 160 to 200 feet between the weapon and the
victim; and answer the prior question, if you would, Dr. Gregory, with
those factors in mind?

Dr. GREGORY. I would fully expect the first object struck by that
missile to be very badly damaged, and especially if it were a rigid
bone such as the wrist bone is, to literally blow it apart. I have had
some experience with rifle wound injuries of the forearm produced by
this type of missile, and the last two which I attended myself have
culminated in amputation of the limb because of the extensive damage
produced by the missile as it passed through the arm.

Considerably more than was evidenced in the Governor's case either by
examination of the limb itself or an examination of these X-rays.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to the experience you had which you experienced
which resulted in amputations, what was the range between the weapon
and the victim's limb, if you know?

Dr. GREGORY. The range in those two instances, I concede was
considerably shorter but I cannot give you the specific range. By short
I mean perhaps no more than 15 or 20 yards at the most.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the difference between the 15 or 20 yards and the
160 to 250 feet make any difference in your opinion, though, as to the
damage which would be inflicted on the wrist had that bullet struck it
as the first point of impact?

Dr. GREGORY. No, sir; I don't think it would have made that much
difference.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know what the color was of the fragments in the
wrist of the Governor, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. GREGORY. As I recall them they were lead colored, silvery, of that
color. I did not recall them as being either brass or copper.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other X-rays of the Governor's wrist which
would aid the Commission in its understanding of the injuries to the
wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Only to indicate that there were two fragments of metal
retrieved in the course of dealing with this wound surgically.

For the subsequent X-rays of the same area, after the initial surgery
indicate that those fragments are no longer there.

And as I stated, I thought I had retrieved two of them. The major one
or ones now being missing. The small one related to the bone or most
closely related to the bone, and I will put back up here----

Mr. SPECTER. On the new X-rays which you put up, would you identify
them first by indicating the date the X-ray was taken?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; the date of the X-ray is the same, November 22,
1963, and they may be identified as Exhibit "C" anteroposterior view
postoperative, which is this one.

Mr. SPECTER. Did they bear the same numbers, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. GREGORY. They will bear the same numbers; yes.

Mr. DULLES. I think you had better get them marked.

We haven't got them marked yet "A," "B," and "C."

Representative BOGGS. Postoperative, these are after the operation?

Dr. GREGORY. These two. This one was made before the wound was dealt
with.

Mr. SPECTER. Which one?

Dr. GREGORY. "A" is the one made before the wound was dealt with
surgically.

Senator COOPER. Could you mark it 4 "A," "B," "C," and "D," Doctor?

Mr. McCLOY. Is that "B," we have had another "B" here, you know?

Dr. GREGORY. This is "C." "A" and "C" are comparable X-rays, one made
before and one made after the operation was carried out.

Before the operation, you will note a large fragment of metal
visible here, not visible in this one. You will also note a small
satellite fragment not visible here. A second piece of metal visible
preoperatively is still present postoperatively.

No effort incidentally is made to dissect for these fragments. They
are small, they are proverbial needles in hay stacks, and we know from
experience that small flakes of metal of this kind do not ordinarily
produce difficulty in the future, but that the extensive dissection
required to find them may produce such consequences and so we choose
to leave them inside unless we chance upon them, and on this occasion,
those bits of metal recovered were simply found by chance in the course
of removing necrotized material.

Other than that the X-rays have nothing more to offer so far as the
wrist is concerned.

Mr. SPECTER. May we then reserve 692 for "C" and 693 for "D"?

Dr. GREGORY. I will put the other marks on these.

Senator COOPER. So ordered.

Dr. GREGORY. For your convenience.

Mr. DULLES. Was the wound of exit in the wrist also jagged like the
wound of entry or was there, what differences were there between the
wound of entry and the wound of exit?

Dr. GREGORY. The wound of exit was disposed transversely across the
wrist exactly as I have it marked here. It was in the nature of a small
laceration, perhaps a centimeter and a half in length, about a half an
inch long, and it lay in the skin creases so that as you examined the
wrist casually it was a very innocent looking thing indeed, and it was
not until it was probed that its true nature in connection with the
remainder of the wound was evident.

Senator RUSSELL. When did you first see this bullet, Doctor, the one
you have just described in your testimony?

Dr. GREGORY. This bullet?

Senator RUSSELL. Yes.

Dr. GREGORY. This morning, sir.

Senator RUSSELL. You had never seen it until this morning?

Dr. GREGORY. I had never seen it before this time.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds
on the back and front side of the wrist itself?

Dr. GREGORY. As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far
as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a half a
centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather
linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some
tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.

Mr. SPECTER. How about on the volar or front side of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. The volar surface or palmar surface had a wound disclosed
transversely about a half centimeter in length and about 2 centimeters
above the flexion crease to the wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. Then the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist was
a little larger than the wound on the volar or palm side of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; it was.

Mr. SPECTER. And is that characteristic in terms of entry and exit
wounds?

Dr. GREGORY. It is not at all characteristic of the entry wound of a
pristine missile which tends to make a small wound of entrance and
larger wound of exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it, however, characteristic of a missile which has had
its velocity substantially decreased?

Dr. GREGORY. I don't think that the exchange in the velocity will alter
the nature of the wound of entrance or exit excepting that if the
velocity is low enough the missile may simply manage to emerge or may
not emerge at all on the far side of the limb which has been struck.

Mr. DULLES. Would this be consistent with a tumbling bullet or a bullet
that had already tumbled and therefore entered back side too?

Dr. GREGORY. The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an
irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped
itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?

Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way
angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It
is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The
irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material
and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in
my opinion.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics on the
Governor's wrist which indicate either the point of entry or the point
of exit?

Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of
pertinence but I don't know how effectively it can be applied to the
nature of the missile. That is the fact that dorsal branch of the
radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially
transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was
totally transected.

This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary
fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with
an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure
rather than push it aside.

Mr. SPECTER. Would that then also indicate the wound of entrance where
that striking took place?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe it is more in keeping with it, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the thigh wound, what, if anything, did you observe
as to a wound on the thigh, Dr. Gregory?

Dr. GREGORY. I was apprised that the Governor had a wound of the thigh,
and I did examine it immediately the limb was available for it after
Dr. Shaw had completed the surgery.

The wound was located on the inner aspect of the thigh, a little to
the front surface about a third of the way up from the knee. The wound
appeared to me to be rounded, almost a puncture type of wound in
dimension about equal to a pencil eraser, about 6 mm.

I suspected that there might be a missile buried here and so an X-ray
was obtained of that limb, and----

Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the X-ray with you?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. On what date was that X-ray taken?

Dr. GREGORY. This X-ray is marked as having been taken on November 22,
1963. It indicates that it was made of the left thigh, and it belongs
to John Connally, John G. Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. That says "G" instead of "C"?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. It appears to me to be a "G." The number again is
219-922.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that the same number as the other X-rays bear?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe it is, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. May we reserve then Commission Exhibit No. 694 for that
X-ray?

Senator COOPER. It may be so done.

Dr. GREGORY. There are a series of these films. Would you like them
marked subsequently "E", "F," and "G"?

Mr. SPECTER. Insofar as you feel they are helpful in characterizing the
wounds, do mark them in that way.

Dr. GREGORY. All right.

This I understand is Exhibit E, then and it is a single X-ray made on
the anterior posterial view of Mr. Connally's thigh. The only thing
found is a very small fleck of metal marked with an arrow here. It is
that small, and almost likely to be overlooked. This was not consonant
with the kind of wound on the medial aspect of his thigh.

Our next natural assumption was that that missile having escaped from
the thigh had escaped the confines of this X-ray and lay somewhere
else. So that additional X-rays were made of the same date and I
submit two additional X-rays identified again as belonging to John G.
Connally, the left lower extremity, November 22, 1963, and these two
are numbered 218-922, and they are an anterial posterior view which I
will mark "F," and a lateral view which I will mark "G."

Mr. SPECTER. May we reserve 695 for "F," and 696 for "G"?

Senator COOPER. So ordered.

Dr. GREGORY. Careful examination of this set of X-rays illustrated
or demonstrates, I should say, a number of artificial lines, this is
one and there is one. These lines I think represent rather hurried
development of these films for they were taken under emergency
conditions. They were intended simply to let us know if there was
another missile in the Governor's limb where it might be located.

The only missile turned up is the same one seen in the original film
which lies directly opposite the area indicated as the site of the
missile wound or the wound in the thigh, but a fragment of metal,
again microscopic measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by 2
millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half inch on the
medial aspect of the thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic
fragment?

Dr. GREGORY. This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight
thereabouts, not much more than that.

Mr. SPECTER. Could that fragment, in your opinion, have caused the
wound which you observed in the Governor's left thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. I do not believe it could have. The nature of the wound in
the left thigh was such that so small a fragment as this would not have
produced it and still have gone no further into the soft tissues than
it did.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the wound that you observed in the soft tissue of
the left thigh be consistent with having been made by a bullet such as
that identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Dr. GREGORY. I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well
have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its
lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have
penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged
and was found in the clothing.

I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a
missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds,
and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them,
and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other
areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found,
rather.

Mr. SPECTER. Had the missile gone through his wrist in reverse, would
it likely have continued in that same course until it reached his
thigh, in your opinion?

Dr. GREGORY. The missile that struck his wrist had sufficient energy
left after it passed through the radius to emerge from the soft tissues
on the under surface of the skin. It could have had enough to partially
enter his thigh, but not completely.

Mr. SPECTER. In the way which his thigh was wounded?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe so; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you do, Dr. Gregory, with the missile fragments
which you removed from his wrists?

Dr. GREGORY. Those were turned over to the operating room nurse in
attendance with instructions that they should be presented to the
appropriate authorities present, probably a member of the Texas
Rangers, but that is as far as I went with it myself.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a part of a document heretofore identified
as Commission Exhibit 392, a two-page report which bears your name on
the second page, and I ask you if this is the report you made of the
operation on Governor Connally?

Dr. GREGORY. It appears to be the same; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct?

Dr. GREGORY. In essence they are true and correct; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, does that report show the name of the nurse
to whom you turned over the metallic fragments?

Dr. GREGORY. There are two nurses who are identified on this page. One
is the scrub nurse, Miss Rutherford, and the second is the circulating
nurse, Mrs. Schrader.

Mr. SPECTER. And is one or the other the nurse to whom you turned over
the metallic fragments?

Dr. GREGORY. I do not remember precisely to whom I handed them. I do
not know.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No.
679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back,
and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the
place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.

Dr. GREGORY. They do not in that, though the location of the wounds
on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that
entrance and exit terms have been reversed.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you delete the inaccurate statement and insert the
accurate statement with your initials by the side of the changes,
please?

Will you now describe the operative procedures----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question that relates, I think, to your
question. Assuming that the wrist wound and the thigh wound were caused
by the same bullet, would you agree that the approximate trajectory is
as indicated in this chart where Dr. Shaw has drawn a trajectory that
he assumed taking into account three bullets instead of two? I am only
asking you about the two wounds, namely the wrist and the thigh.

Dr. GREGORY. It would strike me, sir, that the trajectory to the wrist
and the subsequent wound of the thigh could be lined up easily in a
sitting position.

Now, those two could probably be lined up with a trajectory of the
wound in the chest as well, but this would require a more precise
positioning of the individual.

Mr. DULLES. But do you agree in general, taking the two wounds with
which you are particularly familiar, that that would have been the
trajectory as between the wrist and the thigh as drawn on that chart?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes, essentially so; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. For the record, how was that chart identified. Doctor?

Dr. GREGORY. This is identified as Commission Exhibit 689.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline briefly the operative procedures which
you performed on the Governor, please?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. The wound on the dorsum of the Governor's wrist
was treated by debridement, which means to remove by sharp surgical
excision all contaminated tissues and those which are presumed to
have been rendered nonviable by force. This meant removing a certain
amount of skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat, and all of the particles of
clothing, threads of cloth, which we could identify; and, incidentally,
a bit of metal or two.

That wound was subsequently left open; in other words, we did not
suture it or sew it together. This is done in deference to potential
infection which we know often to be associated with retained organic
material such as cloth.

The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was
enlarged. The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the
condition of the major nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so
these nerves were identified and explored and found to be intact, as
were adjacent tendons. So that that wound was then sutured, closed.

After this, the fracture was manipulated into a hopefully respectable
position of the fragments, and a cast was applied, and some traction,
using rubber bands, was applied to the finger and the thumb in order
to better hold the fracture fragments in their reduced or repositioned
state.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, could all of the rounds which were inflicted
on the Governor, that is, those described by Dr. Shaw, and those which
you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from
one missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from
a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per
second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a
trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a
single missile under these specifications.

Mr. SPECTER. Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical
circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same
muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165
feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the
back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through
a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and
emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the
trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's
back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been
described here today?

Dr. GREGORY. I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I
believe firmly that the probability is much diminished.

Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say that, sir?

Dr. GREGORY. I think that to pass through the soft tissues of the
President would certainly have decelerated the missile to some extent.
Having then struck the Governor and shattered a rib, it is further
decelerated, yet it has presumably retained sufficient energy to smash
a radius.

Moreover, it escaped the forearm to penetrate at least the skin and
fascia of the thigh, and I am not persuaded that this is very probable.
I would have to yield to possibility. I am sure that those who deal
with ballistics can do better for you than I can in this regard.

Mr. SPECTER. What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a
bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through
the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of
the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the
thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. I think that is a much more plausible possibility or
probability.

Mr. SPECTER. How about the likelihood of passing through the President
and through the Governor's chest, but missing his wrist and passing
into his thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. That, too, is plausible, I believe.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other circumstances of this event which have
been related to you, including the striking of the President's head by
a third bullet, which would account in any way, under any possibility,
in your view, for the fracture of the right wrist which was apparently
caused by a missile?

Dr. GREGORY. May I refer to this morning's discussions?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please do.

Dr. GREGORY. This morning I was shown two additional missiles or
portions of missiles which are rather grossly distorted.

Mr. SPECTER. Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask
if those are the missiles which have heretofore been identified as
Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570.

Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a
jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.

These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned
earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to
create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could
conceivably have produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his
wrist.

Mr. DULLES. In his wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?

Dr. GREGORY. I don't know about that, sir. It is possible. But the
rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to
believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an
intact missile.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an exhibit heretofore identified as
Commission Exhibit 388, which depicts the artist's drawing of the
passage of a bullet through the President's head, and I ask you, first
of all, if you have had an opportunity to observe that prior to this
moment?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. I saw this illustration this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, if you assume that the trajectory through the
President's head was represented by the path of a 6.5-mm. bullet which
fragmented upon striking the skull, both the rear and again the top, is
it possible that a fragment coming at the rate of 2,000 feet per second
from the distance of approximately 160 to 230 feet, could have produced
a fragment which then proceeded to strike the Governor's wrist and
inflict the damage which you have heretofore described?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it is plausible that the bullet, having struck
the President's head, may have broken into more than one fragment. I
think you apprised me of the fact that it did, in fact, disperse into
a number of fragments, and they took tangential directions from the
original path apparently.

Mr. SPECTER. Assuming the fact that the autopsy surgeon presented
for the record a statement that the fragments moved forward into the
vicinity of the President's right eye, as the diagram shows, that there
were approximately 40 star-like fragments running on a line through the
head on the trajectory, and that there was substantial fragmentation of
the bullet as it passed through the head, what is your view about that?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it is possible that a fragment from that
particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right arm.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to observe the slides and
films commonly referred to as the Zapruder film this morning?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I saw those this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Did they shed any light on the conclusions--as to your
conclusions with respect to the wounds of the Governor and what you
observed in the treatment of the Governor?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes, to this extent. It seemed to me in frames marked 234,
235, and 236, Governor Connally was in a position such that a single
missile entered his back, could have passed through his chest, through
his right forearm, and struck his thigh. That is a possibility.

I looked at the film very carefully to see if I could relate the
position of Governor Connally's right arm to the movement when the
missile struck the President's head, presumably the third missile, and
I think that the record will show that those are obscured to a degree
that the Governor's right arm cannot be seen. In the Governor's own
words, he did not realize his right arm had been injured, and he has no
idea when it was struck. This is historical fact to us at the time of
the initial interview with him.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one question? If a bullet had merely
struck the Governor's arm without previously having struck anything
else, is it conceivable that impediment of the bone that it hit there
would be consistent with merely a flesh wound on the thigh? Do you
follow me?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I follow you. I would doubt it on the basis of the
kind of wound that the Governor has. Now the kind of wound in the
Governor's right forearm is the kind that indicates there was not an
excessive amount of energy expended there, which means either that the
missile producing it had dissipated much of its energy, either that or
there was an impediment to it someplace else along the way.

It is simply that there was not enough energy loss there, and one would
expect a soft tissue injury beyond that point to be of considerably
greater magnitude.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Gregory, did I take your deposition back on March 23,
1964, at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; you did.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to review that deposition
prior to today?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I have looked it over.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Gregory, that you think
would be helpful to the Commission in any way?

Dr. GREGORY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. DULLES. Are you in agreement with the deposition as given?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. I don't think there are any--there is any need
to change any of the essence of the deposition. There are a few
typographical errors and word changes one might make, but the essence
is essentially as I gave it.

Mr. SPECTER. I have no further questions, sir.

Senator COOPER. I would just ask this question. In your long experience
of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by bullets, have
you acquired, through that, knowledge of ballistics and characteristics
of bullets?

Dr. GREGORY. Within a very limited sphere.

Senator COOPER. I know your testimony indicates that.

Dr. GREGORY. I have been concerned with the behavior of missiles in
contact with tissues, but I am not very knowledgeable about the design
of a missile nor how many grains of powder there are behind it. My
concern was with the dissipation of the energy which it carries and the
havoc that it wreaks when it goes off.

Senator COOPER. You derived that knowledge from your actual study of
wounds and their treatment?

Dr. GREGORY. Study of wounds together with what I have read from the
Army proving grounds, various centers, for exploring this kind of
thing. I don't own a gun myself.

Mr. McCLOY. You are from Texas and you do not own a gun?

Dr. GREGORY. Well, sir, I went from Indiana to Texas. My father gave me
a .410 shotgun, but he took it away from me shortly after he gave it to
me.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you very much.

Dr. GREGORY. Thank you very much, sir, Mr. Chief Justice.

(A short recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, the Commission will come to order, please.


TESTIMONY OF GOV. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

Governor, this Commission has met today for the purpose of taking the
testimony of you and Mrs. Connally concerning the sad affair that you
were part of. If you will raise your right hand, please, and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this
Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Governor CONNALLY. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, Governor. Mr. Specter will conduct the
examination.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?

Governor CONNALLY. John Bowden Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your official position with the State of Texas,
sir?

Governor CONNALLY. I am now Governor of the State of Texas.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to be in the automobile which
carried President John F. Kennedy through Dallas, Tex., back on
November 22, 1963.

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you outline briefly, please, the circumstances
leading up to the President's planning a trip to Texas in November of
last year?

Governor CONNALLY. You want to go back to--how far back do you want to
go, a few days immediately prior to the trip or a month before, or all
of the circumstances surrounding it?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, just a very brief picture leading up to the trip,
Governor, starting with whatever point you think would be most
appropriate to give some outline of the origin of the trip.

Governor CONNALLY. Well, it had been thought that he should come to
Texas for a period of many months, as a matter of fact. There was some
thought given to it during 1962. The trip kept being delayed.

Finally in the fall of 1963 it was decided that he definitely should
come, or should come in the fall of last year as opposed to waiting
until this year, when his appearance might have more political
overtones.

So I came up, I have forgotten the exact date, around the middle of
October and talked to him about it, discussed the details, asked him
what he would like to do.

He said he would like to do whatever he could do that was agreeable
with me; it was agreeable with me that he more or less trust me to
plan the trip for him, to tell him where he would like to go. About
that time some thought was being given to having four fundraising
dinners. His attitude on that was he wouldn't prefer that. He felt
that the appearances would not be too good, that he would much prefer
to have one if we were going to have any. I told him this was entirely
consistent with my own thoughts. We ought not to have more than one
fundraising dinner. If we did, it ought to be in Austin. If we could do
it, I would like for him to see and get into as many areas of the State
as possible while he was there.

He, on his own, had made a commitment to go to the dinner for
Congressman Albert Thomas, which was being given the night of the 21st
in Houston, so shortly, really before he got there, and when I say
shortly I would say 2 weeks before he came, the plans were altered a
little bit in that he landed originally in San Antonio in the afternoon
about 1:30 of the afternoon of the 21st. From there we went to Houston,
attended the Thomas dinner that night at about 8 o'clock.

After that we flew to Fort Worth, spent the night at the Texas Hotel,
had a breakfast there the next morning, and left about 10 o'clock,
10:30, for the flight over to Dallas.

Mr. SPECTER. In what vehicle did you fly from Fort Worth to Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. In Air Force 1.

Mr. SPECTER. And approximately what time did you arrive at Love Field,
Tex.

Governor CONNALLY. I would say about 11:50, 12:00, shortly before noon.
I believe the luncheon was planned for 12:30, and we were running on
schedule. I believe it was 11:50.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe for us briefly the ceremonies at Love
Field on the arrival of the President?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, we, as usual, the President had a receiving
line there. I conducted Mrs. Kennedy through the receiving line and
introduced her to about 15 or 17 people who were there as an official
welcoming committee.

The President came right behind, was introduced to them, and then he
and Mrs. Kennedy both went over to the railing and spoke to a number
of people who were standing around, who visited for 5 or 10 minutes,
and then we got into the car as we had customarily done at each of the
stops, and Mrs. Connally and I got on the jump seats, and with the
President and Mrs. Kennedy on the back seat, and took off for the long
motorcade downtown.

Mr. SPECTER. I will now hand you a photograph which I have marked
"Commission Exhibit 697," Governor Connally, and ask you if that
accurately depicts the occupants of the car as you were starting that
motorcade trip through Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it does.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the identities of the men who are riding in
the front seat of the car?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes. Roy Kellerman is on the right front. He is a
Secret Service agent, and Bill--I can't remember the other's name----

Mr. SPECTER. Greer.

I hand you another photograph here, Governor, marked as "Commission
Exhibit 698," and ask you if that is a picture of the President's
automobile during its ride through the downtown area of Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I assume it is. This is certainly the
President's automobile, and this is the precise position that each of
us occupied in the ride through Dallas. It was the same position, and
could be a photograph, of any number of places that we went. But I was
seated in the jump seat immediately in front of him, and Mrs. Connally
was seated immediately in front of Mrs. Kennedy in the jump seat, and
Roy Kellerman was immediately in front of me.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I move at this time the admission
into evidence of Exhibits 697 and 698?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The items marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 697 and 698 were received in
evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. What was the relative height of the jump seats, Governor,
with respect to the seat of the President and Mrs. Kennedy immediately
to your rear?

Governor CONNALLY. They were somewhat lower. The back seat of that
particular Lincoln limousine, which is a specially designed and built
automobile, as you know, for the President of the United States, has an
adjustable back seat. It can be lowered or raised. I would say the back
seat was approximately 6 inches higher than the jump seats on which
Mrs. Connally and I sat.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know for certain whether or not the movable back
seat was elevated at the time?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I could not be sure of it, although I know
there were--there was a time or two when he did elevate it, and
I think beyond question on most of the ride in San Antonio, Fort
Worth, Houston, and Dallas, it was elevated. For a while--the reason
I know is--I sat on the back seat with him during part of the ride,
particularly in San Antonio, not in Dallas, but in San Antonio. The
wind was blowing, and we were traveling fairly fast, and Mrs. Kennedy
preferred to sit on the jump seat, and I was sitting on the back seat
part of the time, and the seat was elevated, and I think it was on
substantially all the trip.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the portion elevated, that where only the President
sat?

Governor CONNALLY. No; the entire back seat.

Mr. SPECTER. Describe in a general way the size and reaction of the
crowd on the motorcade route, if you would, please, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. When we got into Dallas, there was quite a large
crowd at the airport to greet their President, I would say several
thousand people.

Part way downtown, in the thinly populated areas of Dallas, where
we traveled, the crowds were not thick and were somewhat restrained
in their reaction. By restrained, I mean they were not wildly
enthusiastic, but they were grown people. There was a mature crowd as
we went through some of the residential areas. They applauded and they
were obviously very friendly in their conduct.

But as we, of course, approached downtown, the downtown area of Dallas,
going down the main street, the crowds were tremendous. They were
stacked from the curb and even outside the curb, back against the back
walls. It was a huge crowd. I would estimate there were 250,000 people
that had lined the streets that day as we went down.

The further you went the more enthusiastic the response was, and the
reception. It was a tremendous reception, to the point where just as
we turned on Houston Street off of Main, and turned on Houston, down
by the courthouse, Mrs. Connally remarked to the President, "Well, Mr.
President, you can't say there aren't some people in Dallas who love
you." And the President replied, "That is very obvious," or words to
that effect.

So I would say the reception that he got in Dallas was equal to, if
not more, enthusiastic than those he had received in Fort Worth, San
Antonio, and Houston.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conversations which stand out in your
mind on the portion of the motorcade trip through Dallas itself?

Governor CONNALLY. No; actually we had more or less desultory
conversation as we rode along. The crowds were thick all the way down
on both sides, and all of us were, particularly the President and Mrs.
Kennedy were, acknowledging the crowds. They would turn frequently,
smiling, waving to the people, and the opportunity for conversation
was limited. So there was no particularly significant conversation or
conversations which took place. It was, as I say, pretty desultory
conversation.

Mr. SPECTER. Did the automobile stop at any point during this
procession?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it did. There were at least two occasions on
which the automobile stopped in Dallas and, perhaps, a third. There was
one little girl, I believe it was, who was carrying a sign saying, "Mr.
President, will you please stop and shake hands with me," or some that
was the import of the sign, and he just told the driver to stop, and
he did stop and shook hands, and, of course, he was immediately mobbed
by a bunch of youngsters, and the Secret Service men from the car
following us had to immediately come up and wedge themselves in between
the crowd and the car to keep them back away from the automobile, and
it was a very short stop.

At another point along the route, a Sister, a Catholic nun, was there,
obviously from a Catholic school, with a bunch of little children, and
he stopped and spoke to her and to the children; and I think there was
one other stop on the way downtown, but I don't recall the precise
occasion. But I know there were two, but I think there was still
another one.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other events prior to the time of the
shooting itself which stand out in your mind on the motorcade trip
through Dallas?

Governor CONNALLY. No; not that have any particular significance.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the comment which Mrs. Connally had made to
President Kennedy which you just described, where on the motor trip was
that comment made, if you recall?

Governor CONNALLY. This was just before we turned on Elm Street, after
we turned off of Main.

Mr. SPECTER. Onto Houston?

Governor CONNALLY. Onto Houston, right by the courthouse before we
turned left onto Elm Street, almost at the end of the motorcade, and
almost, I would say, perhaps a minute before the fatal shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the condition of the crowd at that juncture of
the motorcade, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. At that particular juncture, when she made this
remark, the crowd was still very thick and very enthusiastic. It began
to thin immediately after we turned onto Elm Street. We could look
ahead and see that the crowd was beginning to thin along the banks,
just east, I guess of the overpass.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difficulty in hearing such a conversational
comment?

Governor CONNALLY. No, no; we could talk without any, and hear very
clearly, without any difficulty, without any particular strain. We
didn't do it again because in trying to carry on a conversation it
would be apparent to those who were the spectators on the sidewalk,
and we didn't want to leave the impression we were not interested in
them, and so we just didn't carry on a conversation, but we could do so
without any trouble.

Mr. SPECTER. As the automobile turned left onto Elm from Houston, what
did occur there, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe
200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the
freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were
going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and
we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in
approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a
shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot.
I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd,
but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was
interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified
it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my
mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn.
I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little
bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in
the back.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time
span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone
hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of
thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately
thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked
down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed
through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or
more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These
were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity
of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew
I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of
blood, and, in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest,
that I had probably been fatally hit.

So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began
to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She
was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head
in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then,
of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly.
I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed
again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the
President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible,
very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on
the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain
tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my
trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb,
thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either
after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it
was he who was hit and no one else.

I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I
said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled
me over into her lap----

Mr. SPECTER. Nellie is Mrs. Connally?

Governor CONNALLY. Mrs. Connally. When she pulled me over into her lap,
she could tell I was still breathing and moving, and she said, "Don't
worry. Be quiet. You are going to be all right." She just kept telling
me I was going to be all right.

After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, "Bill,
get out of line." And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving
a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said, "Get
us to a hospital quick." I assumed he was saying this to the patrolman,
the motorcycle police who were leading us.

At about that time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of the
line, and I lost consciousness and didn't regain consciousness until we
got to the hospital.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I hand you a photograph, marked
Commission Exhibit 699, which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza
depicting the intersection of Houston and Elm, and ask you if you would
take a look at that photograph and mark for us, if you would, with
one of the red pencils at your right, the position of the President's
automobile as nearly as you can where it was at the time the shooting
first started.

Governor CONNALLY. I would say it would be about where this truck is
here. It looks like a truck. I would say about in that neighborhood.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you place your initials, Governor, by the mark that
you made there?

Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did
you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between
the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore
characterized as the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have
to say a matter of seconds. I don't know. 10, 12 seconds. It was
extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was
firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity
of the shots; a very short period of time.

Mr. SPECTER. What was your impression then as to the source of the shot?

Governor CONNALLY. From back over my right shoulder which, again, was
where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound as
coming back over my right shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. At an elevation?

Governor CONNALLY. At an elevation. I would have guessed at an
elevation.

Mr. SPECTER. Excuse me.

Governor CONNALLY. Well, that is all.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an impression as to the source of the third
shot?

Governor CONNALLY. The same. I would say the same.

Mr. SPECTER. How fast was the President's automobile proceeding at that
time?

Governor CONNALLY. I would guess between 20 and 22 miles an hour, and
it is a guess because I didn't look at the speedometer, but I would say
in that range.

Mr. SPECTER. Did President Kennedy make any statement during the time
of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?

Governor CONNALLY. He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Kennedy state anything at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I have to--I would say it was after the third
shot when she said, "They have killed my husband."

Mr. SPECTER. Did she say anything more?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got
his brains in my hand."

Mr. SPECTER. Did that constitute everything that she said at that time?

Governor CONNALLY. That is all I heard her say.

Mr. SPECTER. Did Mrs. Connally say anything further at this time?

Governor CONNALLY. All she said to me was, after I was hit when she
pulled me over in her lap, she said, "Be quiet, you are going to be
all right. Be still, you are going to be all right." She just kept
repeating that.

Mr. SPECTER. Was anything further stated by Special Agent Roy Kellerman
other than that which you have already testified about?

Governor CONNALLY. No; those are the only two remarks that I heard him
make.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any statement made by Special Agent William Greer at
or about the time of the shooting?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not hear Bill say anything.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by President Kennedy after
the shooting?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not see him.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the
shooting?

Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I
am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat
very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I
turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and
looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look
into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so
I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them
after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then
Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with
my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy
Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I
didn't see either one of them.

Mr. SPECTER. When you turned to your right, Governor Connally,
immediately after you heard the first shot, what did you see on that
occasion?

Governor CONNALLY. Nothing of any significance except just people out
on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary,
just saw men, women, and children.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any estimate as to the distance which the
President's automobile traveled during the shooting?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I hadn't thought about it, but I would suppose
in 10 to 12 seconds, I suppose you travel a couple of hundred feet.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullet or fragments of bullet strike
the windshield?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullet or fragments of bullet strike
the metal chrome?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you experience any sensation of being struck any place
other than that which you have described on your chest?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Mr. SPECTER. What other wounds, if any, did you sustain?

Governor CONNALLY. A fractured wrist and a wound in the thigh, just
above the knee.

Mr. SPECTER. What thigh?

Governor CONNALLY. Left thigh; just above the knee.

Mr. SPECTER. Where on the wrist were you injured, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. I don't know how you describe it.

Mr. SPECTER. About how many inches up from the wrist joint?

Governor CONNALLY. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on
the inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out
almost in the center of the wrist on the underside.

Mr. SPECTER. About an inch from the base of the palm?

Governor CONNALLY. About an inch from the base of the palm, a little
less than an inch, three-quarters of an inch.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you conscious of receiving that wound on the wrist at
the time you sustained it?

Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. SPECTER. When did you first know you were wounded in the right
wrist?

Governor CONNALLY. When I came to in the hospital on Saturday, the next
morning, and I looked up and my arm was tied up in a hospital bed, and
I said, "What is wrong with my arm?" And they told me then that I had a
shattered wrist, and that is when I also found out I had a wound in the
thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the nature of the wound in the thigh?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, just a raw, open wound, looked like a fairly
deep penetration.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 inches?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I would say about an inch, an inch and a quarter
long is all; fairly wide, I would say a quarter of an inch wide, maybe
more, a third of an inch wide, and about an inch and a quarter, an inch
and a half long.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you conscious that you had been wounded on the left
thigh at the time it occurred?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you first notice that in the hospital on the following
day also?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your
chest, Governor Connally?

Governor CONNALLY. The second one.

Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably
have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In
the first place, I don't know anything about the velocity of this
particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed
of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet
had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after
I heard that shot. I had the time to turn to my right, and start to
turn to my left before I felt anything.

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first
bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously
a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second
shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the
first shot and the third shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second
shot?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling
faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the
sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact
was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never
conscious of hearing the second shot at all.

Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through
the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously,
it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired
I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of
it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously
could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my
judgment.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the nature of the exit wound on the front side of
your chest, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. I would say, if the Committee would be interested, I
would just as soon you look at it. Is there any objection to any of you
looking at it?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Governor CONNALLY. You can tell yourself.

I would say, to describe it for the record, however, that it, the
bullet, went in my back just below the right shoulder blade, at just
about the point that the right arm joins the shoulder, right in that
groove, and exited about 2 inches toward the center of the body from
the right nipple of my chest. I can identify these for you.

The bullet went in here--see if I properly describe that--about the
juncture of the right arm and the shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show that the Governor has removed his
shirt and we can view the wound on the back which he is pointing toward.

Governor CONNALLY. The other two are tubes that were inserted in my
back by the doctors.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw is present and he can, perhaps, describe with
identifiable precision where the wounds are.

Dr. SHAW. There is the wound of the drain that has been specifically
described. It was not as large as the scar indicated because in
cleaning up the ragged edges of the wound, some of the skin was excised
in order to make a cleaner incision. This scar----

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the location, Doctor, of that wound on
the Governor's back?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is on the right shoulder, I will feel it, just
lateral to the shoulder blade, the edge of which is about 2 centimeters
from the wound, and just above and slightly medial to the crease formed
by the axilla or the armpit, the arm against the chest wall.

Mr. SPECTER. What other scars are shown there on the Governor's back?

Dr. SHAW. The other scars are surgically induced. This is the incision
that was made to drain the depth of the subscapular space.

Mr. SPECTER. And there you are indicating an incision at what location,
please?

Dr. SHAW. Just at the angle of the shoulder blade. Here is the angle of
the shoulder blade.

These incisions were never closed by suture. These incisions were left
open and they healed by what we call secondary intention, because
in this case there was what we call a Penrose drain, which is a
soft-rubber drain going up into the depths of the shoulder to allow
any material to drain. This was to prevent infection. The other small
opening was the one in which the tube was placed through the eighth
interspace.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicate its location, please, Doctor, on his back.

Dr. SHAW. This is lower on the right back in what we refer to as the
posterior axillary line, roughly this line.

Mr. SPECTER. There you are drawing a vertical, virtually vertical line?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is on the right back, but getting close to the
lateral portion of the chest. This also was a stab wound which was
never sutured. There was a rubber drain through this that led to what
we call a water seal bottle to allow for drainage of the inside of the
chest.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating again the second medically inflicted wound.

Dr. SHAW. Yes; that is right.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now, Doctor, describe the location of the wound
of exit on the Governor's chest, please?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. The wound of exit was beneath and medial to the nipple.
Here was this =V= that I was indicating. It is almost opposite that.
At the time of the wound there was a ragged oval hole here at least
5 centimeters in diameter, but the skin edges were excised, and here
again this scar does not look quite as nice as it does during the more
lateral portion of the surgically induced incision, because this skin
was brought together under a little tension, and there is a little
separation there.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the entire scar there, Doctor, for the
record, please?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. The entire surgical incision runs from the anterior
portion of the chest just lateral to the, we call it, the condral arch,
the =V= formed by the condral arch, and then extends laterally below
the nipple, running up, curving up, into the posterior axillary portion
or the posterior lateral wall of the chest.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the total length of the scar, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. Twenty centimeters, about.

Mr. DULLES. Where was the center of the bullet wound itself in that
scar about?

Dr. SHAW. Here.

Mr. DULLES. There?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. All of the rest of this incision was necessary to gain
access to the depths of the wound for the debridement, for removing all
of the destroyed tissue because of the passage of the bullet.

Mr. DULLES. Would you give us in your hand the area of declination from
the entry to the----

Dr. SHAW. This way.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. We are talking about the angle now, of course, with the
horizontal, and I would say--you don't have a caliper there, do you?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes.

Dr. SHAW. I was going to guess somewhere between 25° and 30°.

Mr. DULLES. Sorry to ask these questions.

Governor CONNALLY. That is fine. I think it is an excellent question.

Dr. SHAW. Well, this puts it right at 25°.

Mr. SPECTER. That is the angle then of elevation as you are measuring
it?

Dr. SHAW. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the
posterior wound over the anterior wound.

The CHAIRMAN. The course being downward back to front?

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. Back to front.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. SHAW. At the time of the initial examination, as I described, this
portion of the Governor's chest was mobile, it was moving in and out
because of the softening of the chest, and that was the reason I didn't
want the skin incision to be directly over that, because to get better
healing it is better to have a firm pad of tissue rather than having
the incision directly over the softened area.

Mr. DULLES. Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were
seated now the way he was in the chair?

Dr. SHAW. That is a good question. Of course, we don't know exactly
whether he was back or tipped forward. But I don't think there is
going to be much difference.

Mr. DULLES. Were you seated in about that way, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Dulles, I would say I was in about this position
when I was hit, with my face approximately looking toward you, 20° off
of center.

Dr. SHAW. Yes; I got 27°. That didn't make much difference.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that reading taken then while the Governor is in a
seated position, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, seated; yes.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question? How would his hand have
been under those circumstances, Doctor, for the bullet to hit his wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I think it fits very well, really, remembering at the
other end the trajectory is right here, and there would be no problem
to pose his hands in that fashion, and if you will note, you can see
it best from over here really, because you did see that the point
of entry, and you can visualize his thigh, there is no problem to
visualize the trajectory.

Mr. DULLES. Would you be naturally holding your hand in that position?

Dr. GREGORY. It could be any place.

Governor CONNALLY. It could be anywhere on that line, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. Chief Justice, you see this is the leg.

Dr. SHAW. Of course, the wound is much smaller than this.

Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show the Governor has displayed the left
thigh showing the scar caused by the entry of the missile in the left
thigh.

Dr. Gregory, will you describe the locale of that?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. This scar, excisional scar, is a better term, if I
may just interject that----

Mr. SPECTER. Please do.

Dr. GREGORY. The excisional scar to the Governor's thigh is located at
a point approximately 10 or 12 centimeters above the adductor tubercule
of the femur, placing it at the juncture of the middle and distal third
of his thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. In lay language, Doctor, about how far is that up from the
knee area?

Dr. GREGORY. Five inches, 6 inches.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, can you recreate the position that you
were sitting in in the automobile, as best you can recollect, at the
time you think you were struck?

Governor CONNALLY. I think, having turned to look over my right
shoulder, then revolving to look over my left shoulder, I threw my
right wrist over on my left leg.

Mr. SPECTER. And in the position you are seated now, with your right
wrist on your left leg, with your little finger being an inch or two
from your knee?

Governor CONNALLY. From the knee.

Mr. SPECTER. And, Dr. Gregory, would that be in approximate alignment
which has been characterized on Commission Exhibit----

Dr. GREGORY. I think it fits reasonably well; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In a moment here I can get that exhibit.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question in the meantime?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You turned to the right, as I recall your testimony,
because you heard the sound coming from the right?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. How did you happen to turn then to the left, do you
remember why that was?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I know exactly. I turned to the right both
to see, because it was an instinctive movement, because that is where
the sound came from, but even more important, I immediately thought it
was a rifleshot, I immediately thought of an assassination attempt,
and I turned to see if I could see the President, to see if he was all
right. Failing to see him over my right shoulder, I turned to look over
my left shoulder.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Governor CONNALLY. Into the back seat, and I never completed that turn.
I got no more than substantially looking forward, a little bit to the
left of forward, when I got hit.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask one of the doctors a question? What is
the incidence of recovery from a wound of this type?

Dr. GREGORY. I will defer the answer to Dr. Shaw. From the wrist,
excellent so far as recovery is concerned. Functionally, recovery is
going to be good, too, and Dr. Shaw can take on the other one.

Dr. SHAW. We never had any doubt about the Governor's recovery. We knew
what we had to do and we felt he could recover. I think I indicated
that to Mrs. Connally.

Governor CONNALLY. As soon as you got into the chest and found out what
it was.

Representative BOGGS. But, there was a very serious wound, was there
not, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. Yes. It was both a shocking and painful wound, and the
effects of the wound, the immediate effects of the wound, were very
dangerous as far as Governor Connally was concerned, because he had
what we call a sucking wound of the chest. This would not allow him to
breathe. I think instinctively what happened, while he was riding in
the car on the way to the hospital, he probably had his arm across, and
he may have instinctively closed that sucking area to some extent. But
they had to immediately put an occlusive dressing on it as soon as he
got inside to keep him from sucking air in and out of the right chest.

Representative BOGGS. Had hospitalization been delayed for about
another half hour or so----

Dr. SHAW. That is speculation, but I don't think he could have
maintained breathing, sufficient breathing, for a half hour with that
type of wound. It is a little speculation. It would depend on how
well he could protect himself. We have had instances where by putting
their jackets around them like this, they could occlude this, and go
for a considerable period of time. Airmen during the war instinctively
protected themselves in this way.

Representative BOGGS. You have no doubt about his physical ability to
serve as Governor?

Dr. SHAW. None whatever. [Laughter.]

Senator COOPER. I am just trying to remember whether we asked you,
Doctor, if you probed the wound in the thigh to see how deep it was.

Dr. GREGORY. I did not, Senator. Dr. Tom Shires at our institution
attended that wound, and I have his description to go on, what he
found, what he had written, and his description is that it did not
penetrate the thigh very deeply, just to the muscle, but not beyond
that.

Representative BOGGS. Just one other question of the Doctor. Having
looked at the wound, there is no doubt in either of your minds that
that bullet came from the rear, is there?

Dr. GREGORY. There has never been any doubt in my mind about the origin
of the missile; no.

Representative BOGGS. And in yours?

Dr. SHAW. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, this is the exhibit which I was
referring to, being 689. Was that your approximate position
except--that is the alinement with your right hand being on your left
leg as you have just described?

Governor CONNALLY. No; it looks like my right hand is up on my chest.
But I don't know. I can't say with any degree of certainty where my
right hand was, frankly.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally----

Governor CONNALLY. It could have been up on my chest, it could have
been suspended in the air, it could have been down on my leg, it could
have been anywhere. I just don't remember.

I obviously, I suppose, like anyone else, wound up the next day
realizing I was hit in three places, and I was not conscious of having
been hit but by one bullet, so I tried to reconstruct how I could have
been hit in three places by the same bullet, and I merely, I know it
penetrated from the back through the chest first.

I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my
right hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of
the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have
happened that way at all.

Mr. SPECTER. Were your knees higher on the jump seat than they would be
on a normal chair such as you are sitting on?

Governor CONNALLY. I would say it was not unlike this, with the
exception the knees might be slightly higher, perhaps a half an inch to
an inch higher.

Mr. DULLES. In this photograph you happen to have your right arm on
the side of the car. I don't know whether you recall that. That is
Commission Exhibit 698. That just happened to be one pose at one
particular time?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I don't think there is any question, Mr.
Dulles, at various times we were turned in every direction. We had arms
extended out of the car, on the side.

Mr. DULLES. That was taken earlier, I believe. Was that on Main Street?
Where was that taken?

Representative BOGGS. I wonder if I might ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Representative BOGGS. This is a little bit off the subject, but it
is pretty well established that the Governor was shot and he has
recovered. Do you have any reason to believe there was any conspiracy
afoot for somebody to assassinate you?

Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.

Representative BOGGS. Had you ever received any threat from Lee Harvey
Oswald of any kind?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Representative BOGGS. Did you know him?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Representative BOGGS. Had you ever seen him?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Representative BOGGS. Have you ever had any belief of, subsequent to
the assassination of President Kennedy and your own injury, that there
was a conspiracy here of any kind?

Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.

Representative BOGGS. What is your theory about what happened?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, it is pure theory based on nothing more
than what information is available to everyone, and probably less is
available to me, certainly less than is available to you here on this
Commission.

But I think you had an individual here with a completely warped,
demented mind who, for whatever reason, wanted to do two things: First,
to vent his anger, his hate, against many people and many things in
a dramatic fashion that would carve for him, in however infamous a
fashion, a niche in the history books of this country. And I think he
deliberately set out to do just what he did, and that is the only thing
that I can think of.

You ask me my theory, and that is my theory, and certainly not
substantiated by any facts.

Representative BOGGS. Going on again, Governor, and again using the
word "theory," do you have any reason to believe that there was any
connection between Oswald and Ruby?

Governor CONNALLY. I have no reason to believe that there was; no,
Congressman. By the same token, if you ask me do I have any reason not
to believe it, I would have to answer the same, I don't know.

Representative BOGGS. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. I just don't have any knowledge or any information
about the background of either, and I am just not in a position to
say.

Mr. DULLES. You recall your correspondence with Oswald in connection
with Marine matters, when he thought you were still Secretary of the
Navy?

Governor CONNALLY. After this was all over, I do, Mr. Dulles. As I
recall, he wrote me a letter asking that his dishonorable discharge be
corrected. But at the time he wrote the letter, if he had any reason
about it at all, or shortly thereafter, he would have recognized that I
had resigned as Secretary of the Navy a month before I got the letter,
so it would really take a peculiar mind, it seems to me, to harbor any
grudge as a result of that when I had resigned as Secretary prior to
the receipt of the letter.

Mr. DULLES. I think I can say without violating any confidence, that
there is nothing in the record to indicate that there was--in fact,
Marina, the wife, testified, in fact, to the contrary. There was no
animus against you on the part of Oswald, as you----

Governor CONNALLY. I have wondered, of course, in my own mind as
to whether or not there could have conceivably been anything, and
the only--I suppose like any person at that particular moment, I
represented authority to him. Perhaps he was in a rebellious spirit
enough to where I was as much a target as anyone else. But that is the
only conceivable basis on which I can assume that he was deliberately
trying to hit me.

Representative BOGGS. You have no doubt about the fact that he was
deliberately trying to hit you?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not
at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic
argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he
was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired
three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously
was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at
least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.

On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that
obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was
President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have
but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second
shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to
him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed
his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't
seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was
shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the
President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen the moving pictures, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any point of exit on your thigh wound?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Mr. SPECTER. (to Dr. Gregory.) Would you give the precise condition of
the right wrist, and cover the thigh, too?

Dr. GREGORY. The present state of the wound on his wrist indicates that
the linear scar made in the course of the excision is well healed; that
its upper limb is about----

Governor CONNALLY. I thinks he wants you to describe the position of it.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes; the position.

Dr. GREGORY. I was about to do that. The upper limb of it is about 5
centimeters above the wrist joint, and curves around toward the thumb
distally to about a centimeter above the wrist joint.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the total length of that?

Dr. GREGORY. The length of that excisional scar is about 4 centimeters,
an inch and a half.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the wound appearing to be on the palmer side?

Dr. GREGORY. The wound on the palmer side of the wrist is now converted
to a well-healed linear scar approximately one-half inch in length, and
located about three-quarters of an inch above the distal flexion crease.

Representative BOGGS. What is the prognosis for complete return of
function there?

Dr. GREGORY. Very good, Congressman; very good.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I now show you the black jacket and ask
you if you can identify what that jacket is, whose it is?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; that is mine.

Mr. SPECTER. When did you last wear that jacket?

Governor CONNALLY. On November 22 I was wearing this, the day of the
shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you Commission Exhibit 683 and ask you if that is a
photograph of the front side of the jacket, as it appears at the moment?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you Exhibit 684, and ask if that is a photograph of
the rear side of the jacket?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a shirt and ask you if you can identify
this as having been the shirt you wore on the day of the assassination?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; that is the shirt I had on.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you Exhibit 685 and ask if that is a picture of the
rear side of the shirt?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. Exhibit 686 is shown to you, and I ask you if that is a
photograph of the front side of the shirt?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you a pair of black trousers and ask you if you can
identify them?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; these are the trousers to the coat we
looked at a moment ago. They were the trousers I was wearing on the day
of the shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you a photograph and ask you, which is Exhibit 687,
if that is a photograph of the front of the trousers?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you Exhibit 688 and ask you if that depicts the
rear of the trousers?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. SPECTER. I show you a tie, and ask you if you can identify that?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; that is the tie I was wearing on the day
of the shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 700
and ask if that is a picture of the tie?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the permanent home of these clothes at the present
time when they are not on Commission business?

Governor CONNALLY. They, the Archives of the State of Texas, asked for
the clothing, and I have given the clothing to them. That is where they
were sent from, I believe, here, to this Commission.

Mr. SPECTER. At this juncture, Mr. Chief Justice, I move for the
admission in evidence of Commission Exhibits 699 and 700.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The items marked Commission Exhibits 699 and 700 for identification
were received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, in 1963 we were informed that Lee
Harvey Oswald paid a visit to Austin. Tex., and is supposed to also
have visited your office. Do you have any knowledge of such a visit?

Governor CONNALLY. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. What date did you give?

Mr. SPECTER. 1963.

Representative BOGGS. What date in 1963?

Mr. SPECTER. We do not have the exact date on that.

Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a minute. Would your office
records indicate such a visit?

Governor CONNALLY. It might or might not, Congressman. We have----

Representative BOGGS. That is what I would think.

Governor CONNALLY. We have there a reception room that is open from
about 9:30 to 12 and from 2 to 4 every day, and depending on the time
of the year there are literally hundreds of people who come in there.
There would be as high as 80 at a time that come in groups, and a
tour--this is a very large reception room which, frankly, we can't
use for any other purpose because it is so useful for tourists, and
they literally come in by the hundreds, and some days we will have a
thousand people in that room on any given day. So for me to say he
never was in there, I couldn't do that; and he might well have been
there, and no record of it in the office.

We make no attempt to keep a record of all the people who come in. If
they come in small groups or if they have appointments with me, or one
of my assistants, yes, we do. We keep records of people who come in and
want to leave a card or leave word that they dropped by. But I have no
knowledge that he ever came by.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, on your recitation of the events on the
day of the assassination, you had come to the point where the shooting
was concluded and the automobile had started to accelerate toward the
hospital. What recollection do you have, if any, of the events on the
way to the hospital from the assassination scene?

Governor CONNALLY. None really. I think at that point I had lost
consciousness because I don't have any recollection, Mr. Specter, of
anything that occurred on the way to the hospital. It was a very short
period of time, but I don't remember it.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any recollection of your arrival at the
hospital itself, at the Parkland Hospital?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes. I think when the car stopped the driver was
obviously driving at a very rapid rate of speed, and apparently, as he
threw on the brakes of the car, it brought me back to consciousness.

Again, a strange thing--strange things run through your mind and,
perhaps, not so strange under the circumstances, but I immediately--the
only thought that occurred to me was that I was in the jump seat next
to the door, that everyone concerned, was going to be concerned with
the President; that I had to get out of the way so they could get to
the President. So although I was reclining, and again Mrs. Connally
holding me, I suddenly lurched out of her arms and tried to stand
upright to get myself out of the car.

I got--I don't really know how far I got. They tell me I got almost
upright, and then just collapsed again, and someone then picked me up
and put me on a stretcher. I again was very conscious because this was
the first time that I had any real sensation of pain, and at this point
the pain in the chest was excruciating, and I kept repeating just over
and over, "My God, it hurts, it hurts," and it was hurting, it was
excruciating at that point.

I was conscious then off and on during the time I was in the emergency
room. I don't recall that I remember everything, but I remember quite a
bit. I remember being wheeled down the passageway, I remember doctors
and various people talking in the emergency room. I remember them
asking me a number of questions, too, which I answered, but that was
about it.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, other than that which you have already
testified to, do you know of any events or occurrences either before
the trip or with the President in Texas during his trip, or after his
trip, which could shed any light on the assassination itself?

Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know of any conversations involving anyone at all,
either before the trip, during the trip, or after the trip, other than
those which you have already related, which would shed any light on the
facts surrounding the assassination?

Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add which you think would be
helpful to the Commission in any way?

Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; Mr. Specter, I don't.

I want to express my gratitude to the Commission for hearing me so
patiently, but I only wish I could have added something more that would
be helpful to the Commission on arriving at the many answers to so many
of these difficult problems, but I don't.

I can only say that it has taken some little time to describe the
events and what happened. It is rather amazing in retrospect when you
think really what a short period of time it took for it to occur, in a
matter of seconds, and if my memory is somewhat vague about precisely
which way I was looking or where my hand or arm was, I can only say I
hope it is understandable in the light of the fact that this was a very
sudden thing. It was a very shocking thing.

I have often wondered myself why I never had the presence of mind
enough--I obviously did say something; I said, "Oh, no, no, no," and
then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

I don't know why I didn't say. "Get down in the car," but I didn't. You
just never know why you react the way you do and why you don't do some
things you ought to do.

But I am again grateful to this Commission as a participant in this
tragedy and as a citizen of this country, and I want to express, I
think in behalf of millions of people, our gratitude for the time and
energy and the dedication that this Commission has devoted to trying
to supply the answers that people, I am sure, will be discussing for
generations to come. I know it has been a difficult, long, laborious
task for you, but I know that generations of the future Americans will
be grateful for your efforts.

Representative BOGGS. Governor, I would like to say that we have had
fine cooperation from all of your Texas officials, from the attorney
general of the State, and from his people and others who have worked
with the Commission.

Governor CONNALLY. Well, we are delighted, and I am very happy that the
attorney general is here with us today.

Senator COOPER. May I ask one question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Cooper.

Senator COOPER. Governor, at the time you all passed the Texas School
Book Depository, did you know that such a building was located there?
Were you familiar with the building at all?

Governor CONNALLY. Just vaguely, Senator.

Senator COOPER. But now when you heard the shot, you turned to your
right because you thought, as you said, that the shot came from that
direction. As you turned, was that in the direction of the Texas School
Book Depository?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; it was.

Senator COOPER. Do you remember an overpass in front of you----

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. As you moved down?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Were you aware at all of any sounds of rifleshots from
the direction of the overpass, from the embankment?

Governor CONNOLLY. No, sir; I don't believe there were such.

Senator COOPER. Well, you know, there have been stories.

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; but I don't believe that.

Senator COOPER. I wanted to ask you if you were very conscious of the
fact--you were conscious of a shot behind you, you were not aware of
any shot from the embankment or overpass. The answer is what?

Governor CONNALLY. I am not aware of any shots from the overpass,
Senator. Senator, I might repeat my testimony with emphasis to this
extent, that I have all my life been familiar with the sound of a
rifleshot, and the sound I heard I thought was a rifleshot, at the time
I heard it I didn't think it was a firecracker, or blowout or anything
else. I thought it was a rifleshot. I have hunted enough to think that
my perception with respect to directions is very, very good, and this
shot I heard came from back over my right shoulder, which was in the
direction of the School Book Depository, no question about it. I heard
no other. The first and third shots came from there. I heard no other
sounds that would indicate to me there was any commotion or disturbance
of shots or anything else on the overpass.

Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that
you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?

Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say
that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up
behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back
right below the shoulder blade.

Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?

Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There
was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning
sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel
almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and
just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the
shoulder blade.

Senator COOPER. That is all.

Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to
the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you
ever seen those pictures before this morning?

Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film
when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.

Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides,
Governor, or in what range of slides?

Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the
slides?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you
related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the
range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in
that bracket.

Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher
number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the
sign, which was----

Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for
whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my
testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Mr. SPECTER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. DULLES. I have one or two. Governor, were you consulted at all
about the security arrangements in connection with the Dallas visit?

Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; not really; no, sir; and let me add we
normally are not.

Mr. DULLES. I realize that.

Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Dulles, the Secret Service, as you know, comes
in, they work with both our department of public safety and the various
city police, and the various localities in which we are going. So far
as I know, there was complete cooperation on the part of everyone
concerned, but I was not consulted.

Mr. DULLES. I think you mentioned that there was a slight change in
plans before the arrival in San Antonio. I don't know whether it
affects our investigation at all. Do you recall that?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I don't know whether it--I don't think it
affects the testimony at all. I was merely trying to relate some of
the problems that had gone into planning a Presidential trip into four
cities.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. And trying to arrange this all initially within
about a 12-hour period which had been expanded into a little more than
that because the President finally agreed to come the day before, and
come into San Antonio on the afternoon before the Thomas dinner on
Thursday night.

Mr. DULLES. That was the change you had in mind?

Governor CONNALLY. This was the change. This gave us much more latitude
because it permitted us to go into San Antonio, which is one of the
major stops, which was the major stop, really, because he dedicated
the Aerospace Medical Center on Thursday, which meant we did not have
to crowd Thursday. But there was a change, but not significant to this
investigation.

Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to recall in general when the decision was
reached that the visit would include a trip to Dallas, or was that
always a part?

Governor CONNALLY. I think it was always a part.

Mr. DULLES. Of the planning?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes; I think it was always a part. There was
consideration given, if you had to leave out some place, let us leave
out Dallas or let us leave out this one or that one, but there was
no question, I don't think, in anyone's mind if we made more than one
stop in the big cities that we were going to try to make them all, San
Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth.

Mr. DULLES. You do not recall seeing anyone approach the car outside
of those who were in the procession just prior to the shooting, anyone
from the sidewalk or along the street there, in the park, which was on
one side?

Governor CONNALLY. No, sir; I sure don't.

Mr. DULLES. You and one other happen to be the only witnesses who have
indicated that they recognized it as being a rifleshot. The other
witness, like you, was a huntsman. Most of the witnesses have indicated
they thought it was a backfire; the first shot was a backfire or a
firecracker.

Can you distinguish, what is there that distinguishes a rifleshot from
a backfire or a firecracker? Can you tell or is it just instinct?

Governor CONNALLY. I am not sure I could accurately describe it. I
don't know that I have ever attempted to. I would say a firecracker
or a blowout has more of a hollow, bursting kind of sound, as if you
popped a balloon, or something of this sort. A rifleshot, on the other
hand, to me has more of a ring, kind of an echo to it, more of a
metallic sound to it. It is a more penetrating sound than a firecracker
or a blowout. It carries----

Mr. DULLES. That gives me what I had in mind. I realize that. That is
all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We are very appreciative of the help
you have given us.

Senator COOPER. May I ask just one question?

The CHAIRMAN. We hate to have you review all of this sordid thing again.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a rather general question? I would like to
ask, in view of all the discussion which has been had, was there any
official discussion of any kind before this trip of which you were
aware that there might be some act of violence against the President?

Governor CONNALLY. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Thank you.

Governor CONNALLY. No; let me say that there have been several news
stories----

Senator COOPER. Yes, I know.

Governor CONNALLY. That purportedly quoted me about not wanting the
President to ride in a motorcade or caravan in Dallas. That is very
true. But the implication was that I had some fear of his life, which
is not true.

The reason I didn't want him to do it at the time it came up was simply
we were running out of time, and that, I thought, we were working him
much too hard. This again was before the change, moving San Antonio to
Thursday instead of having it all on one day, and I was opposed to a
motorcade because they do drain energy, and it takes time to do it, and
I didn't think we had the time.

But once we got San Antonio moved from Friday to Thursday afternoon,
where that was his initial stop in Texas, then we had the time, and I
withdrew my objections to a motorcade.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor.

Governor CONNALLY. Thank you, sir.


TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Connally, would you mind telling us the story of
this affair as you heard it, and we will be brief, and we will start
right with the shooting itself, and Mr. Specter will also examine you.

Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please? Do you solemnly
swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you sit, please?

Mr. SPECTER. Are you the wife of Governor John C. Connally?

Mrs. CONNALLY. No, I am the wife of Governor John B. Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. Mrs. Connally, tell us what happened at the time of the
assassination.

Mrs. CONNALLY. We had just finished the motorcade through the downtown
Dallas area, and it had been a wonderful motorcade. The people had been
very responsive to the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and we were very
pleased, I was very pleased.

As we got off Main Street--is that the main thoroughfare?

Mr. SPECTER. That is the street on which you were proceeding through
the town, yes.

Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been so good every place that
I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.

I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the
President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love
you."

Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I
heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that
it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the
right.

I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President
as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands
crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no
utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of
nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first
shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John
saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit
John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded
animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

I never again----

Mr. DULLES. To the right was into your arms more or less?

Mrs. CONNALLY. No, he turned away from me. I was pretending that I was
him. I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband
was shot. My concern was for him, and I remember that he turned to the
right and then just slumped down into the seat, so that I reached over
to pull him toward me. I was trying to get him down and me down. The
jump seats were not very roomy, so that there were reports that he slid
into the seat of the car, which he did not; that he fell over into my
lap, which he did not.

I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been
impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding
him. So that I looked out, I mean as he was in my arms, I put my head
down over his head so that his head and my head were right together,
and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn't look
back any more.

The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling
all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the
matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car
and both of us.

I thought John had been killed, and then there was some imperceptible
movement, just some little something that let me know that there was
still some life, and that is when I started saying to him, "It's all
right. Be still."

Now, I did hear the Secret Service man say, "Pull out of the motorcade.
Take us to the nearest hospital," and then we took out very rapidly to
the hospital.

Just before we got to Parkland, we made a right-hand turn, he must have
been going very fast, because as he turned the weight of my husband's
body almost toppled us both.

Mr. SPECTER. How fast do you think he was going?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I don't know; very rapidly. The people I could see going
by were just rushing. We were just rushing by very fast.

We arrived at the hospital and sat there what seemed to me like an
interminable time, and from what I know was just a few minutes, but
the thoughts that went through my mind were how long must I sit here
with this dying man in my arms while everybody is swarming over the
President whom I felt very sure was dead, and just when I thought I
could sit and wait no longer, John just sort of heaved himself up. He
did not rise up in the car, he just sort of heaved himself up, and then
collapsed down into the seat.

Mr. SPECTER. At that time you and Governor Connally were still on the
jump seats of the car?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, and they had not--the President was still--and Mrs.
Kennedy were still in the back. I still had not ever looked back at
the back seat after the second shot. I could hear, you know, hear them
talking about how sad, and lamenting the fact that the President was
in such poor shape and, of course, they didn't know whether he was--I
guess they didn't know whether he was alive or dead.

Mr. SPECTER. Did President Kennedy say anything at all after the
shooting?

Mrs. CONNALLY. He did not say anything. Mrs. Kennedy said, the first
thing I recall her saying was, after the first shot, and I heard her
say, "Jack, they have killed my husband," and then there was the second
shot, and then after the third shot she said, "They have killed my
husband. I have his brains in my hand," and she repeated that several
times, and that was all the conversation.

Mr. SPECTER. From that point forward you say you had your eyes to the
front so you did not have a chance----

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, because I had him, and I really didn't think about
looking back anyway, but I could just see the car rushing along, and
people and things rushing past us. I remember thinking what a terrible
sight this must be to those people, to see these two shot-up men, and
it was a terribly horrifying thing, and I think that is about as I
remember it.

Mr. SPECTER. What happened then after you got to the hospital?

Mrs. CONNALLY. We got to the hospital and, like I said, John heaved
himself over. They still could not seem to get Mrs. Kennedy or the
President out of the back of the car, but someone scooped him up in
their arms and put him on a stretcher. There were two stretchers there,
and then they took him off immediately to the emergency room, and they
ran down the hall with the stretcher, and I just ran along with them.

They took him into the emergency room, and right behind us came the
President on a stretcher, and they took him and put him in a room to
the right. There was much commotion and confusion. There were lots of
what I assumed were Secret Service men rushing in with machine guns,
I guess, or tommyguns. I am not real sure, they were big arms of some
sort. There was no one--there were lots of people across the hall.
There was no one with me and, of course, my thoughts then were, I guess
like any other woman, I wondered if all the doctors were in the room on
the left, and they were not taking too good care of my husband on the
right. I shouldn't have worried about that, should I?

I knew no one in the hospital and I was alone. Twice I got up and
opened the door into the emergency room, and I could hear John and I
could see him moving, and I knew then that he was still alive.

I guess that time was short, too. It seemed endless. Somebody rushed
out, I thought it was a nurse, and handed me one cuff link. I later
read that it was a lady doctor.

They took him out of there very soon up to surgery, and I just left
with him and waited in an office. Do you know whose office I was in? It
was where you came to me.

Dr. GREGORY. Dr. Jenkins' office.

Dr. SHAW. Yes. You were either in the anesthesia office or in the room
that is part of the recovery room. Was it the same place where you
later stayed, Mrs. Connally?

Mrs. CONNALLY. No.

Dr. GREGORY. I think it was back in Dr. Jenkins' office. That is where
I believe I first saw you.

Mrs. CONNALLY. I believe that is right.

As soon as Dr. Shaw found that he had some encouraging news, that the
wounds were not as extensive as he had thought they could be or might
be, he sent that word to me from the operating room, and that was good
news.

I then asked if I couldn't go see Mrs. Kennedy, and they told me that
she had left the hospital.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you visited at the hospital by Mrs. Johnson?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, I was. But I assume that was before, since they
left together, not much of a visit. She came by and we didn't have to
say much, and then they left.

Mr. SPECTER. Mrs. Connally, what was your impression, if any, as to the
source of the shots?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Well, I had no thought of whether they were high or low
or where. They just came from the right; sounded like they were to my
right.

Mr. SPECTER. How many did you hear in all?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I heard three.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate on the time that passed from
the first to the last shot?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Very short. It seemed to me that there was less time
between the first and the second than between the second and the third.

Mr. SPECTER. About how fast do you think the car was going then?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I don't really know. Not too fast. It was sort of a
letdown time for us. We could relax for, we thought we could, for just
a minute.

Mr. SPECTER. And you mean by that since the major part of the crowd had
been passed?

Mrs. CONNALLY. We had gone by them. The underpass was in sight, and I
knew that as soon as we passed through the underpass that then we would
be going straight to the Trade Mart for the luncheon, and I felt like
we would then be moving fast and not have people on all sides of us.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see the films this morning here in the Commission
office?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opinion as to which frame it was that
Governor Connally was shot?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. I was in agreement with the Governor. I am not sure
I remember the numbers so correct me, but I thought at the time that it
was that 229--it could have been then through the next three or four
frames.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything----

Mrs. CONNALLY. They were blurred.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the source, you say you thought it was to
the right--did you have any reaction as to whether they were from the
front, rear or side?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I thought it was from back of us.

Mr. SPECTER. To the rear?

Mrs. CONNALLY. To the right; that is right.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any reaction as to the question of elevation
or level?

Mrs. CONNALLY. No, I didn't.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything else to add which you think would be
helpful to the Commission in any way?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I don't think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Senator, do you have any?
Do you have any, Mr. Dulles?

Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
recollection?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.

Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CONNALLY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Connally, thank you very much. We hate to have you
review all this in your mind's eye again, but it was necessary to have
your testimony, and you were very kind to come.

Mrs. CONNALLY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate it very much, indeed.

(Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)



_Wednesday, April 22, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF JESSE EDWARD CURRY, J. W. FRITZ, T. L. BAKER, AND J. C. DAY

The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m. on April 22, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W.
Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Joseph A. Ball,
assistant counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Melvin Aron
Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel;
Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Charles Murray, observer; Waggoner
Carr, attorney general of Texas; and Dean Robert G. Storey, special
counsel to the attorney general of Texas.


TESTIMONY OF JESSE EDWARD CURRY

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order.

Chief, we have asked you to come here this morning, you and some of
your officers, for the purpose of taking their testimony concerning the
matters surrounding the arrest and the death of Lee Oswald at the time
of the assassination of the President.

I think we will take the testimony of you, Captain Fritz, Lieutenant
Day, and Lieutenant Baker. I want to say to you, Chief, before I leave,
I will have to leave after an hour or so in order to sit on some cases
we are hearing in the Supreme Court but I want to say to you beforehand
that our staff was very much pleased with the cooperation that it
received from your people when they were down in Dallas, and from the
help that you personally gave to them, and made it very helpful, they
were very helpful, and we did need to have speed at that particular
time, because, as you know, we were obliged to wait until the Ruby
trial was over before we could come down there at all.

So, we appreciate the assistance that your people gave us throughout
that proceeding.

Now, would you please rise, Chief, and raise your right hand to be
sworn.

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

Mr. CURRY. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin, our Chief Counsel, will interrogate you,
Chief. Mr. Rankin, will you proceed?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; Mr. Chief Justice. Chief Curry, you gave a deposition
for the Commission recently, did you not?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I did, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. That was about April 15, 1964?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And that was down in Dallas that you gave it?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; it was.

Mr. RANKIN. And Mr. Hubert examined you?

Mr. CURRY. That is true.

Mr. RANKIN. That was taken down by a court reporter?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything to add to what you said at that time
or wish to correct it in any way?

Mr. CURRY. I can't recall of anything that I should correct or add to.

Mr. RANKIN. I ask you those questions in a general way, we will go back
to certain parts of that but I would like to proceed at this time in
view of the fact that the Chief Justice and possibly other members of
the Commission who will come may not be able to be here all the time
that you are being examined and I would like to get to certain crucial
matters if I may.

When did you learn of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. While I was out at Parkland Hospital.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know about what time that was, the day?

Mr. CURRY. It was on the 22d and the best I recall it was around 1
o'clock or maybe a little after 1 o'clock.

Mr. RANKIN. How did that come to your attention?

Mr. CURRY. Some of my officers came to me and said they had arrested a
suspect in the shooting of our Officer Tippit.

Mr. RANKIN. What else did they say?

Mr. CURRY. They also told me a little later, I believe, that he was a
suspect also in the assassination of the President.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do then?

Mr. CURRY. I didn't do anything at the time. I was at the hospital, and
I remained at the hospital until some of the Secret Service asked me
to prepare two cars that we were informed that President Kennedy had
expired and we were requested to furnish two cars for President Johnson
and some of his staff to return to Love Field.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. What else--what did you do after that?

Mr. CURRY. After the planes departed from Love Field, I was there for
the inauguration of the President, and then we left the plane, and
Judge Sarah Hughes and myself, and I remained at Love for some, I guess
perhaps an hour.

Mr. RANKIN. By inauguration, you mean the swearing in of the President?

Mr. CURRY. That is right, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. On the plane?

Mr. CURRY. On the plane; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And then you left Love Field?

Mr. CURRY. I talked to Mayor Cabell and his wife for a little while and
after the plane left Love Field then I left Love Field.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you go with Judge Hughes or she go with you?

Mr. CURRY. No; she was in her own car.

Mr. RANKIN. I see.

Mr. CURRY. And I returned to the city hall.

Mr. DULLES. Did I understand correctly, how long were you at Love Field
after the plane of the President left?

Mr. CURRY. As I recall it was approximately an hour.

Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought.

Mr. CURRY. We waited there until the casket bearing the President, and
then the cars bearing Mrs. Kennedy arrived, and it was, I would judge
an hour perhaps.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. CURRY. I returned to my office at city hall.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about Lee Harvey Oswald at that time?

Mr. CURRY. No. As I went into the city hall it was overrun with the
news media.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do about that?

Mr. CURRY. I didn't do anything. They were jammed into the north hall
of the third floor, which are the offices of the criminal investigation
division. The television trucks, there were several of them around the
city hall. I went into my administrative offices, I saw cables coming
through the administrative assistant office and through the deputy
chief of traffic through his office, and running through the hall
they had a live TV set up on the third floor, and it was a bedlam of
confusion.

Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone of the police department give them permission to
do this?

Mr. CURRY. I noticed--well, I don't know who gave them permission
because I wasn't there. When I returned they were up there.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you inquire about whether permission had been given?

Mr. CURRY. No; I didn't. We had in the past had always permitted free
movement of the press around the city hall but we had never been faced
with anything like this before where we had national and international
news media descending upon us in this manner.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you describe to the Commission the difference this
time as compared with the ordinary case that you have handled?

Mr. CURRY. Well, the ordinary case, perhaps we have two or three or
maybe a half dozen reporters, we have a room for them on the third
floor where they normally on assignment at city hall they stay in this
room.

As prisoners are brought to and from the interrogation offices, it is
necessary to bring them down the main corridor, and they usually are
waiting there where they take pictures of them as they enter and as
they leave and they sometimes try to ask them questions.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, how was this different?

Mr. CURRY. That there was such total confusion here. We had to post men
on the door to keep them actually from going into the office where they
were interrogating. We had some men, police reserves and a sergeant, I
noticed on the third floor when I come off the elevator.

They were stationed there, and they were screening people to see
whether or not they had business on the third floor because we did have
to carry on our other normal business, the burglary and theft and the
juvenile bureau and the auto theft bureau, the forgery bureau all of
these are on the third floor in this wing.

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, is this building just a police building or a
municipal building, general purposes?

Mr. CURRY. It is a section of the municipal building.

The CHAIRMAN. A section of it. Is it isolated from the rest of it?

Mr. CURRY. No; it is connected.

The CHAIRMAN. Connected?

Mr. CURRY. Yes. And on the first floor we have the courts and the
traffic violations bureau.

In the basement it is principally police offices. On the second floor
we have the city planning commission, and we have part of our traffic
division and special service bureau on the second floor.

Then on the third floor we have the criminal investigation division.
We have the police dispatcher's office, and we have the administrative
offices and we have the personnel offices.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. CURRY. But all these are connected with the municipal building,
each floor is.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the interrogation of Lee
Harvey Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I did not. I was in the office once or twice while
he was being interrogated but I never asked him any question myself.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who did?

Mr. CURRY. Captain Fritz principally interrogated him, I believe.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that his responsibility?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; it was. There were several people in the office. It
seems to me we were violating every principle of interrogation, the
method by which we had to interrogate.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain to the Commission what you mean by that?

Mr. CURRY. Ordinarily an interrogator in interrogating a suspect will
have him in a quiet room alone or perhaps with one person there.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that your regular practice?

Mr. CURRY. That is the regular practice.

Mr. RANKIN. Tell us how this was done?

Mr. CURRY. This we had representatives from the Secret Service, we had
representatives from the FBI, we had representatives from the Ranger
Force, and they were--and then one or two detectives from the homicide
bureau. This was, well, it was just against all principles of good
interrogation practice.

Mr. RANKIN. By representatives can you tell us how many were from each
of these agencies that you describe?

Mr. CURRY. I can't be sure. I recall I believe two from the FBI, one
or two, Inspector Kelley was there from Secret Service, and I believe
another one of his men was there. There was one, I recall seeing one
man from the Rangers. I don't recall who he was. I just remember now
that there was one.

Captain Fritz, and one or two of his detectives--this was in a small
office.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about this when you found out there
were so many, did you give any instructions about it?

Mr. CURRY. No; I didn't. This was an unusual case. In fact, I had
received a call from the FBI requesting that they have a representative
from there in the hearing room. And we were trying to cooperate with
all agencies concerned in this, and I called Captain Fritz and asked
him to permit a representative of the FBI to come in.

Mr. DULLES. Who was directing the interrogation, Captain Fritz?

Mr. CURRY. Captain Fritz.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how Lee Harvey Oswald was treated by the police
department?

Mr. CURRY. So far as I know he was treated as any other prisoner is
treated. He was not handled in any manner any different from any other
prisoner. He had a scratch or two on his face which he received when he
was wrestling with the police over in this theater in Oak Cliff. Other
than that he had no marks on him.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever complain that you know of about his treatment
while he was there?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; he did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you give any instructions about the security or how he
should be protected during this time?

Mr. CURRY. No; I personally didn't. Deputy Chief Lumpkin, who has
charge of the service division which is the jail security, he told me
that he had ordered that two guards be placed on him right outside his
cell and kept there 24 hours a day as long as we had him.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what was done about that?

Mr CURRY. It was carried out. He told me that this was carried out.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any further difficulty with the media, the
various press and radio and television representatives during this time?

Mr. CURRY. Well, every time we would walk out of the office they would
besiege you with questions and wanting statements and asking what we
had found out, and did we think this was the right man, and they almost
ran over you.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do about that?

Mr. CURRY. I tried to maintain some order. I didn't order them out of
the building, which if I had it to do over I would. In the past like I
say, we had always maintained very good relations with our press, and
they had always respected us, and this was something, the first time we
experienced anything like this, to this degree.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any tape recordings of the interviews with Mr.
Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. I do not have.

Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone?

Mr. CURRY. Not to my knowledge. Unless someone from the FBI or the
Secret Service, if they recorded it, I don't know.

Mr. RANKIN. How many times was he interrogated, do you know?

Mr. CURRY. No; I do not know that.

Mr. RANKIN. You never examined him yourself at any time?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe the place where he was kept while he was
there in the jail?

Mr. CURRY. Well, it is in one of our maximum security cells, much
the same as any other jail. But he was isolated away from the other
prisoners, and there was two jail guards set immediately outside his
cell.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you isolate him or was that in accordance with your
instructions?

Mr. CURRY. No; this is customary with a prisoner of this type and Chief
Lumpkin in charge of the service division had issued these orders.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by maximum security in your prison?

Mr. CURRY. Well, we have some cells where they have cells that are
locked and then you come out of the cell into a corridor and that is
locked, and these are maintained from a master control box. That is a
maximum security cell. Some of the others they just have a lock on the
door and it opens out into the hallway.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about furnishing him clothing?

Mr. CURRY. We removed his clothing except for his underwear in order
that he couldn't harm himself. When he was removed from the cell, of
course, his clothes were given to him.

Mr. RANKIN. Was he allowed to shower and clean up.

Mr. CURRY. I don't think he ever asked for a shower while he was there.
Had he asked for one he would have been permitted to shower and he
would have been permitted to shave.

Mr. RANKIN. Was he treated any differently in any way that you know of
than other prisoners?

Mr. CURRY. Except perhaps a little more security placed on him, a
constant security. Ordinarily we wouldn't, except in unusual cases
would we have a constant surveillance on a prisoner, and this is
usually, if we felt like he might try to harm himself we would have
someone there to immediately prevent it.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question?

What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on
that?

Mr. CURRY. The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He
was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He
denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this
was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are
talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him
holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and
he denied that being him.

I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell
that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and
I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and
someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the
name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't
know anything about anything.

Mr. RANKIN. Did it ever come to your attention that he ever asked for
or inquired about counsel?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I heard him say something. I asked if he had had an
opportunity to use the phone and Captain Fritz told me they were giving
him an opportunity to use the phone.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he say about counsel?

Mr. CURRY. As I recall he said he wanted to try to get in touch with
John Abt.

Mr. RANKIN. A-b-t?

Mr. CURRY. A-b-t, I believe an attorney in New York, to handle his case
and then if he couldn't get him he said he wanted to get someone from
Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do about that?

Mr. CURRY. I told them to let him talk to them in an attempt to get his
attorney and in an attempt to get some of his relatives so they could
arrange for it.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe how it was handled for him to be able to
talk on the telephone?

Mr. CURRY. We take them from their cells and we have two telephones
that they are taken to, and they are put on these telephones and they
are locked in, and a guard stands by while they make their calls.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that call secret or is there any listening in on it?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; it is not supposed to be secret. I mean it is
supposed to be secret. It is privileged communication as far as we are
concerned, we don't have a tap on the phone or anything.

Mr. DULLES. Did he use this?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; he did.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether an attorney from Dallas was offered to
him and came to the jail?

Mr. CURRY. There were some members of the Civil Liberties Union came
to see us that night, and they said they were concerned with whether
or not he was being permitted legal counsel.

Mr. RANKIN. Did they talk to you?

Mr. CURRY. No; they didn't talk to me. They talked to Professor Webster.

Mr. RANKIN. How did this come to your attention?

Mr. CURRY. He told me.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. Now, tell us what he said.

Mr. CURRY. He said that they had come down to see whether or not he
was being permitted legal counsel, and Professor Webster is in the law
school out at Southern Methodist University and he told them he thought
he was being given an opportunity to get in touch with legal counsel,
and they seemed satisfied then about it. We also got Mr. Nichols.

Mr. RANKIN. Who is he?

Mr. CURRY. He was president of the Dallas Bar Association or criminal
bar. I don't know which, Louis Nichols, and----

Mr. RANKIN. What did he do?

Mr. CURRY. He came down, he said he had heard that he was not being
allowed the right to counsel, and they wanted to see and so I took him
myself up to Lee Harvey Oswald's cell and let him go in the cell and
talk to Lee Harvey Oswald.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was Mr. Nichols, did you say?

Mr. CURRY. Louis Nichols. He was president either of the Dallas----

Dean STOREY. Pardon me, it is Dallas Bar Association.

Mr. CURRY. Dallas Bar Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. He went in to talk to him and to see whether or not he was
getting an opportunity to receive counsel and he seemed pleased, I mean
he had no complaints. He told him if he didn't get John Abt then he
wanted someone from the Civil Liberties Union to come up and talk to
him. Then Mr. Nichols then went out in front of the television cameras,
I believe and made a statement to the effect that he had talked to him
and he was satisfied that he was being given the opportunity for legal
counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. On what day was this?

Mr. CURRY. That was on the same day we arrested him?

The CHAIRMAN. That was Friday?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether Mr. Oswald ever did obtain counsel?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe he did. But I do know he made some telephone
contacts.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the police department so far as you know interfere in
any way with his obtaining counsel?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know when Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned?

Mr. CURRY. It was about 1:30 in the morning. That would be on the
morning of the 23d, I believe.

Mr. RANKIN. How long did he--how long had he been in your custody then?

Mr. CURRY. About 11 hours. That was on the Tippit; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. When you say that he was arraigned the following day
early in the morning, did you mean for the Tippit murder or for the
assassination?

Mr. CURRY. No; that was for the assassination of the President.

Mr. RANKIN. All right, will you tell us when he was arraigned for the
Tippit murder?

Mr. CURRY. I was not present but I believe it was about 7:30.

Mr. RANKIN. That same evening?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; that would be about 5 hours afterwards.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether he was arrested first for the
assassination or for the Tippit murder?

Mr. CURRY. For the Tippit murder. There were some witnesses to this
murder and they had observed him as he left the scene, and this was
what he was arrested for.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt just to ask the chief a question?

Chief, on your arraignments does the magistrate advise the petitioner
as to his right to counsel?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; he does.

The CHAIRMAN. Does he ask him if he has counsel?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall him doing that. I am not customarily present
when a person is arraigned.

The CHAIRMAN. You were not present at the arraignment?

Mr. CURRY. I was present when he was arraigned for the assassination of
the President. I was not present when he was arraigned for the murder
of Tippit.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose they make a stenographic record of that, do
they not?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; I am sure they do.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all I have.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, our people made an inquiry whether there was a
stenographic record. They don't believe there was any.

Mr. CURRY. I am not sure of that. I know at the time he was arraigned
for the assassination of the President I was present there at the time.
It was decided that we should, district attorney was there at the city
hall. He was there during most of the evening.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you just describe for the Commission what happened
during the arraignment for the assassination, who was present, what you
saw.

Mr. CURRY. As I recall, I know the Justice of the Peace David John
Stone was there. It seemed like Sergeant Warren, but I couldn't be
positive but some of the jail personnel brought him out into the
identification bureau.

Mr. RANKIN. How was he taken out? Were there several people around him,
what was the security arrangements?

Mr. CURRY. At that time there was only, we were inside the offices of
the criminal identification section. He was brought out through a door
that opens from the jail into the criminal identification section.
There was only about a half dozen of us altogether there, I don't
recall who all was there.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by the criminal identification section.
Could you describe what that is?

Mr. CURRY. That is the identification bureau.

Mr. RANKIN. Does that have a room that this meeting occurred in?

Mr. CURRY. It is not a room such as this. It was in the little foyer or
lobby, and it is separated from the jail lobby.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the justice of the peace sit or stand or what?

Mr. CURRY. He stood. He stood on one side of the counter and Oswald on
the other side of the counter.

Mr. RANKIN. What floor is this on?

Mr. CURRY. The fourth floor.

Mr. RANKIN. That is nearest the place where there are some filing
cabinets?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; it is.

Mr. RANKIN. And besides the people that you have described, I assume
that you yourself were there as you have said?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I was.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there anyone else that you recall?

Mr. CURRY. Not that I recall, other than the justice of the peace.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe what happened?

Mr. CURRY. Lee Harvey Oswald was brought in and the complaint was read
to him, and here again he was very arrogant and he said, "I don't know
what you are talking about. That is the deal, is it," and such remarks
as this, and the justice of the peace very patiently and courteously
explained to him what the procedure was and why it was.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he say about that?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall his exact words.

Mr. RANKIN. Just tell us in substance.

Mr. CURRY. He didn't--as I recall, he didn't think much of it. He just
said, "I don't know what you are talking about."

Mr. RANKIN. What did the justice of the peace say about the procedure
and any rights and so forth?

Mr. CURRY. As I recall it, he read to him the fact that he was being
charged with the assassination of the President of the United States,
John Kennedy on such and such day at such and such time.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about his right to plead?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about counsel?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall whether he did or not.

Mr. RANKIN. What else happened at that time that you recall?

Mr. CURRY. That is about all. After it was read to him, he was taken
back to his cell.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you go back with him to the cell?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. RANKIN. Who took him back to the cell?

Mr. CURRY. The jailer and assistant jailer or jail guard.

Mr. RANKIN. What came to your attention after that about Lee Harvey
Oswald, that you can recall, what was the next thing that happened that
you know of?

Mr. CURRY. The next thing that I know of, was the next morning.

Mr. RANKIN. What happened then?

Mr. CURRY. The interrogation of Lee Harvey continued on and off through
the day. No; I had asked the captain during the afternoon if he was
being given rest periods and if he was being fed properly so that he
wouldn't have reason to complain that we were mistreating him in any
way.

Mr. RANKIN. What captain did you ask that?

Mr. CURRY. Fritz.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he say?

Mr. CURRY. He said he was. He said he was not interrogating him on long
drawn-out extended periods, he was letting him rest and he was being
fed.

Mr. DULLES. Did the interrogation continue into the night or did it
stop, do you know?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know what--well, it did continue into that first
night, I know. But I don't know what time they discontinued the
interrogation.

Mr. RANKIN. They stopped?

Mr. CURRY. I was not in the offices all the time. I was there two or
three times.

Mr. RANKIN. Captain Fritz tell you anything about the interrogation,
how it was going, what was said?

Mr. CURRY. He told me about, oh, late in the afternoon or early in the
evening that he felt that he had enough evidence to file on him for the
murder of the officer, and he told me, he said, "I strongly suspect
that he was the assassin of the President."

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what time of day it was?

Mr. CURRY. It seemed to me like it was 6 or 7 o'clock on the day of the
22d.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you describe the situation in the police headquarters
with regard to the media. Were they continuing to be there?

Mr. CURRY. They remained there. You could hardly get down the hall,
and it was necessary, when we would take the prisoner back to the jail
to bring him out of the office, and down this hallway and put him on a
special elevator just for prisoners.

Mr. RANKIN. What office do you mean when you say that?

Mr. CURRY. From the homicide office.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. You took him down what hallway?

Mr. CURRY. The third floor hallway. The offices run like this in the
building. The homicide office is right along here, perhaps 25 feet. The
elevator is right here, this is a special elevator that runs to the
jail.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you mark that homicide office with an "H" on to
indicate it?

Mr. CURRY. This extends up here a little more perhaps.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you mark the elevator with "EL."

The CHAIRMAN. There is a lot of other writing on this paper a lot of
doodling that someone else has done and I think the chief had better
have a new piece of paper.

Gentlemen, before you get into a discussion of this diagram with the
chief, Mr. Rankin, I must leave now for a session of the Court, and Mr.
Dulles, will you preside in my absence?

Mr. DULLES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be back immediately at the conclusion of our
session today.

(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, have you marked on a yellow sheet of paper a diagram
of the third floor of the police headquarters?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I have, principally the north end of it.

Mr. RANKIN. We will call that Exhibit 701. Will you describe briefly
for the Commission just what you have marked on there now?

Mr. CURRY. I have a rough layout of the north end of the third floor of
the police and courts building in Dallas, Tex.

Now, this shows the public elevators, the lobby way in front of the
elevators, and then a hall that extends the length of the third floor
from north to south.

In the extreme north end there is a small press room where ordinarily
the news media stay from early morning until late at night to cover
police events.

I have also marked off the other bureaus that are located on this
floor, the burglary and theft bureau would be on the west side, and in
the northwest corner is the juvenile bureau.

The northeast corner is the auto theft bureau, the next going south
would be the forgery bureau, and then would be the homicide office
or homicide bureau, which is adjacent to a hallway, the north-south
hallway, and also the rear office is adjacent to the hall going over
to the municipal building which is immediately east of the police and
courts building.

The entrance to the homicide office is approximately 20 or 25 feet to
the entrance to this jail elevator, and it is necessary to bring a
prisoner down this hall in order to get him into this jail elevator.
Each time we--that I observed them move Oswald, they were almost
overrun by news media.

Mr. RANKIN. By overrun, what do you mean?

Could you describe with a little more definiteness, are you talking
about 4 or 5 or 10?

Mr. CURRY. I will say probably a hundred, at least a hundred that were
jammed into this hallway.

(At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Were some of them--I will withdraw that question.

Were some of these people from the news media from the press and others
from the radio and others from the television?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; that is true, sir.

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

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that afternoon.
I call to your attention that we have information that he came there on
the Saturday afternoon.

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on Saturday.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RANKIN. Back on the record.

In regard to Mr. Nichols, did you know whether or not he offered to
represent or provide counsel?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; he did.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he say about that?

Mr. CURRY. He said he didn't care to at this time.

Mr. RANKIN. What did Mr. Nichols say about providing counsel?

Mr. CURRY. He said the Dallas Bar would provide counsel if he desired
counsel.

Mr. RANKIN. That is to Mr. Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. Oswald.

Mr. RANKIN. What did Mr. Oswald say?

Mr. CURRY. He said, "I don't at this time," he said, "If I can't get
Mr. Abt to represent me or someone from Civil Liberties Union I will
call on you later."

Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; he was taken to see Oswald and he talked to him.

Mr. RANKIN. And this all occurred at the meeting you have already
described?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Between Mr. Nichols and Mr. Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. When you had so many people of the news media in all of
your corridors and throughout your police headquarters, did you discuss
that with the mayor or any of the other authorities?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall that I specifically discussed this condition.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask for any instructions or advice?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about it that you have not already
described?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. DULLES. Did it worry you?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; it did. I was concerned about it.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you have a definite system of checking credentials of
these people as they came in?

Mr. CURRY. On a particular incident that had occurred previous to this,
such as the school integration, we had a plane to fall there one time
and we have a regular set up for disaster, whereby the press identify
themselves in order to get into a certain area, and their credentials
were being checked.

Now, I have heard it said, not to my knowledge can I tell you this,
that Jack Ruby at one time or sometime during these preceding days, had
been seen there and apparently had some press credentials but I was
never able to establish that.

Mr. RANKIN. You have checked into it?

Mr. CURRY. I have inquired into it or had it inquired into.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you find out in that regard?

Mr. CURRY. I couldn't find out where he had received press credentials
from anybody.

Representative FORD. Were any press credentials found in his effects?

Mr. CURRY. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. RANKIN. When you were having the difficulty with the media that you
have described, did you do anything about adding additional guards or
anything about additional security?

Mr. CURRY. No; we had two men, two uniformed officers right at the
homicide door to keep anyone from going in there.

As I recall, there was a sergeant, and a couple of reserve officers
at the public elevators here, and there were a couple of reservists
at this end of the hall to keep them from overrunning into the
administrative offices.

Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Exhibit 701, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. Is that the chart?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted. This is a chart of the third floor.

Mr. CURRY. Of the police and courts building.

Mr. DULLES. What is the other word?

Mr. CURRY. Police and courts building.

Mr. DULLES. It will be accepted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 701 for
identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Have you done anything to change your procedures in
regard to security or how you would handle prisoners in light of this
difficulty you had with the media?

Mr. CURRY. The city manager and I have discussed the possibility that
we are going to in the near future build a new police building.

Mr. RANKIN. Who is the city manager?

Mr. CURRY. Elgin Crull. He made this statement that when and if we
build another building, it will be so designed that the prisoners will
not have to be brought through where the general public are permitted
or where the press would be permitted. That there will be two sets of
halls or hallways where they will be brought down in the rear hallways
and admitted into the offices for interrogation.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about that?

Mr. CURRY. I heartily agreed with him.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you made any other plans for change of security?

Mr. CURRY. I have talked to my staff and said if we were ever faced
with a thing of such magnitude again that we would not permit the
press to come into the building. We would designate a place outside
for them and we would just have to take the heat that was given to us
by the press for not permitting them in there, but in view of what had
happened that we would never permit this to occur again.

That we would permit them to have representatives but they would
be required to choose their representatives to be present, say, in
these hallways or inside the buildings, and the rest of them would be
excluded.

And regardless of how they treated us in the press for this decision,
that is the way it would be in the future.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about appearing on television during
this time?

Mr. CURRY. They had these cameras set up in the hallway, if I can have
the exhibit I will show it to you.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. That is Exhibit 701.

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. They had cameras set up right here, two or three
cameras.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you marked that with the word "cameras"?

Mr. CURRY. Yes. And on an occasion or two as I was walking from the
homicide office back to my office they would stop me here and try to
interrogate me or interview me and they would have the cameras turned
on me.

Mr. RANKIN. What would you do?

Mr. CURRY. They would besiege me with questions about how the
investigation was proceeding, and I would on occasion or two I told
them I thought it was proceeding very well, that we were obtaining good
evidence to substantiate our suspicions, that this was the man that was
guilty of the assassination.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell them what evidence you had?

Mr. CURRY. I told them on one occasion we had a rifle that had been
partially identified by his, as belonging to him.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you do that?

Mr. CURRY. I believe that was on Saturday, I think.

Mr. RANKIN. About what time of the day?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall exactly. I think it was in the afternoon. It
might have been Friday night.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell them about any other evidence that you had?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall, sir, whether I did or not. There was so much
confusion that I can't recall exactly the times and exactly what was
said. I think this is documented, perhaps.

Mr. RANKIN. Where?

Mr. CURRY. On the TV film.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. Did you give out any interviews to the newspapers?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall giving any interviews to newspapers.

Mr. RANKIN. Any news releases?

Mr. CURRY. Not that I recall.

Mr. DULLES. Do you recall having told them that you had sent a radio
order out to surround the book depository?

Mr. CURRY. I didn't do that, sir. That was one of my inspectors, I
believe that gave that order. I was riding in the Presidential parade
and approximately a hundred feet, I guess, ahead of the President's
car, and when we heard this first report, I couldn't tell exactly where
it was coming from.

Representative FORD. What report are you talking about now?

Mr. CURRY. A sharp report as a firecracker or as it was it was the
report of this rifle.

We were just approaching an underpass, and there were some people
around on each side of the underpass, up in the railroad yards, and
I thought at first that perhaps this was a railroad torpedo, it was a
sharp crack.

Inspector--no, it wasn't Inspector, it was Lawson of the Secret Service
and Mr. Sorrels of the Dallas office of the Secret Service, and Sheriff
Bill Decker and myself were in this car.

Mr. DULLES. I may be anticipating.

Mr. RANKIN. That is all right, go right ahead.

Mr. CURRY. I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone
said this. I don't recall whether it was me or someone else, and from
the report I couldn't tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard
or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said,
"Get someone up in the railroad yard and check."

And then about this time. I believe it was motorcycle Officer Chaney
rode up beside of me and looking back in the rear view mirror I could
see some commotion in the President's car and after this there had been
two more reports, but these other two reports I could tell were coming
behind instead of from the railroad yards.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by reports?

Mr. CURRY. Sharp reports as a rifle or a firecracker, and looking in
the rear view mirror then I could see some commotion in President
Kennedy's car.

Mr. RANKIN. You could distinctly hear and tell that the two later
reports were from behind?

Mr. CURRY. Behind.

Mr. RANKIN. Rather than front?

Mr. CURRY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. You weren't sure whether the first one was from behind or
in front?

Mr. CURRY. I couldn't tell because perhaps of the echo or the----

Representative FORD. Where were you sitting in the car, sir?

Mr. CURRY. I was driving.

Representative FORD. You were driving?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. When you heard the first report, did you grab a
communications set and give this order?

Mr. CURRY. Almost immediately.

Representative FORD. What was the order that you gave?

Mr. CURRY. As I recall it, "Get someone up in the railroad yard to
check those people." There was already an officer up there.

Mr. RANKIN. How do you know that?

Mr. CURRY. They assigned officers to every overpass.

We went with the Secret Service, Batchelor and Chief Lunday had went
over this route with Secret Service agents Lawson and Sorrels and they
had run the route 2 or 3 days prior to this and pointed out every place
where they wanted security officers, and we placed them there where
they asked for them.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you see an officer there when you looked up?

Mr. CURRY. I couldn't recognize him, but I could see an officer whoever
it was.

Representative FORD. Did you get this order over the PA system before
the second and third shots?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe so, I am not sure. I am not positive.
Because they were in pretty rapid succession. But after I noticed some
commotion in the President's car and a motorcycle officer ran up aside
of me and I asked him what had happened and he said shots had been
fired, and I said, "Has the President been hit or has the President's
party been hit?

And he said, "I am sure they have."

I said, "Take us to the hospital immediately," and I got on the
radio and I told them to notify Parkland Hospital to stand by for an
emergency, and this is approximately, I would say, perhaps a couple of
miles or so to Parkland Hospital from this, and we went to Parkland and
I notified them to have them to be standing by for an emergency, and we
went out there under siren escort and went into the emergency entrance.

As I recall, I got out of the car and rushed to the emergency entrance
and told them to bring the stretchers out, and they loaded the
President, President Kennedy and Governor Connally onto stretchers and
took them into the hospital.

Mrs. Kennedy, I went into the hospital, and I know she was outside
the door of where they were working with the President, and someone
suggested to her that she sit down and she was very calm, and she said,
"I am all right. Some of your people need to sit down more than I do."

But everyone was very concerned. I remained around the hospital. I was
contacted by some of the special sergeants who asked me to stand by in
my car and get another car and take the President, then Vice President
Johnson to Love Field.

Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that, haven't you?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I have told you about that.

Mr. RANKIN. And you told us you attended the swearing in of President
Johnson?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. And that you waited until the plane left and then you came
back?

Mr. CURRY. To my offices.

Mr. RANKIN. And Judge Hughes left at the same time?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you do anything about the assassination after this
or at some time?

Mr. CURRY. No. I left this to be handled by Captain Fritz who is in
charge of all homicide investigations.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether anything was done, did you make inquiry?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; he told me they were interrogating him, Oswald about
the assassination and trying to check on the movements of Oswald, and
they obtained, I understand, some search warrants to go out and search,
they found out where he had been staying.

Mr. RANKIN. What about the building immediately after the occasion?

Mr. CURRY. It was sealed off, Inspector Sawyer who is a uniformed
police inspector, I think was the first ranking officer to the School
Depository Building. He would have had to come perhaps 10 blocks. I
believe he told me that he was about at Akard and Maine when this came
on the air that we had had some trouble down there.

Mr. RANKIN. You say you imagine. Is this something that they reported
to you?

Mr. CURRY. Yes. He told me later that he did immediately go to the
scene of the Texas--of where the shots were fired from.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he tell you he did then?

Mr. CURRY. He took charge of the investigation.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he do about the building?

Mr. CURRY. He had it sealed off. This perhaps would have been perhaps,
5, 8, 10 minutes after the original----

Mr. RANKIN. About what time?

Mr. CURRY. I would say perhaps 12:40.

Mr. RANKIN. And was that before or after a description of Lee Oswald
was put on the radio?

Mr. CURRY.I couldn't say whether it was before or after.

Mr. RANKIN. What else happened?

Mr. CURRY. I think he perhaps was the one who gave that description, I
am not sure.

A deputy chief of services who was in the pilot car ahead of us, was at
Love Field, and he had some more Secret Service men with him, I believe.

Mr. RANKIN. Who is that?

Mr. CURRY. George Lumpkin. George L. Lumpkin. He asked me at the
hospital if I didn't want him to go back to the Texas School Book
Depository and assist in the search of the building and I told him yes,
and he did go back, and took over on the search of the building then.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he report to you later what he did about that?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, he did. He told me that he had sealed it off and he
appointed two search teams to search the building from top to bottom,
starting at the bottom and going to the top and starting at the top and
going to the bottom.

Mr. McCLOY. Who was this man?

Mr. CURRY. George L. Lumpkin.

Mr. McCLOY. Secret Service?

Mr. CURRY. No.

Mr. McCLOY. On your staff?

Mr. CURRY. No; he is a police officer.

Mr. RANKIN. Was he an assistant chief?

Mr. CURRY. He is not an assistant chief. Each of the divisions have a
deputy chief in charge of them. I have one assistant chief and four
deputy chiefs.

Mr. RANKIN. And this was a deputy chief?

Mr. CURRY. A deputy chief; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Under your system the highest civil service status is
inspector, is it?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And the other officers are appointed?

Mr. CURRY. Appointed, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. By you?

Mr. CURRY. By me, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, these two teams that you referred to that the deputy
chief appointed to search the building, do you know how many officers
were in those teams?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether the search was made?

Mr. CURRY. They reported to me that it was made, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what else happened in regard to the building or
the search for the assassin?

Mr. CURRY. After it was searched I understand it was sealed off and
they were asked not to let anybody come or go from the building until
further orders.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened after that?

Mr. DULLES. Could I inquire there. I thought it was sealed off previous
to the search according to your previous testimony.

Mr. CURRY. It was. But after they searched it and all of the
investigators left there, they asked Mr. Truly, I believe, the building
manager, not to let anybody come and go.

Mr. DULLES. Was that supplemented, though, by the police?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I believe we had officers there.

Mr. DULLES. Then there were in a way two sealings off. One that you
gave the order was given 8 or 10 minutes----

Mr. CURRY. Almost immediately, yes.

Mr. DULLES. After the assassination, and then the other one was after
this search had been made.

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. There is one element I am not clear on, I may be
anticipating, Mr. Rankin. But I believe we have had some testimony
heretofore, that Mr.--an officer went in with Mr. Truly into the
building.

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And started to go upstairs, and they ran into Oswald on the
second floor. Was that before the inspector got there?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; I am sure it was, because this officer was there
at the scene.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you remember that officer's name?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I don't. It is in the record.

Mr. BELIN. It is officer M. L. Baker. He was in the motorcade.

Mr. McCLOY. Did M. L. Baker purport to seal off the building?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; he didn't. The first officers in there were rushing
up to the upper floors.

Mr. McCLOY. The first man who sealed the building was----

Mr. CURRY. I believe will be Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. McCLOY. Inspector Sawyer?

Mr. CURRY. I believe he would be the first to issue orders. I could be
mistaken on that but as I recall he was the first officer.

Mr. DULLES. You did not give those orders yourself?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; not myself.

Representative FORD. How many men participated in the search of the
building?

Mr. CURRY. I would just have to guess but I would suggest probably 20
people.

Representative FORD. Did you check with those who went through this
process?

Mr. CURRY. No; I didn't check with each individual officer.

Representative FORD. Did you get a report?

Mr. CURRY. I got a report from Inspector Sawyer, and also from Chief
Lumpkin as to the manner in which it was searched.

Representative FORD. How long did it take them, do you have any idea?

Mr. CURRY. I believe they were, perhaps, maybe a couple of hours
altogether, searching that building.

Representative FORD. Did they give you an oral or written report on
what they found or didn't find?

Mr. CURRY. I believe there were some written reports made. I don't
recall now.

Representative FORD. If there are written reports could we have them?

Mr. CURRY. I think----

Mr. RANKIN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative FORD. Back on the record.

Are you familiar with any written report, Chief, on what transpired
during the search of the building?

Mr. CURRY. Only what Deputy Chief Lumpkin in his report here in a
chronological report that we made, and you have this, as best we could,
after this occurred, the deputy chiefs and myself all sat down together
went over this from the time we received notice that the President
would visit Dallas until the shooting of Oswald, and step by step we
tried to go through this as to what we did, and this is what we call a
chronological report.

Representative FORD. If there is a report in anybody's files in the
Dallas Police department on what transpired during this investigation
of the building, there would be no reason why that report couldn't be
made available?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; if we have one it certainly would be made available.

Representative FORD. Will you check the files of the department and
if there is a report available will you submit it to the Commission,
please?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; I was trying to.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, I think that your chronological report does
not purport to go into the detail of how the search was made and so
forth.

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; it just states in here how Chief Lumpkin, how he
formed the search and it tells something about while he was there.

Mr. McCLOY. The chronological report part of our record yet?

Mr. BELIN. We have a chronological report, yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Is this the same one as the Chief is looking at?

Mr. RANKIN. We will check that.

Mr. DULLES. It is not yet an exhibit, is it?

Mr. RANKIN. No; we have, and we were discussing yesterday, a number of
items in the form of affidavits and other evidence that we will have
to introduce into the record of the Commission before we get through
which has been examined by the staff and in some cases called to the
Commission's attention but is not formally a matter of record and we
will have to complete that before we can complete our report.

Mr. McCLOY. Is that the same chronological report that the Chief has?

Mr. CURRY. If it isn't I can leave you these copies but they were
submitted to Attorney General Carr, two copies. This is what is in
this report. "Upon arrival,"--this is Chief Lumpkin--"Upon arrival
at the Texas School Book Depository we found Inspector Sawyer was in
front of the building and with the assistance of other officers was
in the process of detaining anyone or everyone who had any knowledge
whatsoever of the shooting. This was discussed with Sawyer. We decided
that we would get all persons in that category away from the crowd by
sending them to Sheriff Decker's office"--which is about a half block
from here--"at Main and Houston to be held for further interrogation.
Homicide Detective Turner was sent to the sheriff's office to represent
the homicide bureau of our department and interrogating these
witnesses."

Mr. DULLES. That is where the sheriff's office was?

Mr. CURRY. Main and Houston, it runs.

"Detective Senkel was released back to Captain Fritz to assist in
the investigation. He had come down. Sawyer had placed guards on the
building to prevent anyone from going or coming. Sawyer organized
a detail to check all persons and automobiles on the parking lot
surrounding the Texas School Book Depository Building, taking their
names, telephone numbers, addresses, places of employment, and later on
in the afternoon those vehicles that were not taken out were checked by
license number. Several of the U.S. Alcohol Tax units assisted in the
search.

"At that time Lumpkin entered the building and instructed that it be
completely sealed off and that no one be allowed to leave or enter."

This probably was some, I would say, some 30 or 40 minutes after the
original shots were fired. He had gone on to Parkland Hospital to me
and I told him there to return to assist in the handling of this matter.

Mr. McCLOY. In your judgment is that the first sealing off of the
building that took place?

Mr. CURRY. No; I think Inspector Sawyer, when he arrived he took some
steps to seal off the building.

Mr. RANKIN. You have already testified about Inspector Sawyer and you
said you thought he was about 10 or 12 blocks away.

Mr. CURRY. I believe so. I believe he was about at Main and Akard
Streets which would be about 10 blocks away when he heard of this
incident occurring and he immediately went down there.

Mr. DULLES. And the first order to seal off was given some 10 minutes,
I think you testified, in that neighborhood?

Mr. CURRY. To the best of my knowledge.

Mr. DULLES. After the assassination?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't know just what he did about sealing the building,
did you?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I don't. I imagine he placed men on the front and
back doors and asked them not to let anyone come or go without finding
out who they were.

Mr. DULLES. Who would know that fact as to when that order was given,
that would be Sawyer?

Mr. RANKIN. Officer Sawyer would be the one who would really know that
fact?

Mr. CURRY. I believe so.

Mr. RANKIN. And whatever he would say about it you think would be
correct?

Mr. CURRY. I do. Because we already have a deposition from him
that tells about the sealing of the building, and it was not done
immediately when he came.

Representative FORD. Would it be appropriate at this time to put that
deposition in the record at this point?

Mr. RANKIN. I wonder if it would be satisfactory to the Commission, in
view of the inquiry by Commissioner Ford, if we would, the staff would,
tender at this point the portion of the deposition that relates to how
the building was sealed, and then have a reference to this point in the
place where it is offered in evidence in regular course.

Representative FORD. That would be satisfactory to me as far as the
particular point we are discussing at the moment.

Mr. RANKIN. We will do that then.

Now, Chief, would you tell us the next thing that you know of that
happened about the search for the assassin, after the search of the
depository building that you described?

Mr. CURRY. The next thing I can tell you about, I remained out, as I
say, at Love Field until the planes departed. I went back to the office.

Mr. DULLES. At about what time would you place that?

Mr. CURRY. I believe it was about 4 o'clock I believe when I returned
to the office.

Mr. DULLES. It was 4 o'clock when you returned to the office from Love
Field?

Mr. CURRY. I believe so, I am not positive.

When I arrived they were in the process of, Captain Fritz and his men,
were in the process of investigating this murder of Tippit and also the
assassination of the President.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make an inquiry in regard to the progress?

Mr. CURRY. I think I did. I asked him how he was coming along and he
said they were making good progress.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened after that?

Mr. CURRY. They had had a couple of showups with Oswald so witnesses
could attempt to identify him.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether they had gone out to Beckley Street to
the place where he had stayed?

Mr. CURRY. I understood they had and I understood they went back the
next day.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by a showup?

Mr. CURRY. Well, it is customary when you have suspects in a crime
where you have witnesses, that they be taken into a room and allowed,
the witnesses, to observe them in the presence of other people.

Mr. RANKIN. You have a room for this purpose?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; we do.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe briefly what that room is like?

Mr. CURRY. It is a police assemblyroom where we hold our regular
rollcalls. They have a stage whereby prisoners are brought up on this
stage.

Mr. RANKIN. How large is the room?

Mr. CURRY. The room, I would say, is perhaps 50 feet long and 20 feet
wide.

Mr. RANKIN. Who was allowed in the room at the time of this showup?

Mr. CURRY. Presumably only the news media and police officers. I have
been told that Jack Ruby was seen in this showuproom also.

Mr. RANKIN. About what time of the day was that?

Mr. CURRY. As I recall, this was fairly late Friday night, I believe.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who was there to try to identify Lee Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. No, I don't. The news media, a number of them, had continued
to say, "Let us see him. What are you doing to him? How does he look?"

I think one broadcaster that I had heard or someone had told me about,
said that Lee Harvey Oswald is in custody of the police department, and
that something about he looked all right when he went in there, they
wouldn't guarantee how he would look after he had been in custody of
the Dallas police for a couple of hours, which intimated to me that
when I heard this that they thought we were mistreating the prisoner.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about that?

Mr. CURRY. I offered then at that time--they wanted to see him and they
wanted to know why they couldn't see him and I said we had no objection
to anybody seeing him.

And when he was being moved down the hall to go back up in the jail
they would crowd on him and we just had to surround him by officers to
get to take him to the jail elevator to take him back upstairs, to let
him rest from the interrogation.

Mr. RANKIN. And this showup, how many people attended?

Mr. CURRY. I would think perhaps 75 people. I am just making an
estimate. I told them if they would not try to overrun the prisoner and
not try to interrogate him we would bring him to the showup room. There
was--this, thinking also that these newspaper people had been all over
Love Field, and had been down at the assassination scene, and we didn't
know but what some of them might recognize him as being present, they
might have seen him around some of these places.

Now, Mr. Wade, the district attorney, was present, at this time and his
assistant was present, and as I recall, I asked Mr. Wade, I said, "Do
you think this will be all right?" And he said, "I don't see anything
wrong with it."

Mr. RANKIN. Did you find out where Jack Ruby was during this showup?

Mr. CURRY. I didn't know Jack Ruby. Actually the first time I saw Jack
Ruby to know Jack Ruby was in a bond hearing or I believe it was a bond
hearing, and I recognized him sitting at counsel's table.

The impression has been given that a great many of the Dallas Police
Department knew Jack Ruby.

Mr. RANKIN. What is the fact in that regard?

Mr. CURRY. The fact of that as far as I know there are a very small
percentage of the Dallas Police Department that knows Jack Ruby.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make an inquiry to find out?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I did, yes, sir. And so far as I know most of the men
who knew Jack Ruby are men who were assigned to the vice squad of the
police department or who had worked the radio patrol district where he
had places and in the course----

Mr. RANKIN. How many men would that be?

Mr. CURRY. I am guessing, perhaps 25 men. This is merely a guess on my
part.

Mr. RANKIN. How large is your police force?

Mr. CURRY. Approximately 1,200. I would say 1,175 people. I would say
less, I believe less than 50 people knew him. From what I have found
out since then that he is the type that if he saw a policeman, or he
came to his place of business he would probably run up and make himself
acquainted with him.

I also have learned since this time he tried to ingratiate himself with
any of the news media or any of the reporters who had anything to do,
he was always constantly trying to get publicity for his clubs or for
himself.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, at this showup, is there some screen between the
person in custody?

Mr. CURRY. There is a time--there wasn't at this time.

Mr. RANKIN. Why not?

Mr. CURRY. No particular reason. They just, a lot of the news media say
they didn't think they could see him up there or couldn't get pictures
of him up there and we brought him in there in front of the screen
and kept him there as I recall only about 4 or 5 minutes and shoving
up close to him and taking shots of him and took him upstairs and I
believe the district attorney and his assistant stayed down and perhaps
talked to the news media for several minutes.

But we took Harvey Oswald back upstairs and I think I went back to my
office.

Mr. DULLES. This was the evening of Friday, was it not?

Mr. CURRY. I believe so, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Did you say Ruby was present that evening?

Mr. CURRY. I have understood he was. But to my own knowledge, I
wouldn't have known him because I didn't know him.

Mr. McCLOY. You said you first saw Ruby when?

Mr. CURRY. In a trial. I believe it was for a bond hearing where they
were attempting to get bond for him. And I saw him sitting at a counsel
table and recognized him from pictures I had seen of him in the paper.

Mr. DULLES. This is some time before the assassination?

Mr. McCLOY. This is the trial incident to the trial of Ruby, as I
understand it?

Mr. DULLES. You had not seen him before?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. It was a bond hearing incident to the trial?

Mr. CURRY. If I had seen him I wouldn't have known him.

Mr. McCLOY. I don't want to again interrupt but I don't know whether
we have passed by all of the questions you wanted to ask the chief in
regard to the motorcade and the time of the assassination.

I thought maybe we might ask him whether or what was his estimate of
the speed of the motorcade, for example.

Mr. RANKIN. We haven't covered that period because of the way we
started, and I think we could go back, Chief, if you will, to, say, at
the point the motorcade left Main Street and started down Houston, and
then down Elm up to the time of the shots.

Will you describe that, where you and what the motorcade consisted of?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; I was--there was a pilot car ahead of us with
Deputy Chief Lumpkin that was perhaps two or three blocks ahead of us
and had been preceding us all the way from Love Field to see that the
route was open and reporting back by radio to us, and this was for the
purpose, if we had any wrecks or congestion to where it looked like
the motorcade could be stopped that we could change our routes and get
around them and also to let us know how the crowd was.

He had been preceding us all this way. There has been some question as
to why this motorcade would not proceed on down Main Street.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain that to the Commission?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; I can. I will make another diagram here, if you
wish me to.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCloy asked about whether the chronological report
that Chief Curry was examining during part of his testimony was
available to the Commission. We have now searched the Commission files
and we find that a copy of that exact report has been available to the
Commission and we have it here. It is a Commission document----

Mr. REDLICH. It is in Commission Document 81.1.

Representative FORD. Will this report be made a part of the record?

Mr. RANKIN. We haven't decided that question but we will examine it and
report to the Commission later if it is not made a part of the record,
why we recommend that it not be. It may very well be amongst the
documents that would be made part of the record in regular course when
we examine all of the material for that purpose. Is that a satisfactory
handling of it?

Representative FORD. I think it is. I haven't had an opportunity to
examine it. But if it is a part of the record, I suspect it ought to
be made a part at this point since it has been referred to by the
testimony of the chief. But it is something that could be discussed
later, and if it should be, it could be put into the record at this
point.

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to ask leave of the Chairman then to examine
it with greater care after the testimony of the chief is taken and be
able to make it a part of the record at this point unless I report back
to the Commission that for some reason it would not be desirable.

Mr. DULLES. That would be we would proceed in regard to this
chronological report we would proceed in the same way as we have
suggested we would with regard to the other depositions that were taken
in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Except my offer before, Mr. Chairman, was that the portion
of the deposition that would relate to the matters described, that is
the sealing of the building, would, in fact, be incorporated into this
record at that point. And that the balance of it would be offered at
some later date as a part of the record of the Commission.

Here I wanted to reserve the question as to whether it should be a part
of the record because of my desire first to examine it in detail and
see if there is any reason why it should not and then report back to
the Commission.

Mr. DULLES. You will report back to the Commission. It will not be
excluded unless you so report to the Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. And the reason therefor?

Mr. CURRY. This sketch.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you mark that sketch you have just made Exhibit 702
please, and 703?

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 702 and 703 were marked for identification.)

Mr. CURRY. In the diagram, 702, Exhibit 702, the motorcade was going
west on Main Street, there is a triple underpass there. There are three
streets and they converge into one wide street down through a triple
underpass, what we call a triple underpass.

Mr. RANKIN. Where you are talking about the underpass is that underpass
on Main Street?

Mr. CURRY. It is just west of Houston Street and runs parallel
with Houston Street. And Main Street--now Houston Street runs in a
north-south direction, Main Street, Elm Street, and Commerce Street
the three principal streets that empty into this triple underpass are
east-west, Elm Street is a one-way street west, Commerce is one-way
east, Main Street is a two-way street going east and west. We had----

Mr. RANKIN. You were going to explain why you couldn't continue right
down Main.

Mr. CURRY. We would--we left the parade route up to the host committee.
They chose the route, asking that we go down Main Street, and then
we would go on to what is known as the triple, through the triple
underpass onto Stemmons Expressway. It was necessary to get on this
expressway to get to the Trade Mart, the building where the dinner or
luncheon would be held.

But had we proceeded on down Main Street, we could not have gotten
onto Stemmons Expressway unless we had had public works to come in and
remove some curbing and build some barricades over it.

So, in talking with the Secret Service people they suggested we come
to Main Street to Elm Street, turn one block north and turn back west
and go through the triple underpass on the Elm Street side and at this
place Elm Street is two-way.

So that was the reason that it was necessary to take this motorcade one
block north, and then turn west again in order that we could get on
the triple, through the triple underpass onto the Stemmons Expressway
without coming down and removing some curbing or building over the
curbing and disturbing the regular flow of traffic.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there any consideration given prior to establishing the
parade route to removing this curbing and going----

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; nothing was said about it at all. In fact, when
they were choosing the routes for this parade, we left it entirely up
to the host committee and to the Secret Service.

They asked us what we thought about certain routes. We told them what
we thought would be the most direct routes, and they chose to come
through the downtown area, I think for the purpose they wanted the
President to see as much of the people as possible and wanted the
people to have an opportunity to see him.

Mr. RANKIN. Going to the Trade Mart building would be assumed that you
would go by the Texas Depository Building?

Mr. CURRY. If we went on Stemmons Expressway and that is the way
they wanted to go. The only other way we could have gone. We could
have continued down Main Street passed through the underpass about a
block past there to Industrial Boulevard and then we would have gone
Industrial Boulevard and made an entrance from the Trade Mart, from the
north side of the Trade Mart there. But it was decided with the Secret
Service people that we would go Main to Houston, Houston to Elm, Elm
through to triple underpass onto the expressway and the expressway to
the Trade Mart where they would come off and had parking facilities
reserved and had a security setup.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe the cars of the----

Mr. McCLOY. Just before that, how far before November 22 was that route
decided on?

Mr. CURRY. Approximately 2 days or so, I believe. That is in this
chronological record.

Mr. DULLES. When was this route published?

Mr. McCLOY. That route was published.

Mr. CURRY. It was published perhaps 2 days before, a day or two before.

Mr. RANKIN. Is the Elm Street route a shorter route than to go by
Industrial Boulevard?

Mr. CURRY. It's a more scenic route. The Stemmons Expressway was and
it was easier to travel, traffic is easier to control on it, it is
a 10-lane highway, and the Industrial Highway is heavily traveled
by commercial vehicles and goes through a commercial section of the
industrial area. And there was a more scenic route and traffic was
more--a freer flow of traffic anyway.

Mr. RANKIN. Were you involved in the discussion about the choice of
route?

Mr. CURRY. Not particularly. Chief Batchelor, my assistant chief, and
Chief Lunday. I discussed this some with the Secret Service Agent
Sorrels, and Lawson in a staff meeting at city hall.

Mr. RANKIN. What was that discussion?

Mr. CURRY. Well, we, when I say we, I mean my staff and I, we told them
what we thought would be the most direct route.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you say that would have been?

Mr. CURRY. It would have been to come into Lemmon Avenue, to Central
Expressway if they were coming through town and over that route.

Now, if they were going directly to the Trade Mart it would have been
to come in Lemmon to Inwood Road and down Inwood to Hines, and Hines
to Industrial and Industrial into--but this would not have taken them
through the downtown area.

Mr. RANKIN. Then if they were going to go through the downtown area
what did you say about the route that should be taken for that?

Mr. CURRY. This was probably the most direct route that they chose
except they could have come in what we term the Central Expressway to
Main Street, and then west on Main Street right down the route that was
taken.

They chose rather to come in on Lemmon Avenue to Turtle Creek, and
here again this is a more scenic route and more people would have
an opportunity to see the motorcade. And followed Turtle Creek into
Cedar Springs, to Harwood and south on Harwood to Main Street, west on
Main to Houston, north on Houston to Elm and west on Elm to Stemmons
Expressway.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you described the cars in the motorcade? Their
positions?

Mr. CURRY. I have them listed here, I couldn't tell you other than the
front part of the motorcade but they are in this report.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Tell us the front part that you recall.

Mr. CURRY. I had Deputy Chief Lumpkin, and he had two Secret Service
men with him, I believe, out of Washington, and a Colonel Wiedemeyer
who is the East Texas Section Commander of the Army Reserve in the
area, he was with him. They were out about, they were supposed to stay
about a quarter of a mile ahead of us and I was in the lead car.

Mr. RANKIN. Who was with you?

Mr. CURRY. Inspector, not inspector, but Sheriff Bill Decker, Sorrels
of the Secret Service, and Mr. Lawson, I believe he was out of the
Washington office of the Secret Service. And immediately behind us then
was the President's car.

Mr. RANKIN. You were driving your car?

Mr. CURRY. I was driving my car.

Mr. RANKIN. You had radio communication in that?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; I had radio communication with my motorcycle officers,
with my downtown office, and Secret Service had a portable radio that
they had radio contact with their people.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Now, what was in the next car.

Mr. CURRY. The President's party was in that car. Then following him
was the Secret Service vehicle and then I understand was the Vice
President's car, and then behind him was a Secret Service car. And then
they had cars lined up as listed in this report here, how they were
lined up after that.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, after you turned the corner off of Main going onto
Houston, will you describe what happened as you recall it?

Mr. CURRY. Nothing unusual occurred. We were, I would say traveling
perhaps 10 miles an hour, would be the ordinary speed to make a turn,
and probably was making that speed after we made a turn from north,
going north on Houston to west on Elm Street, and----

Mr. RANKIN. Did you slow down for the turn onto Elm?

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps just a little. I would say we were probably going
8 to 10 miles an hour. And as we were moving downward the triple
underpass which is about an ordinary block we were beginning to pick up
a little speed.

Mr. RANKIN. How much of a descent is there between where the Depository
Building is and the place in the underpass?

Mr. CURRY. It is a pretty good little drop. Within the space of a block
it drops down enough to go under an underpass.

Mr. RANKIN. It would be more than the height of a car?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; two heights.

Mr. RANKIN. Two heights.

Mr. CURRY. I think it is a 13- or 14-foot clearance.

Mr. RANKIN. Trucks could get under that?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?

Mr. CURRY. Then we heard this report.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, how far along from the corner of Elm and Houston were
you at the time of that?

Mr. CURRY. I think we were perhaps a couple of hundred feet or so.

Mr. RANKIN. How fast were you going then?

Mr. CURRY. I think we were going between 10 or 12 miles an hour, maybe
up to 15 miles an hour.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?

Mr. CURRY. We heard this report, and then all of the tension that
followed I have told you.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. What was the distance between your car and the President's
car approximately?

Mr. CURRY. Mr. Dulles, I believe to the best of my knowledge it would
have been 100, 125 feet.

Mr. DULLES. Between your car and the President's car?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, we stayed pretty close to them. In the planning of
this motorcade, we had had more motorcycles lined up to be with the
President's car, but the Secret Service didn't want that many.

Mr. RANKIN. Did they tell you why?

Mr. CURRY. We actually had two on each side but we wanted four on each
side and they asked us to drop out some of them and back down the
motorcade, along the motorcade, which we did.

Mr. RANKIN. How many motorcycles did you have?

Mr. CURRY. I think we had four on each side of him.

Mr. RANKIN. How many did you want to have?

Mr. CURRY. We actually had two on each side side but we wanted four on
each side and they asked us to drop out some of them and back down the
motorcade, along the motorcade, which we did.

Mr. RANKIN. So that you in fact only had two on each side of his car?

Mr. CURRY. Two on each side and they asked them to remain at the rear
fender so if the crowd moved in on him they could move in to protect
him from the crowd.

Mr. RANKIN. Who asked him to stay at the rear fender?

Mr. CURRY. I believe Mr. Lawson.

Mr. RANKIN. The Secret Service man?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. Also we had planned to have Captain Fritz and some
of his homicide detectives immediately following the President's car
which we have in the past, we have always done this.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, would that be between the President's car and the
Secret Service?

Mr. CURRY. And the Secret Service. We have in past done this. We have
been immediately behind the President's car.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you propose that to someone?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Who did you propose it to?

Mr. CURRY. To Mr. Lawson and Mr. Sellers.

Mr. RANKIN. What did they say about that?

Mr. CURRY. They didn't want it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did they tell you why?

Mr. CURRY. They said the Secret Service would be there.

Mr. RANKIN. And then?

Mr. CURRY. They said we can put this vehicle in between Captain Fritz
and his detectives immediately at the end of the motorcade. They said,
"No, we want a white or marked car there bringing up the rear," so
Fritz and his men were not in the motorcade.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean in the past when there have been previous
Presidents visiting Dallas or other dignitaries?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; that is right; other dignitaries. Yes; our thinking
along this was that in the past there have been this. Captain Fritz,
he is a very experienced homicide man so are his detectives. They know
the city very well. They have been there very, Captain Fritz to my
knowledge, over 40 years.

It is customary that they in trying to protect a person if they are
in the immediate vicinity, and Captain Fritz told me later, he said,
"I believe that had we been there we might possibly have got that man
before he got out of that building or we would have maybe had the
opportunity of firing at him while he was still firing" because they
were equipped, would have been equipped with high-powered rifles and
machineguns, submachine guns.

Representative FORD. Where were they instead of being at the motorcade.

Mr. CURRY. Actually they were not in the motorcade at all. They
followed up the motorcade.

Representative FORD. Were they in a car following up the motorcade?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; they were in a car.

Representative FORD. How far away would they have been?

Mr. CURRY. I think they would have been at the rear, I believe.

Representative FORD. Captain Fritz is going to be here later.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Representative FORD. And fill in what he did at that time?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. But we tried to do what the Secret Service asked us to do,
and we didn't try to override them because we didn't feel it was our
responsibility, that it was their responsibility to tell us what they
wanted and we would try to provide it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you refuse to do anything that they asked you to do?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; not to my knowledge we don't--we didn't refuse them
to do anything.

Mr. DULLES. You considered them to be the boss in this particular
situation?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; the Secret Service; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know or can you tell us approximately where the
President's car was at the time of the first shot that you heard?

Mr. CURRY. To the best of my knowledge, I would say it was
approximately halfway between Houston Street and the underpass, which
would be, I would say probably 125-150 feet west of Houston Street.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us the approximate location of where it was
when you heard the second shot?

Mr. CURRY. Well, it would have been just a few feet further because
these shots were in fairly rapid succession.

Mr. RANKIN. How many feet do you mean?

Mr. CURRY. I would say perhaps, and this is just an estimate on my
part, perhaps 25 or 30 feet further along.

Mr. RANKIN. Then at the time of the third shot?

Mr. CURRY. A few feet further, perhaps 15-20 feet further.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an opinion as to the time that expired between
the first shot and the third shot?

Mr. CURRY. This is just an opinion on my part but I would think perhaps
5 or 6 seconds.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you hear any more than three shots?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you sure of that?

Mr. CURRY. I am positive of that. I heard three shots. I will never
forget it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have something, Mr. McCloy?

Mr. McCLOY. I was going to ask you, chief, as you were approaching the
underpass you were looking toward the underpass presumably?

Mr. CURRY. That is right.

Mr. McCLOY. Was the underpass bare of people or were there people on it?

Mr. CURRY. No; I could see some people on each side but not immediately
over, but there were some people up in the railroad yard. I also could
see an officer up there. I don't know who the officer was.

Mr. McCLOY. You could recognize an officer on the top of the underpass?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; their instructions had been to place officers on every
overpass and in every underpass.

Mr. McCLOY. How close were you then to the underpass when you first
heard that shot?

Mr. CURRY. Oh, perhaps 150 feet or 100 feet or so.

Mr. McCLOY. So you are convinced that the shot could not come from the
overpass?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe it did; no, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Then----

Mr. CURRY. Because there didn't seem to be any commotion going on over
there. This seemed to be people that I could see, they didn't seem to
run or anything. They just seemed to be there.

Mr. McCLOY. You spoke of the railroad yard. Just where is that railroad
yard in relation to the underpass? We will see that.

Mr. CURRY. It is over----

Mr. McCLOY. It is on the other side.

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. You see these tracks.

Mr. RANKIN. Mark that as Exhibit 703 and you can refer to.

Mr. CURRY. Yes; here is the School Book Depository. The railroad goes
over.

Mr. DULLES. This aerial view of the Elm Street there, isn't it of the
underpass, will be admitted as 704.

(Commission Exhibit No. 704 was marked for identification, and received
in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. Do you call that the railroad yards?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; that is true.

Mr. McCLOY. Above the underpass?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see a number of people in the railroad yard?

Mr. CURRY. I would estimate maybe a half dozen.

Mr. DULLES. They were spectators or were they workmen. They were
spectators?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; as well as I was able to tell. They might have
been workmen, too, but I presume it was people who were in the area and
as the motorcade approached they got into position where they perhaps
could have seen it.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you recognize any officer amongst them?

Mr. CURRY. I seemed to recall seeing a uniformed police officer up
there.

Mr. McCLOY. In the railroad yard, and there was no commotion amongst
the railroad yard people?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe so.

Representative FORD. Do you know who the officer was?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; but I believe by looking at the assignments we
could determine what officer was up there.

There is an assignment of personnel which has been submitted for the
record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. RANKIN. On the record, we will supply for the purposes of this
record the name of the officer and check it with Chief Curry, who was
on the underpass or really the over part of the pass.

Mr. CURRY. Really over.

Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the motorcade.

Representative FORD. Who determined there should be one, not more
officers at an overpass?

Mr. CURRY. Deputy Chief Lunday and Assistant Chief Batchelor went over
this route with Sorrels, and I believe Lawson was with them. And they
were the ones who determined how many men would be placed at each
location.

Mr. RANKIN. The inquiry I think particularly is did the Secret Service
decide it would be one or did you decide it would be one?

Mr. CURRY. No; it would be the Secret Service because we just let them
tell us how many men they wanted. The only deviation we made from that
was in the security of the Trade Mart. I believe they requested 143
men, as I recall to secure the Trade Mart, and I believe we supplied
them with 193 or 194 men, somewhat in excess of what they asked for at
this location.

I called the State police, and they furnished a number of men, about 30
men, and Sheriff Decker furnished about 15, and I think we furnished
from our department everybody that they asked for really, so we had a
surplus.

Representative FORD. But the details as to how many men should be
placed where were determined by Lawson and Sorrels of the Secret
Service?

Mr. CURRY. That is right, sir; yes, sir.

(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask one question?

As you were leading this or just ahead of the President's car, as you
came around past the School Depository Building, was there anything
that attracted your attention to the building at all as you went by?

Mr. CURRY. Not at all.

Mr. McCLOY. There was no movement or anything?

Mr. CURRY. Not at all.

Mr. McCLOY. You weren't conscious of looking up at the windows?

Mr. CURRY. Not at all.

Mr. McCLOY. You had Secret Service men in that car with you?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Were they inspecting the windows as they went by?

Mr. CURRY. It seemed that Sorrels, he was looking around a whole lot
and so was Lawson. I know comments were being made along the route as
to first one thing and then another.

Mr. DULLES. If you had had the other Car with police officers in it to
which you referred and which I gathered you recommended what would have
been the function and duties of the officers in that particular car?

Mr. CURRY. It would have been, of course, to guard the President, but
in the event that anything happened they would have immediately dropped
out of their car with rifles and submachine guns. That was what we had
planned.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, as a part of the plans for the motorcade, was there
anything said about the inspection of buildings along the route?

Mr. CURRY. The comment was made that in a city like this how in the
world could you inspect or put somebody in every window of every
building.

Mr. RANKIN. Who said that?

Mr. CURRY. This was in a discussion with the Secret Service. I don't
recall exactly who said this.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it the Secret Service people or your people?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know whether it was us or Secret Service. But this
was discussed. I think it was Secret Service who told us how they
always dreaded having to go through a downtown area where there were
these skyscraper buildings.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any effort that was made to search any of
the buildings?

Mr. CURRY. Not to my knowledge. We did put some extra men from the
special service bureau in the downtown area to work in midblocks to
watch the crowd and they were not specifically told to watch buildings
but they were told to watch everything.

Mr. RANKIN. Where were they located?

Mr. CURRY. On the route down Main Street. We didn't have any between
Elm Street and the railroad yard.

Mr. RANKIN. But you say in midblock?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; especially midblock along the route through the
downtown area.

Mr. RANKIN. Where would the downtown area be?

Mr. CURRY. It would be from Harwood Street down to Houston Street.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, do you know whether Officers Foster and White
were on the underpass?

Mr. CURRY. I would have to look at the assignment sheet to determine
that, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask at this point, unless I may be interfering with
your examination, but was it usual for the representatives of the news
media to attend showups in the police headquarters apart from this
incident?

Mr. CURRY. It was not unusual. This was not setting a precedent.

Mr. McCLOY. It was not unusual.

Representative FORD. In such a showup where they are present, are they
shielded from the person brought in for identification?

Mr. CURRY. Are they shielded from----

Representative FORD. From the person who is brought up for
identification?

Mr. CURRY. Ordinarily the person who is brought up for identification
would be behind the screen, behind this silk screen. This is for the
purpose of protecting the person who is going to try to identify him
more than trying to protect the person who is being shown up because
witnesses ofttimes have a fear of facing someone that they are asked to
identify.

For this reason this screen was provided where the prisoner could not
see out, but the people can see in. It is much like a one-way glass.

Representative FORD. That was used in this case?

Mr. CURRY. No; this was not used. We just brought him in front of it.

Representative FORD. Any particular reason why he was put in front of
it?

Mr. CURRY. They asked us if we wouldn't bring him out there, they
didn't think their cameras would show through the screen. And as I
repeated, when this was brought up, I asked Mr. Wade, the district
attorney, if he saw anything wrong with this and he said "No; I don't
see anything wrong with this," so we agreed to do this.

Representative FORD. Who was in charge of the actual showup operation?

Mr. CURRY. The jail personnel would have brought him down from
downstairs and brought him into the room and then removed him.

Representative FORD. Who handled the actual process of identification
or attempted identification by various witnesses?

Mr. CURRY. Usually Captain Fritz or some of his homicide detectives are
present. I know when they were having a showup for a little lady, I
don't know her name but she was a waitress who observed the shooting of
the officer, I just--I wasn't there during the entire showup but I was
present part of the showup and Captain Fritz was asking her to observe
these people and see if she could pick out the man she saw who shot the
officer and she didn't identify Oswald at that time.

Representative FORD. Did you say the actual process that was--that took
place in these several showups was similar to or different from the
showups in other cases?

Mr. CURRY. The only one where we didn't have any particular witnesses
to show him up to, but the number of the news media had asked if they
couldn't see him and it was almost impossible for all of them to see
him up in this hallway and we decided that the best thing to do, if
we were going to let them see him at all would be to take them and
get them into a room, and then there was utter confusion after we did
that because they tried to overrun him after we got him there and we
immediately removed him and took him back upstairs.

Representative FORD. You mentioned earlier there had been some
allegations to the effect that Oswald had been badly treated.

Mr. CURRY. There was--I didn't hear this myself but someone told me, I
don't recall who it was, that some of the news media, I understood this
was broadcast over the radio and TV.

Representative FORD. Did you investigate that rumor?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. What did you find out?

Mr. CURRY. I found he had not been mistreated.

Representative FORD. You checked with all the police personnel who had
anything to do with it?

Mr. CURRY. Everyone I knew about and the only marks on him was, that
I could see there was a slight mark on his face up here, and this was
received when he was fighting the officers in that theatre, and they
had to subdue him and in the scuffle, this episode in the theatre, he
apparently received a couple of marks on his face.

But he didn't complain to me about it. I think he--one of the times he
was coming down the hall someone asked him what was the matter with
his eye and he said, "A cop hit me," I believe, or "A policeman hit me."

Representative FORD. Did you ask Oswald whether he had been mistreated?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe I did, sir.

Representative FORD. But you talked to Oswald on one or more occasions?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know that I ever asked him any questions at all.
I was present during the interrogation, but he was very sullen and
arrogant and he didn't have much to say to anybody. Fritz, I think did
more talking to him than anybody else.

Representative FORD. But not in your presence did he object to any
treatment he received from the Dallas police force?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I would like to say for the record that we are very
strict on our officers in the treatment of prisoners, and we have a
personnel section setup that any person who complains that they have
been mistreated by the police officer, a thorough investigation is
made, and if it is determined that he has been mistreated in any way,
disciplinary action is taken, and on occasion we have, not frequently,
but on occasion where we have found that this has been true we have
dismissed personnel for mistreating a prisoner, so our personnel know
positively this is not tolerated regardless of who it is.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, you have described a showup, and you have also
described the general practice. You have also described showups in
regard to Oswald and you said there were several of them.

Mr. CURRY. When I said several, to the best of my knowledge there were
perhaps three altogether.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, one you were describing when the screen was not used
was not for the purpose of identification, is that right?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; unless some of the news media had come forward and
said, "We saw that man"; you see a lot of that news media, that was
present, were with the Presidential party and there is a possibility
that some of them might have said we saw this man to leave the scene.

Mr. RANKIN. So the principal reason was to allow the news media?

Mr. CURRY. The principal reason was at their request that they be
allowed to see the prisoner.

Mr. RANKIN. And he wasn't placed back of the screen at that time?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; he was not.

Mr. RANKIN. And whatever identification there would be would be under
the hope that they might have seen him?

Mr. CURRY. They might have seen him because a great number of the news
media were at the scene of the shooting or in the immediate area.

Mr. RANKIN. And that is the particular showup when you learned later
Jack Ruby was supposed to have been present?

Mr. CURRY. I was told that he was present. That someone had seen him
back in this room. He easily could have been there as far as I was
concerned because I wouldn't have known him from anyone else.

Mr. RANKIN. At the other showups, were witnesses there to try to
identify Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, there were.

Mr. RANKIN. How were those handled, do you know?

Mr. CURRY. Exactly the same manner except that he was brought in
behind the screen, and was handcuffed to some police officers or other
prisoners.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who was there to try to identify him?

Mr. CURRY. Only on one occasion. This was a little lady that was a
waitress.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Markham?

Mr. CURRY. I believe her name was Mrs. Markham.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you believe whether she was able to identify him?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, I heard her tell Captain Fritz that was the man she saw
shoot the officer.

Mr. RANKIN. And that was Officer Tippit?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. What kind of a reputation did Officer Tippit have with the
police force?

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question before that. Were you present
when any members of Oswald's family, his wife, his mother, saw him or
talked with him?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether any of your officers were?

Mr. CURRY. I understood they were brought to the third floor of the
city hall and were placed in a room, and that if any of them were
present it probably would have been Captain Fritz.

Mr. DULLES. He would know about it?

Mr. CURRY. I believe he would, yes.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what Officer Tippit's reputation was with
your police force?

Mr. CURRY. He had a reputation of being a very fine, dedicated officer.

Mr. RANKIN. How long had he been with you?

Mr. CURRY. I believe he came to work for us in 1952, after he had had
service in the paratroopers, I believe, and he had made several jumps
into Europe. He was raised in a rural community, and he was very well
thought of by the people in the community where he grew up. He was a
rather quiet, serious minded young man. He seemed to be very devoted to
his family, and he was an active church man.

Mr. RANKIN. What was his rank?

Mr. CURRY. Patrolman. He was not a real aggressive type officer. In
fact, he seemed to be just a little bit shy, if you were to meet him,
I believe, shy, retiring type, but certainly not afraid of anything. I
think in his personnel investigation it showed that during, as he was
growing up, sometimes his shyness was mistaken for perhaps fear, but
that it only took a time or two for someone to exploit this to find out
it wasn't fear. It was merely a quiet, shy-type individual.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there any record in the police department of any
disciplinary action toward him?

Mr. CURRY. The only disciplinary action ever taken was he was given a
day off one time because he had missed court on two occasions.

Mr. DULLES. Missed what?

Mr. CURRY. Missed court.

Mr. RANKIN. He had been unable to testify or something?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; in city court they have to appear 1 day a week.
They are notified each week to appear but they are told on one day will
be their court day and if any cases coming up it would be that time.
And on two occasions he failed to appear. I think one time he forgot
it and I think another time he said he was tied up on a radio call or
something and didn't notify him and it is just a departmental policy if
you miss court twice you are given a day off for it.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that the penalty that was imposed?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, it was. He took it in very good graces, he didn't feel
like he was being mistreated.

Mr. RANKIN. That was the only disciplinary action against him?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; there was one other complaint in his file, where
he had stopped a lady and given her a ticket and also had given her, he
gave her two tickets, one for no operator's license, and after he had
issued the tickets she found her driver's license, and she called to
him across the street, and said something about she found her license
and he told her okay, show it in court, but she thought he was being
rather abrupt and discourteous to her, she felt like he should have
come back over and taken this ticket for driver's license and destroyed
it.

Under our rules and regulations you cannot destroy a ticket; if it is
destroyed it has to be accounted in our auditor's office and that was
the only complaint in the years on the force.

Mr. DULLES. A rumor reached me that Officer Tippit had been some way
involved in some narcotic trouble, I don't know what the foundation of
that is. Do you know anything about that at all?

Mr. CURRY. Nothing whatsoever; no, sir.

Representative FORD. You mean you know nothing about it or you checked
it out and there is no validity?

Mr. CURRY. This is the first I ever heard of it that he was involved in
any narcotics.

Representative FORD. But your records, so far as you know, would not
indicate such?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you, so far as you know, did Tippit know Ruby?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe he did. I am sure he didn't. He would not be
the type I think that would even have any occasion to know him because
some of the officers that we found that did know him, either worked in
the area where he had a night club or some of the officers that worked
in the vice squad who had occasion to go in and inspect these cases
or a few officers we found they went out there for social purposes,
outside their regular duty.

Tippit, for a number of years, had been assigned out in Oak Cliff. I
don't think he had ever been assigned in an area where Jack Ruby--well
Jack Ruby did live in Oak Cliff but I am sure, to the best of my
knowledge, Tippit never had any occasion to be around Jack Ruby.

Mr. DULLES. Was Tippit at the time he was killed on a regular assigned
assignment or was he just roving in a particular area?

Mr. CURRY. On this particular day, now he had been assigned to Oak
Cliff for several months farther out than he was, but when this
incident occurred at the Texas School Book Depository, this is
customary policy in the police department if something happens on this
district and tying up several squads that the squads from the other
district automatically move in in a position where they can cover off
or something else might happen here, much the same as fire equipment
does, this is automatic.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain that further?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; say two squads were to get a call in an area, and
this area here, say they had a big fire or something, they brought two
or three squads in here from adjoining districts, then automatically
these squads out in these other areas would begin to cover off or get
in a position to where if instead of staying out here on the far side
of this district, they would perhaps move into this district right here
where they could answer here, here or over into here. This is just
automatic patrol policy.

On this particular day, some of the squads in this Oak Cliff area
had been ordered over into the Dallas area, this Texas School Book
Depository, and some of these other outlying squads then, I think we
have this on a radio log, I don't know whether you have this or not,
were 78 or 81.

Mr. BALL. Why don't you read it in the record, a definite order for
Tippit to come in there.

Mr. CURRY. Right here. This would have been at approximately 12:45,
I believe. Here is the description came out at about 12:45. The
dispatcher put out a description of attention all squads.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by description?

Mr. CURRY. Of a suspect.

Mr. DULLES. I see, description of Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What are you reading from, Chief?

Mr. CURRY. This is radio log record from the Dallas Police Department,
as recorded on November 22.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that from Commission Document 728?

Mr. DULLES. I want to correct my question, it was a man seen leaving?

Mr. CURRY. It was a description of a suspect.

Mr. DULLES. You didn't know it was Oswald?

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what the rest of that notation is?

Mr. CURRY. Dispatcher put out this description, "attention all squads
Elm and Houston, unknown white male person approximately 30, slender
build, height 5 feet 10, 160 pounds, reported to be armed with what is
believed to be a .30-caliber rifle. Attention all squads, the suspect
is believed to be white male 30, 5 feet 10 inches, slender build,
armed with what is thought to be a .30-30 rifle, no further description
at this time."

This was at 12:45 p.m.

Mr. RANKIN. What channel are you talking about?

Mr. CURRY. Channel 1.

Mr. RANKIN. You had more than one channel?

Mr. CURRY. Two channels.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. Someone came in, they didn't identify themselves and came in
and said what are they wanted for, and they said signal 19 which is a
shooting under our code involving the President.

Representative FORD. Did Tippit's motorcycle have channel 1?

Mr. CURRY. He was in a squad car and most of our squad cars have
channel 1 and 2, but they stay on channel 1 unless they are instructed
to switch over to channel 2.

Mr. DULLES. He did have channel 1?

Mr. CURRY. Yes. Now within the minute of broadcasting, a little further
on, squads 102 and 233 checked out at Elm and Houston, 81 came in the
district squad, that was an Oak Cliff squad. He said "I will be going
north from Industrial on Corinth." That means he was leaving the Oak
Cliff section coming toward the downtown section of Dallas.

Representative FORD. By he who do you mean?

Mr. CURRY. The man assigned to district 81, and I don't have his name
but it would be on our records.

Then Tippit was working 78 and he along with district 87, which is
further out in Oak Cliff, at about 12:45, between 12:45 and 12:46, the
dispatcher sent out this message to him, "87-78 moving into central Oak
Cliff area."

Now the central Oak Cliff area would have been the area nearby where
this shooting occurred.

Representative FORD. Shooting of Tippit?

Mr. CURRY. Shooting of Tippit occurred. I am sure--a little later on
here, he says "you are in Oak Cliff area, are you not," and he said "at
Lancaster and 8th", that would be just several blocks from where this
shooting then occurred.

Mr. McCLOY. This is Tippit's reply going in?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. The next sentence also says something, Chief?

Mr. CURRY. And the dispatcher told him, "You will be at large for any
emergency that comes in." In other words, he was one of the remaining
squads in Oak Cliff that was in service.

Mr. DULLES. What does that mean, scout around the area?

Mr. CURRY. Anywhere in that central area, Oak Cliff.

Mr. McCLOY. Did he reply to that?

Mr. CURRY. He said "10-4".

Mr. RANKIN. What does that mean?

Mr. CURRY. It means message received.

Mr. RANKIN. Doesn't that mean approval?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. These are transcriptions of communications back
and forth?

Mr. CURRY. That is recorded on our radio there in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there a tape recorder on that?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; and it is kept for a permanent record.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there any other shooting in this particular area where
Officer Tippit was that morning, do you know?

Mr. CURRY. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. DULLES. Is that 10-4 message the last message you received from
Tippit?

Mr. CURRY. As far as I know that is the last word we heard from him.

Mr. McCLOY. Was this description of the suspect the first description
that went out?

Mr. CURRY. As far as I know, it is.

Mr. DULLES. That was at 12:45, as I recall.

Mr. CURRY. Approximately, yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first learn of Officer Tippit's murder?

Mr. CURRY. While I was out at Parkland Hospital. That is after we had
taken the President there and the Governor, and we were waiting there.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, on these showups for Lee Oswald, did you have any
special security arrangements about bringing him in among all this
crowd of news people?

Mr. CURRY. We had some police officers bringing him down. I was there,
Captain Fritz went, I don't believe he went inside the door. He went to
the door, I believe. There were several officers there, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Was this more than usual?

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps so; yes. Ordinarily there would have been maybe a
jailer and a jail guard with the prisoner. And there would have been
the detective out with the witnesses.

Mr. RANKIN. Were you disturbed about the security for Lee Oswald with
all this crowd?

Mr. CURRY. Not at that time. I really didn't suspect any trouble from
the news media. I thought they were there doing a professional job of
reporting the news and I had no reason to be concerned about the news
media.

Mr. RANKIN. Did it concern you that there were so many additional
people to try to keep track of as well as----

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; it did.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do about it?

Mr. CURRY. I didn't do anything about it but I was concerned about it.
I was thinking that we were going to have to, in the event we have had
an incident like this occur again, that we would have to make some
different arrangements for the press. We couldn't, when I say the
press, the news media, we couldn't have the city hall overrun like this.

Mr. RANKIN. Did it occur to you to do anything about stopping it right
then?

Mr. CURRY. No. I didn't discuss it with any of my staff that we should
clear all these people out of here and get them outside the city hall.

Mr. RANKIN. You gave no consideration to that kind of approach?

Mr. CURRY. Not at the time.

Mr. RANKIN. Now after the interrogation of Oswald, did you make some
decision about moving him?

Mr. CURRY. Not at that particular time. It is customary after we file
on a person that he be removed from the city hall.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by file on a person?

Mr. CURRY. File a case against him and that is necessary to go to the
district attorney's office usually, and in this case the district
attorney was there and we filed it at the city hall because the
district attorney was with us.

Mr. RANKIN. A criminal complaint?

Mr. CURRY. A criminal complaint. After we file this complaint it is
customary for the prisoner to be transferred from the city to the
county jail and to remain in custody until he makes bond or is brought
to trial.

Mr. RANKIN. That is a regular practice?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. These transfers are usually made by the sheriff's
office, sometime during the morning.

Mr. RANKIN. By the sheriff's office you mean it is the sheriff's
responsibility?

Mr. CURRY. Routine transfers are made. It is not a hard and fast
custom. Many times we will take the prisoner to the sheriff.

Mr. RANKIN. Who decides which way you will do it?

Mr. CURRY. It is left up to the bureau commander.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by the bureau commander?

Mr. CURRY. That is handling the case.

Mr. RANKIN. Who would that be in this case?

Mr. CURRY. In this case it would have been Captain Fritz.

Mr. RANKIN. And he decides then in all cases of this type whether
or not the police will take him across to the sheriff's jail or the
sheriff will come and get him?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; ordinarily it wouldn't even come to my attention
how it was handled.

Mr. RANKIN. Did it come to your attention this time?

Mr. CURRY. It did this time. I had asked, it seemed to me like it was
on Saturday after he had been filed on late or early Friday morning,
the news media many times had asked me when are you going to transfer
him and I said, "I don't know."

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by "early Friday morning?"

Mr. CURRY. I mean early Saturday morning. Late Friday night or early
Saturday morning.

Representative FORD. Where do you actually do this filing?

Mr. CURRY. Ordinarily our detectives would go down to the courthouse
which is right near where the President was assassinated and file it
in the district attorney's office. However, in this case the district
attorney and also his assistant was up at the city hall with us, and we
drew up the complaints there at the city hall.

Mr. RANKIN. Who do you mean by we?

Mr. CURRY. When I say we, I mean the Dallas police officers and the
homicide officers working in this case.

Mr. RANKIN. I see.

Representative FORD. What evidence did you have at that point?

Mr. CURRY. I couldn't tell you all the evidence. I think Captain Fritz
can tell you better than I. Captain Fritz just told me on Friday
afternoon he said, "We have sufficient evidence to file a case on
Oswald for the murder of Tippit." Later on that night, somewhere around
midnight, I believe, he told me, he said, "We now have sufficient
evidence to file on Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of
President Kennedy."

He told me he had talked it over with Henry Wade and with the assistant
district attorney and they agreed we had enough evidence to file a
case, and a decision was made then to file the case, which we did.

Representative FORD. At that time you had the rifle, did you not?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Who made the original identification of the rifle,
the kind of rifle that it was?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know, sir.

Representative FORD. It was reported that the original identification
was a 7.65 Mauser. Are those reports true or untrue?

Mr. CURRY. I wouldn't know, sir.

Representative FORD. You don't know?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know.

Representative FORD. Do you know when it was finally determined that it
was not a 7.65 Mauser?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I don't know that.

Mr. McCLOY. As far as I know there was no police report that it was a
7.65 rifle.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, do you know of any police records of your
police department that showed that this weapon that was purportedly
involved in the assassination was a Mauser rifle?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; not to my knowledge.

Representative FORD. All of your records show affirmatively it was the
Italian rifle?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. That is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. While we are waiting for Mr. Rankin to continue his
examination, let me ask you this question, Chief.

Did you, prior to the assassination, know or hear of Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. Never.

Mr. McCLOY. Didn't hear that he had been--there was a defector named
Oswald in the city of Dallas?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Never heard of his name?

Mr. CURRY. We didn't have it in our files.

Representative FORD. Was there anything in your files that Lee Harvey
Oswald had been involved with the Dallas police force?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Representative FORD. No record whatsoever?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Was there any record of his having made a trip to the
Soviet Union and returned?

Mr. CURRY. Not in our files.

Mr. DULLES. And returned to Texas?

Mr. CURRY. We didn't have anything in our files regarding Lee Harvey
Oswald.

Senator COOPER. Could I follow up on that, did you have any record of
any individuals, persons, in Dallas, or the area, who because of any
threats of violence against the President or any Communist background
required you to take any special security measures?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; when we have notables, celebrities visiting us,
there are some groups in Dallas that are known to be extreme rightwing
and extreme leftwing groups. We try to keep track of these people and
what their plans are. We have been able to infiltrate most of their
organizations.

Senator COOPER. Now prior to the President's visit, did you take
any--did the Dallas Police force take any special security measures
about any persons that you might suspect of possible violence?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; we kept some people under surveillance or groups
under surveillance. We had prior to this visit, we had some information
brought to us, I don't know who brought it to us, that there was a
man in Sherman or Denison, who said that he is going to see that the
President was embarrassed when he came to Dallas.

Senator COOPER. Who was that man, do you know?

Mr. DULLES. We have a Secret Service report, I believe with regard to
this case. Here is one from the chief of police of Denton, Tex.

Mr. CURRY. Yes; we had some information that the students at North
Texas were planning some demonstrations.

Senator COOPER. My question is, did your police force take any special
security measures about anyone that you felt might be capable of
violence against the President?

Mr. CURRY. Not at this particular time, because we had reports from
the different groups, and we had information from inside these groups
that they were not planning to do anything on the day the President was
there. We knew that General Walker was out of the city, and we knew
that his group that sometimes put on demonstrations.

Senator COOPER. When you say planning, you are not limiting it to any
violence, but you are talking about any possible demonstrations?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; demonstrations.

Senator COOPER. I want to come back to that point later, but I want to
ask this, outside of what you had in your police files, your records,
did you know yourself, or did you know whether anyone in authority in
the police force or anyone in the police force, to your knowledge, had
any knowledge of the presence of Oswald in Dallas?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I have asked my criminal intelligence section,
which would have been the persons who had knowledge of this.

Senator COOPER. Had anyone informed you that he was working in the
Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Had he ever tangled with the Dallas Police in any respect
of which there is any record?

Mr. CURRY. We have no record at all of him.

Representative FORD. Did the Secret Service people inquire of you as to
your knowledge of these various groups that you had infiltrated?

Mr. CURRY. I don't remember them specifically asking me what were these
groups planning to do.

Representative FORD. Did you volunteer any information on it?

Mr. CURRY. I think perhaps we told them what we had done. They
were aware of the fact that we did know the plans of the various
organizations, and I know we sent Lieutenant Revill and a couple of his
men up to Denison, or Denton, to talk to a man that had purportedly
said they were going to embarrass the President and had made some
remarks about it and after we talked with him he said, "I won't even
be in Dallas. I was just popping off. I will assure you I am not even
going to be down there. I don't want any part of it."

Then some of the study group in North Texas, we had an informant in
this group, and they had decided they would be in Dallas with some
placards to express opinions about the President or some of his views.
Some of these people were arrested after the shooting because we were
afraid that the people were going to harm them. They were down around
the Trade Mart with some placards.

Senator COOPER. I have a couple of more questions.

Do you remember the full page advertisement that was in the Dallas
paper?

Mr. CURRY. I saw it; yes.

Senator COOPER. Directed against the President of the United States?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Senator COOPER. What date did you give that statement in making any
kind of preparations for his visit?

Mr. CURRY. In the first place, I didn't think it was very appropriate,
it makes us apprehensive, a little more apprehensive of the security of
the President, but we were doing everything that I knew we could do to
protect him. I will never forget that as we turned to go down toward
that underpass the remark was made, "We have almost got it made," and I
was very relieved that we had brought him through this downtown area,
and were fixing to get on this expressway where we could take him out
to the Trade Mart where we had a tremendous amount of security set up
for him.

Senator COOPER. Since the assassination, have you had any actual
factors or any evidence or information of any kind which would indicate
that any person other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of
President Kennedy?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. DULLES. Was any investigation made of, I believe it was Weissman,
or somebody by that name, who inserted this advertisement to which
Senator Cooper referred, was any particular investigation made?

Mr. CURRY. Not any investigation by us.

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

Mr. McCLOY. I have one question.

Did you since the assassination or before have any information or any
credible information which would indicate that there was any connection
between Ruby and Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; we were not able to establish any connection
between them.

Mr. McCLOY. You made a thorough investigation of that?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; we made every attempt to prove or disprove an
association between them, and we were not able to connect the two.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you intend to ask the chief about the General Walker
episode?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; and also about the Ruby episode.

Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all I have at the moment.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, I put in front of you there as Exhibit 705, now
marked as "Exhibit 705," your radio log that you have just been looking
at and referred to, is that right?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you turn to the page there where you find the first
broadcast of the description of the suspect of the assassination of the
President? Is that on your page 6 or thereabouts?

Mr. CURRY. The pages--yes, it is page 6, channel 1.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell what time of the day that is recorded as
having been made?

Mr. CURRY. This shows at the end the broadcast to be 12:45 p.m. It
would be on November 22d.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Exhibit 705 being
this radio log which covers a great many matters, but in light of the
importance of the time and the description and all, I think the entire
log should go in and then we can refer to different items in it.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Commission's Exhibit No. 705.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 705, and
received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you read to the Commission a description that was
given at that time of the suspect of the assassination?

Mr. CURRY. The broadcast reads as follows: "Attention all squads.
Attention all squads. At Elm and Houston, reported to be an unknown
white male, approximately 30, slender build, height 5 feet 10 inches,
165 pounds. Reported to be armed with what is believed to be a
.30-caliber rifle.

"Attention all squads, the suspect is believed to be white male, 30, 5
feet 10 inches, slender build, 165 pounds, armed with what is thought
to be a .30-.30 rifle. No further description or information at this
time. KKB there 64 Dallas, and the time given as 12:45 p.m."

Mr. RANKIN. You have described Officer Tippit's number?

Mr. CURRY. District 78.

Mr. RANKIN. And that is recorded along the left-hand side when there is
any message either from him or to him, is that right?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you find there a message directed to him about moving to
the central Oak Cliff area?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And what time is that message recorded?

Mr. CURRY. Immediately following this dispatch to him to district
squads 87 and 78, EBG 78.

Mr. RANKIN. What time?

Mr. CURRY. The time is given as 12:46.

Mr. RANKIN. What does it say?

Mr. CURRY. The dispatcher asked him "87 and 78" or instructed him "Move
into the central Oak Cliff area."

Mr. RANKIN. Did he respond to that?

Mr. CURRY. A little later he did.

Mr. RANKIN. When?

Mr. CURRY. We have--he was asked his location, would be about 1 o'clock.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say what it was?

Mr. CURRY. He didn't come back in at that time. At 1:08 p.m. they
called him again.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he respond?

Mr. CURRY. It is at 12:54. The dispatcher said "78" and he responded,
he said, "You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?"

Seventy-eight responded and said, "Lancaster and 8," which would be in
the central section of Oak Cliff.

The dispatcher said, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes
in."

And he responded, "10-4," which means message received. And he would
follow those instructions.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an item there of a broadcast of a person who
murdered Tippit?

Mr. CURRY. We have apparently--a citizen came in on the radio and he
said, "Somebody shot a police officer at 404 10th Street." Someone in
the background said 78, squad 78, car No. 10. And the citizen said,
"You get that?" and the dispatcher said, "78."

And there was no response and the citizen said, "Hello, police
operator, did you get that?" Some other unknown voice came in and said,
"510 East Jefferson."

Mr. RANKIN. What time of the day?

Mr. CURRY. This was about 1:15; 1:19 is the next time that shows up on
the radio log. The dispatcher at 1:19 said, "The subject is running
west on Jefferson from the location."

Citizen came back in on the radio and said, "From out here on 10th
street, 500 block, the police officer just shot, I think he is dead."
Dispatcher said, "10-4, we have the information."

The citizen using the radio remained off the radio.

Dispatcher to 15, he was the sergeant, said, "Did you receive the
information of police officer shot?"

And he said, "10-4, but didn't that citizen say first he was on
Jefferson and 10th and then Chesapeake?"

And he said, "Yes."

And he said, "Do they relate?"

And he said, "Yes, at Denver, 19 will be there shortly," that is a
sergeant or a lieutenant.

Ninety-one came on and said, "Have a signal 19 involving a police
officer at 400 block East 10th. The suspect last seen running west on
Jefferson, no description at this time."

The dispatcher came in and said, "The suspect just passed 401 East
Jefferson."

Dispatcher then says, "Give us the correct location on it, 85, we have
three different locations."

Eighty-five says, "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet, 10-4,
check, 491 East 10th at Denver."

Dispatcher repeated, "The subject has just passed 401 East Jefferson."

At 1:22 we have a broadcast here that says, "We have a description
on the suspect here on Jefferson, last seen on the 300 block on East
Jefferson, a white male, 30, about 5 feet 8, black hair, slender,
wearing a white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks, armed with what he
states unknown. Repeat the description."

Dispatcher said that to the squad. He says. "Wearing a white jacket
believed to be a white shirt and dark slacks. What is his direction of
travel on Jefferson?"

He said, "Travel west on Jefferson, last seen in the 401 West
Jefferson, correction, it will be East Jefferson."

The dispatcher then said, "Pick up for investigation of aggravated
assault on a police officer, a white male approximately 30, 5 feet
8, slender build, has black hair, white jacket, white shirt, dark
trousers. Suspect has been seen running west on Jefferson from the 400
block of East Jefferson at 1:24."

Then they asked about the condition of the officer, and there was
something about--the dispatcher did receive some information that there
was a man pulled in there on West Davis driving a white Pontiac, a 1961
or 1962 station wagon with a prefix PE, saying he had a rifle laying in
the street.

We have a citizen following in a car address unknown direction.

The dispatcher said, "Any unit near Gaston 3600 block, this is about a
blood bank."

Then 279 comes in and says, "We believe the suspect on shooting this
officer out here got his white jacket, believed he dumped it in this
parking lot behind the service station at 400 block West, Jefferson
across from Dudley House. He had a white jacket we believe this is it."

"You do not have a suspect, is that correct?"

"No, just the jacket lying on the ground."

There is some more conversation about blood going to Parkland.

"What was the description beside the white jacket?"

"White male, 30, 5-8 black hair, slender build, white shirt, white
jacket, black trousers, going west on Jefferson from the 300 block."

Squad says, "This is Sergeant Jerry Hill." Says, "I am at 12th and
Beckley now, have a man in the car with me that can identify the
suspect if anybody gets one."

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, we were furnished a Commission Document No.
290, dated December 5, 1963, that purported to be a radio log for your
department, and it did not have any item in it in regard to instruction
to Officer Tippit to go to the Central Oak Cliff area.

Do you know why that would be true?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know why it wasn't in that log except that these
logs, after they are recorded, they are pretty difficult to try to take
everything off of them, channel 1 and channel 2 is in on them and they
spent many hours going over these and copying these.

This would be available and I listened to our recording.

Mr. RANKIN. That is Exhibit 705 you are talking about?

Mr. CURRY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. So if there is a discrepancy between the two, are you
satisfied that Exhibit 705 is correct?

Mr. CURRY. Is the correct exhibit; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Commission Document No. 290 does say at the heading that
most routine transmissions were left out for reasons of brevity.

Would that be any explanation?

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it could be, yes. Because these would have been
routine broadcasts. The fact the squad was moving into this area
because this is more or less normal procedure when we have incidents
occurring of any magnitude, the squads immediately begin moving in to
cover officers of the district.

Mr. RANKIN. You were going to tell us about how it came to your
attention about the moving of Lee Oswald to the jail from your place on
Saturday?

Mr. CURRY. To the county jail?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

I asked Captain Fritz a time or two when he wanted to move Oswald,
because this is left up to him. Whoever will be handling the case, I
mean I don't enter in the transfer of prisoners. I don't ordinarily
even know when they are going to be transferred.

Mr. RANKIN. Why is that?

Mr. CURRY. It is just a routine matter.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us is that involved quite a few times in your
operations?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. Usually it is a daily transfer of prisoners,
and usually the sheriff's office sends up there and picks them up on
routine prisoners.

Mr. RANKIN. Are there a number each day?

Mr. CURRY. I would say perhaps anywhere from maybe none to 15 a day.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you talk to Officer or Captain Fritz about this?

Mr. CURRY. I think I talked to him some on Saturday, because the
newspaper people or the news media kept asking me when are going to
transfer him?

Mr. RANKIN. That would be November 23?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; and I said this I don't know because that would be left
up to the men doing the interrogation. When they felt like they were
finished with him and wanted to transfer him or when Sheriff Decker
said, "We want the man."

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with his transfer then?

Mr. CURRY. Other than to, I called Sheriff Decker on Sunday morning and
he said, I told him and I think he had talked to Fritz prior to that
time, too, and he told Fritz, he says, "Don't bring him down here until
I get some security set up for him."

So, Sunday morning I talked to Sheriff Decker.

Mr. RANKIN. Why didn't you do it at night?

Mr. CURRY. This is not customary to transfer prisoners at night.

Mr. RANKIN. Why?

Mr. CURRY. Well, in talking with Captain Fritz, and here again the
prisoner was his, and when some of my captains, I believe it was
perhaps Lieutenant Swain, it is in the record somewhere said something
about, "Do you think we ought to move him at night?"

And Captain Fritz was not in favor of moving him at night because he
said, "If anything does occur you can't see, anybody can immediately
get out of sight, and if anything is going to happen we want to know
where we can see and see what is happening."

Mr. RANKIN. Were you fearful something might happen?

Mr. CURRY. I didn't know. I thought it could happen because of a
feeling of a great number of people. But I certainly didn't think
anything to happen in city hall. I thought that if anything did happen
to him it would probably be en route from the city jail to the county
jail.

Mr. RANKIN. What precautions did you take?

Mr. CURRY. The precautions that were taken, when I came in on Sunday
morning, now Captain Fritz, I had talked to him on Saturday night or
Saturday evening anyway, and he said, he thought he would be ready
to transfer him by 10 o'clock the next morning, that would be Sunday
morning.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell that to the media?

Mr. CURRY. I told them at some time after that. Several of them asked
me when are you going to transfer him, and I said, I don't know.

They said, "Are you going to transfer him tonight," and I said, "No, we
are not going to transfer him tonight." I said, "We are tired. We are
going home and get some rest."

Something was said about well, we are tired, too. When should we come
back, and I think that this is recorded in some of the tape recording,
that I told them if you are back here by 10 o'clock in the morning, I
don't think that you would miss anything you want to see.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do then about precautions?

Mr. CURRY. The next morning when I came in, that would be about 8:30,
8:45, I think, parked in the basement of city hall, I started up to
the elevator and I noticed they had moved some cameras into a hallway
down in the basement and I told Lieutenant Wiggins who is in the jail
office, I said, "These things will have to be moved out of here, and
I also told Chief Batchelor, and Chief Stevenson, Assistant Chief
Batchelor, and Assistant Chief in Charge of Investigations Stevenson
who came down in the basement at the time.

Mr. RANKIN. Those were TV cameras?

Mr. CURRY. That was in the lobby or in near the lobby of the jail
office. I told them they were--would have to move those out of there.
This was also in the parking area, there was a ramp come down from Main
Street and goes out on Commerce Street, and then there is a parking
area east of this.

I told Lieutenant Wiggins who was there, I said, "Now, move these squad
cars," there was a transfer car there and a squad car, "move these cars
out of this area and if the news media wants down here put them over
behind these railings, back over in the basement here."

Then that is all I did at that time. I saw that they were setting
up some security. A little while later Chief Batchelor and Chief
Stevenson went downstairs and found Captain Talbert who was the platoon
commander, radio platoon commander had some sergeants down there and
they were setting up security and were told clean everything out of the
basement and not let anybody in here, I think the depositions will show
that, not let anybody in except police officers and news media who had
proper credentials.

Mr. RANKIN. What about the various entrances, was anything done about
that?

Mr. CURRY. Well, the entrances to the basement, yes, and the entrances
from the basement of city hall out into the basement proper where the
cars come in.

Mr. RANKIN. What was done about that?

Mr. CURRY. Every entrance there were guards put on it with instructions
not to let anyone come or go except police officers or news people that
had proper credentials.

Mr. RANKIN. What entrances are there to the basement?

Mr. CURRY. This is a Main Street entrance for vehicles, that would be
on the north side of the building. There is a Commerce Street exit
which would be on the south side of the building, on the west side
downstairs there is an entrance from the jail corridor where the public
goes to the jail window into the basement of the parking area. Then
there are some elevators that come from the municipal building, that
come down to the basement level. There are also, there is also an
opening that goes from this basement down into a subbasement where the
maintenance men have their offices.

(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. And each one of those was guarded?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Throughout the time?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. What other precautions were made?

Mr. CURRY. There were a great number of police reservists and
detectives and uniformed officers, I think there was a total, I believe
of about 74 men in this area between the jail office and the immediate
area where he would be loaded.

Mr. RANKIN. How large an area was that?

Mr. CURRY. Well, where he would be brought out of the jail office to
put him in this car, would be, I would say, 16 or 20 feet, and then
this building, this ramp runs from one street to the other, and the
parking area would cover a block wide and perhaps 150 feet deep.

Mr. RANKIN. Were there cars in the parking area?

Mr. CURRY. Some cars were there. They had been searched out, all of
them. All of the vehicles had been searched, and all the, where the
airconditioning ducts were, they had all been searched, every place
where a person could conceal himself had been searched out.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there a plan for an armored car?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; there was.

Mr. RANKIN. What happened about that?

Mr. CURRY. After they had gotten the armored car down there, in talking
with Captain Fritz, and here again this prisoner was his responsibility
and I don't want to be in a position of just overriding him, and I was
willing to trust his judgment, he had been doing this for, like I say,
nearly 40 years, and he said, "Chief, I would prefer not to use that
armored car, I don't know who the driver is. It is awkward to handle
and if anybody tries to do anything to us, I am afraid we would be
surrounded. I would prefer to put him in a police car with some of my
men following him, and get in and just take him right down Main Street
and slip him into the jail."

So I said, "It will be all right with me if you want to do it that way
but let's not say anything about this."

Mr. RANKIN. Now the armored car was not a Dallas police car, was it?

Mr. CURRY. No; it was not.

Mr. RANKIN. It was one you were arranging to get from----

Mr. CURRY. I believe his name was Mr. Sherrell, who was the manager of
the Armored Motor Service there in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. And they would furnish a driver with it?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What else was done, if anything?

Mr. CURRY. We went ahead with our plans and we instructed the officers
that would be involved in this transfer they would go east on Commerce
Street, north to Elm Street, west on Elm Street to Houston Street, and
then back south on Houston to the rear entrance of the county jail.

Mr. RANKIN. How many officers would be involved in the transfer?

Mr. CURRY. In the actual transfer, I would think perhaps 15 or 18
besides the men that were stationed at the intersections downtown.

Mr. RANKIN. How far would it be from your police department to the
county jail?

Mr. CURRY. I would say 12-15 blocks.

Mr. RANKIN. Were there any other precautions you haven't described?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; that is about all I know of, except that Captain
Fritz wanted to transfer the prisoner in his car, with some of his
detectives. This is not unusual. He has transferred many, many
prisoners, especially where there is--it is an unusual case involving
more than the ordinary routine crime, so it is not anything unusual to
transfer him, for him to transfer prisoners.

But, it was then suggested or arranged that they would put his car in a
position behind the armored car that we would bring the prisoner out,
put him in his car, and he would have two detectives in the back seat
with him, plus one driver and two or three detectives following him
immediately and there was supposed to be another car to pick up and go
with them or get into a car van with these two.

They would follow the armored motor car and no one would know that
he was not in the armored motor car except the reporters downstairs
when they saw him come out. They would see he was placed in a car
instead of the armored car, and we planned to let the armored car go
over the predetermined route, but that Captain Fritz, when he got to
Main Street, as you go east on Commerce and turned north to go to Elm
Street, that is the second street over, when he got to Main Street they
would make a left turn and go right down Main Street to the county
jail, and they would turn right on Houston Street and the lead car
would pull past the entrance and he would duck in and the gates would
be closed and the prisoner would be transferred.

Mr. RANKIN. What happened to these TV cameras that you told them to get
out of there?

Mr. CURRY. They moved them back somewhere. I don't know where they
moved them but it was away from there.

Mr. RANKIN. Weren't their cameras right there at the time of the
shooting?

Mr. CURRY. There were some cameras immediately over, TV cameras, I
think over where I had told them to place them earlier that morning.
I understood when Chief Batchelor went downstairs and I think Captain
Jones of the forgery bureau, immediately prior to the transfer, they
found there were some reporters and cameramen in the jail office, and
Captain Jones, I believe, asked Chief Batchelor if these should not
be removed and he was told yes, they should be removed out into the
basement. When they were removed out into the basement instead of them
being placed outside of the railing--now this is a decision made by
Chief Batchelor, I suppose, because he said put them in the driveway
up to the north. Now this is from where Ruby came. So apparently this
afforded him an opportunity, from our investigation it was determined
that he came down this Main Street ramp.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you determine that?

Mr. CURRY. We interrograted every man that was assigned in the
basement. Also every witness who was around there that we could find
that knew anything about it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone see him come in on that ramp?

Mr. CURRY. There was a former police officer who told us he saw him go
down that ramp, a Negro former police officer.

Mr. RANKIN. Who was that?

Mr. CURRY. I believe his name was Daniels. I think perhaps you have a
statement from him, don't you?

Mr. RANKIN. Is he the only one who saw him come in down there?

Mr. CURRY. I believe so.

Mr. RANKIN. Now with these TV cameras down there how would your ruse
work about having the armored car go ahead and Oswald climb into
Captain Fritz' car? Wouldn't that all be shown on TV?

Mr. CURRY. If it was. We didn't think there would be anybody downtown
to be in a position to watching TV that quickly to do anything about it
if they wanted to.

Mr. RANKIN. You thought about it though?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What happened? Were you down there at the time?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I would have been but I received a call from my
mayor and as I was fixing to go downstairs and I wish that I had been
downstairs because I don't know that I could have done anything but you
always have this feeling if you were there maybe you could have done
something.

But I was called to the telephone and while I was talking to the mayor,
why I heard some noises from downstairs and I was up on the third
floor, and I heard some shouting, and someone came in and told me that
Oswald had been shot.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn how the shooting occurred?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us?

Mr. CURRY. I was told that someone sprang from the crowd and pushed a
gun into his stomach and fired a shot.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was?

Mr. CURRY. I was told that the man was named Jack Ruby.

Mr. RANKIN. What else did you learn about it?

Mr. CURRY. Further investigation revealed, and some of my officers who
talked to Ruby and talked to his attorney, I believe, were told that he
came down that north ramp, and an investigation revealed that one of
our officers, who was assigned there. Officer Vaughn, who was assigned
to this location just prior to this transfer.

Mr. RANKIN. That is out on the street?

Mr. CURRY. Main Street side.

Mr. RANKIN. At the entrance?

Mr. CURRY. At the entrance to the basement ramp. He had been assigned
there and had been told not to let anybody come in except newspaper
reporters or news media or police officers.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you find out what he did?

Mr. CURRY. We discovered or found out subsequently that he, just prior
to this transfer, that when we found out we were going to transfer him
and not use an armored car that Chief Stevenson had told Lieutenant
Pierce "to get a couple of sergeants or a sergeant, get somebody and
go around and get in front of the armored car and when we tell you to
why you lead off and lead this armored car over here and just over the
route we have discussed, and take it to the county jail."

Well, Lieutenant Pierce went downstairs and got a car and he got
Sergeant Putnam and I don't recall the other sergeant, and because the
ramp that ordinarily we would use for exit ramp to Commerce Street,
it was blocked with this armored car and another vehicle, he went out
in the wrong direction, that is he went north, up to north, he went
north on the ramp to Main Street which ordinarily would not be done,
but since he could not get out, why he did, and as he approached the
ramp, our investigation showed that Officer Vaughn stepped from his
assignment in the entrance to this ramp, and the walk is about 10 or 12
feet wide there, stepped across and just more or less assisted the car
to get into the Main Street flow of traffic.

Now he wasn't asked to do this by the lieutenant, but he just did it
and according to what Ruby told some of my officers, I believe, whether
you have it on the record who he told this to, that he came down that
north ramp.

Mr. RANKIN. At that time?

Mr. CURRY. At that time.

Now this would only have been, it couldn't have possibly been over 2
or 3 minutes prior to the shooting, so apparently he went right down
that ramp and he got in behind some of these newspaper reporters or
news media and detectives, and as Oswald was brought out he sprang from
behind one of my detectives and took about two steps and shoved a gun
in Oswald's side and pulled the trigger.

This officer, in talking to him, he made a report, he swears that he
didn't see anybody go in there.

Mr. RANKIN. By this officer, you mean Vaughn?

Mr. CURRY. Officer Vaughn. He did, I asked him myself or asked the
investigating officers to see if he wouldn't take a polygraph test
concerning this, just to verify his position in it, and he agreed
to take the polygraph test and did take the polygraph test and the
polygraph test revealed that he was not aware that Ruby came in while
he stepped, when he stepped away from the entrance of that door.

Now I am not here to place the blame on anybody because, as I have
said previously, as head of the department, I have got to accept the
responsibility for what goes on there.

But if Officer Vaughn had properly carried out his assignment, I don't
believe that Ruby could have gotten into the basement of the city hall.

Mr. McCLOY. Unless he had credentials, media credentials?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. We haven't verified whether or not he did have anything?

Mr. CURRY. We haven't been able to verify that. There were none found
on his person.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any inquiry as to whether or not any of the
police force were involved with Ruby in this shooting?

Mr. CURRY. We got reports and interrogated every officer who was there.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you find out?

Mr. CURRY. We didn't find any officer who knew he was down there or
that had in any way assisted him in getting there. No one.

Mr. RANKIN. You are satisfied that none of them were involved in trying
to have Oswald shot?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; I certainly am.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make inquiry to determine whether there was any
evidence that anyone else was involved with Ruby in trying to shoot
Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. We made every effort we could in our investigation. We were
not able to determine any tieup between any other individual and Ruby
or Oswald.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any inquiry to determine whether or not anyone
else was involved with Oswald in the assassination of the President?

Mr. CURRY. We attempted to. Every lead we came upon we followed it
out to see whether or not we could make any connection between Ruby,
Oswald, or any other group.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discover any evidence that would tend to show that
Oswald had any support in the assassination?

Mr. CURRY. No; we did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discover any evidence that would prove Ruby was
involved with any other person in the killing of Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. We were not able to determine any connection.

Mr. DULLES. I will just ask one question, if I may, here.

It was Officer Vaughn, I understand, who had the direct responsibility
for checking the credentials.

Mr. CURRY. Of that door, of that particular door.

Mr. DULLES. That door. Is there any evidence that Officer Vaughn knew
of Ruby?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe he did.

Mr. DULLES. Has that been looked into?

Mr. CURRY. He was asked that, and if I remember correctly in his
deposition he didn't know him.

Mr. DULLES. He testified he didn't know him?

Mr. CURRY. I believe so, I am not confident of that, but they have had
his deposition here, which I am sure would reveal that.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know----

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCLOY. Do you know, chief, anybody on the staff, on your staff, on
the police staff, that was particularly close to Ruby?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. McCLOY. I would want to go back for a little while on one thing.

How did it happen the description was broadcast so quickly after the
event? Can you explain the circumstances under which----

Mr. CURRY. I am merely giving an opinion here.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. I think the reason it was when they found out at the Texas
School Book Depository that this employee when they were checking
employees and they found out this employee was missing, that they
presumed he must or could have had some connection between the shooting
of the President and the fact that he was not present at this time.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you describe the mechanics or the machinery by which
this did get on to, this material on to the broadcast, that is----

Mr. BALL. Could I go off the record on it?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; other than, I am sure that someone put it over a
police radio to our dispatcher and he put it then, he broadcast it.

Mr. McCLOY. That is someone on the scene would presumably communicate
with headquarters?

Mr. CURRY. With the dispatcher. He would rebroadcast it to all units.

Mr. McCLOY. And he would rebroadcast it to all the units?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. You have given us, I think, an estimate or approximate
estimate of the number of officers you thought that knew Ruby, and I
believe it was about 25 out of the whole force.

Mr. CURRY. This is just--I mean this is not--I couldn't say this was
a real accurate number, but I am just presuming from just talking to
people in the department. I would say that certainly no more than 50
men knew anything about him at all.

Mr. DULLES. Have you made any effort to find out and run down these men
that did know?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You have?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. And how many have you actually discovered did know Ruby
from that investigation?

Mr. CURRY. I don't have the exact number, but I am guessing it probably
would be 25 or 30 men.

Mr. DULLES. Twenty-five men whom you have interrogated with regard to
their association with Ruby?

Mr. CURRY. That knew him in some capacity. That knew him in some
capacity.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Rankin, do we have depositions on this point?

Mr. RANKIN. We have inquired of everyone deposed as to what he knew
about Jack Ruby, what acquaintance, any prior connections.

Mr. DULLES. You mean all the police officers who were----

Mr. RANKIN. Who were interrogated, but, of course, we didn't cover any
1,200 men.

Mr. DULLES. Did you cover all those that were present that morning?

Mr. CURRY. I believe we asked anyone in the police department who knew
Ruby to let us know about it. And then I think anyone that knew him,
the names were turned over to those people here. We covered all that
such an inquiry would reveal but we didn't purport to cover--well, we
covered something like a hundred out of 1,200.

We requested by departmental order any police officer who knew Jack
Ruby make it known to us, and then he was interrogated about it.

Mr. RANKIN. Of those interrogated that would probably include all of
those present the day of the shooting of Oswald, the morning of the
shooting of Oswald at the time of the transfer?

Mr. CURRY. I believe it would.

Mr. RANKIN. All that we knew were present at all, and beyond that, too,
have been interrogated.

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. When Officer 78, that is Tippit was directed to the Oak
Cliff area that was simply because the Oak Cliff area was sort of a
center of activity at that point?

Mr. CURRY. At that time.

Mr. McCLOY. It wasn't--it wasn't because you were trying to or had any
idea that the suspect might have been there?

Mr. CURRY. Not from the Presidential shooting, but we were sure that
the suspect in the Officer Tippit shooting was in the central area.

Mr. McCLOY. But Tippit was still alive on the first direction to him to
go out there?

Mr. CURRY. That was because some of the squad had been moved out of the
Oak Cliff into the Dallas area. You see, this is across the river.

Mr. McCLOY. What is the Oak Cliff area?

Mr. RANKIN. I think that ought to be clarified. Chief Curry, wasn't
your testimony that Tippit was in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And then he was directed to move to the central Oak Cliff
area?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Move in closer, and so he was in it, his regular beat, as I
understand it, was in the Oak Cliff area, isn't that right?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And is Oak Cliff a suburb or what is it?

Mr. CURRY. It is not exactly a suburb, but it is physically separated.
It used to be a separate municipality and some years ago----

Mr. RANKIN. Where does it lie?

Mr. CURRY. It lies west of Dallas proper and across the Trinity River
and the only means of going to Oak Cliff, going to and from Oak Cliff
is by means of viaduct so there is a physical separation between Oak
Cliff and Dallas, and some of the squads had been pulled out of the Oak
Cliff area and to come over to the Elm and Houston area to assist in
the investigation of this shooting, and it would be normal procedure as
squads go out of an area for the squads further out to move in in the
event something does happen in this area they would have a squad that
wouldn't be so far removed from it.

Mr. DULLES. This direction had nothing to do with any suspicion that
you might have had that the assassin might be going into this area?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; none at all.

Mr. DULLES. It was purely a maneuver to cover an area which had been
evacuated or been left uncovered because of the assassination and the
reassignment of squads?

Mr. CURRY. The reassignment of squads, that is right.

Mr. McCLOY. Because of the withdrawal of people of the Oak Cliff area
into the Houston Street area?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct. So we pulled some of the squads further
assigned to the area into the most central area to cover anything that
might happen so they would be in position to go out or come in.

Mr. McCLOY. That does clear it up.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us on the record what was normal procedure
that you just spoke about?

Mr. CURRY. Normal procedure would be when we have a great number of
squads on assignment in an area, in their particular district, as
squads go out of service, say they are checking out, to haul prisoners
into the jails or they are on calls, it just is automatic they are
instructed in school when they go to school if the adjoining squad goes
out of service, doesn't stay, say he adjoins you on the east, don't
go to the far west side of your district, go to the east side of your
district where you could be on the west side of his district, so if
something else occurs in his district you would be in a position to
answer the call.

Ordinarily it is not necessary for us to, so that squads go to getting
out of service, to go and rearrange squads.

In this particular instance, when he asked 81 and 78 if they were in
central Oak Cliff they said yes, but they were moving there because
this would be a normal thing to do, to move into an area where other
squads had gone out of service.

Mr. RANKIN. You told us about your efforts to try to determine whether
subversive groups or groups that might have an interest in making
trouble for a trip of the President were going to try to do anything.
Would you tell us what you did about that in more detail?

Mr. CURRY. I gave you a copy of this, and I would like to read it for
the record, if you would like me to.

Mr. RANKIN. We will offer that.

Mr. CURRY. All right.

This is a copy of a report submitted to me by Lieutenant Jack Revill,
criminal intelligence section of the special service bureau.

Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Exhibit No. 710 and ask you if that isn't a
copy of what you are referring to.

Mr. CURRY. Yes; it is.

Mr. RANKIN. You won't have to read that. Chief, if you will just
describe in a general way what was done that you know about and then I
will offer that to show what it proves.

Mr. CURRY. In essence, this report says prior to the announcement of
the President's visit, there were rumors he would visit Dallas and
because of these rumors the intelligence section increased its efforts
in attempting to get data concerning not only extremists and subversive
groups.

Mr. RANKIN. How do they do that?

Mr. CURRY. They usually have an informant inside the organization.
Sometimes it may be one of our own men.

Mr. RANKIN. I see.

That was with regard to the persons listed on that Exhibit 710?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any other efforts besides that?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; these are all that I know of except we did in one
instance go to the cities outside of Dallas, towns outside of Dallas
to talk to some people that had rumored that they would do something
to embarrass the President. These organizations are listed as the Ku
Klux Klan, the Indignant White Citizens Council, National States Rights
Party, the John Birch Society, Dallas White Citizens Council, Oak Cliff
White Citizens Council, General Walker group, American Opinion Forum,
Dallas Committee for Full Citizenship, Young Peoples Socialist League,
Dallas Civil Liberties Union, Texas White Citizens Council, and Black
Muslims.

Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Exhibit 709 which you have furnished us
this morning, and ask you, can you tell us how you got that exhibit?

Mr. CURRY. This exhibit was a report that was submitted to me from Jack
Revill, who is a lieutenant, in the criminal intelligence section.

Mr. RANKIN. That is the same man who is referred to in Exhibit 710?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, it is; their assignment is to keep track of these
groups that we have talked about, possible subversive or extremist
groups and try to know something about their plans, their movements.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you get that information described in Exhibit 709?

Mr. CURRY. It was given to me on November 22d at 2:50 p.m., or shortly
thereafter, but I mean the information came to him at that time, and he
passed it on to me, later that day.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us how you secured Exhibit 711?

Mr. CURRY. This is a report from Officer V. J. Brian, B-r-i-a-n, who
is a detective in the criminal intelligence section, and was present
when Lieutenant Revill, when the information submitted was given to
Lieutenant Revill.

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to offer Exhibits 709, 710, and 711.

Mr. DULLES. They will be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibit Nos. 709,
710, and 711 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a recess now until 2
o'clock.

Mr. McCLOY. One more question.

Was there any talk that you heard around before the, after the
apprehension of Oswald and his time set for his removal from police
headquarters to the jail, was there any talk that you heard in the
corridors or elsewhere about lynching or possible lynching?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir. The only information I had was that the FBI,
someone from the FBI passed the information to the city hall during the
night that they had had a call that said, I believe the FBI sent this
call, that there was a group of 100 who would take that prisoner away
from us before he got to the county jail.

Mr. McCLOY. But this came from outside the jail?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; outside.

Mr. McCLOY. You never heard any threats uttered within the jail?

Mr. CURRY. No.

Mr. DULLES. Another general question: Have you any comments or anything
you would like to say about the cooperation between the Dallas police,
the Secret Service, and the FBI during this period immediately
following, prior to and immediately following the assassination?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir. We have always had the best of cooperation between
both of these Federal units, and all other units of the Federal and
State government. I feel sure that they thought this information was
important to us, they probably would have given it to us. But we
certainly have not had any trouble with the FBI or with the Secret
Service in any of our past associations.

Mr. DULLES. I was going a little further. I mean, was the cooperation
whole-hearted and open and frank as far as you could tell?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; as far as I could tell, it was.

Mr. DULLES. Was there any problem created because of the possible--not
conflict of authority, but question as to who had responsibility of
particular areas here as between you as chief of police and the Secret
Service and the FBI?

Mr. CURRY. Prior to the President's visit, no; there was nothing there.

Mr. DULLES. Prior to or subsequent to?

Mr. CURRY. Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a
murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of
Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this.
The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service
actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate
with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us
to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place,
but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas,
Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our
responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.

We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in
Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz
told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some
people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and
these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"

But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to
let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to
their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they
were finished with it to return it to us.

Mr. DULLES. An agent of the police force, you mean?

Mr. CURRY. An agent of the FBI.

Mr. DULLES. FBI?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. There was no agent of the Dallas police that went to
Washington with the evidence?

Mr. CURRY. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. RANKIN. Did that work out all right so far?

Mr. CURRY. Well, not exactly, because they were to give us pictures of
everything that was brought to Washington, and Fritz tells me that some
of these little items that it was very poor reproduction of some of the
items on microfilm.

Subsequently they photographed these things in Washington and sent us
copies, some 400, I think, 400 copies of different items. So far as I
know, we have never received any of that evidence back. It is still in
Washington, I guess.

Perhaps the Commission has it.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; the Commission is still working with it.

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. But apparently the FBI tried to carry out their agreement
with you, didn't they?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; they did.

Mr. RANKIN. And it is a question of whether or not their reproductions
were as good as you would like to have?

Mr. CURRY. There were made, some of them, in the office down in Dallas,
they were in a tremendous hurry to get all of these items to the
laboratory here in Washington, and our only concern was this, that if
this case is tried in Dallas, we need the evidence to be presented here
in a court in Dallas and we were a little bit apprehensive about it if
it gets to Washington will it be available to us when we need it. If we
need somebody to identify, attempt to identify the gun or other items
will it be here for them to see?

And that was our only concern.

We got several calls insisting we send this, and nobody would tell me
exactly who it was that was insisting, "just say I got a call from
Washington, and they wanted this evidence up there," insinuated it was
someone in high authority that was requesting this, and we finally
agreed as a matter of trying to cooperate with them, actually.

Mr. DULLES. Have you any more questions?

Mr. McCLOY. Not at this stage.

Mr. RANKIN. Shall we convene at 2?

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Murray, do you have any?

Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)



Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF JESSE EDWARD CURRY RESUMED


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

Mr. McCLOY. (presiding). We are ready.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, I was asking you just as we closed your
examination before lunch about Exhibits 709, 711 particularly, and you
will recall those are the documents concerning the conversation between
Agent Hosty of the FBI and Jack Revill who is your lieutenant of
criminal intelligence section, is that right?

Mr. CURRY. It was reported to me, I was given a report to that effect.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know anything about the matters described in those
letters?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you know about them? Do you want to
see them?

Mr. CURRY. Yes. One of the documents tells me that Lieutenant Revill
states that about 2:50 p.m. on the 22d----

Mr. RANKIN. Of what?

Mr. CURRY. November 1963, that he met Special Agent Jim Hosty of the
FBI in the basement of the city hall, and at that time Agent Hosty
related to Revill that the subject, Oswald, was a member of the
Communist Party, and that he was residing in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any further inquiry after you got that
information?

Mr. CURRY. None other than I had a report from V. J. Brian, a detective
in criminal intelligence, who was present at the time this conversation
took place.

Mr. RANKIN. That later report was as of April 20?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. 1964?

Mr. CURRY. The last report.

Mr. RANKIN. What was the occasion for that?

Mr. CURRY. I just asked Revill if anyone was with him at the time, and
he recalled that Detective Brian was at the time.

Mr. RANKIN. Otherwise, did you know anything more about that matter?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I believe Captain Fritz said that he, he told me he
knew they had been out to talk to Mrs. Paine.

Mr. RANKIN. By they, who do you mean?

Mr. CURRY. Some of the FBI agents, and that he did know that Oswald
apparently knew Hosty, because Hosty was present in the interrogation
room.

Mr. RANKIN. By he there at that point who do you mean?

Mr. CURRY. Oswald.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; but you say he knew.

Mr. CURRY. That Oswald knew Hosty.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. Because according to Fritz he said that he was quite bitter,
Oswald was quite bitter toward Hosty because he had made the statement
that "you mistreated my wife."

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how Captain Fritz learned that?

Mr. CURRY. He was in Captain Fritz's office when this statement was
made, according to Captain Fritz.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, after the assassination, did you give any orders of
your staff, making any reports about anything they knew about either
the assassination or the Tippit killing?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; we had all of our officers who knew anything at
all about it to submit reports which is a normal procedure in any
unusual incident.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you direct that that be done?

Mr. CURRY. Just through my staff.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that in writing?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. You just told them?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And was that direction promptly given?

Mr. CURRY. I am sure it was passed on immediately. All orders are.

Mr. RANKIN. How soon after the assassination?

Mr. CURRY. I would say probably within the next day after we met and we
decided that an investigation should be conducted into all phases of
this.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you give any directions about furnishing information
immediately about what anyone knew about the killing of Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. No specific directions. After Oswald was killed, I called
and I talked with Deputy Chief Stevenson of the criminal investigation
division the next morning of the next day, I believe this was Monday,
and we decided we should appoint an investigative group.

Mr. RANKIN. Who was that?

Mr. CURRY. That was Inspector Sawyer, headed by Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. RANKIN. Who else?

Mr. CURRY. And Captain O. A. Jones, and then I think they had some
lieutenants assigned to it and some detectives. Their assignment was to
find out every person who was present in or around the city hall at the
time that Lee Oswald was killed, and to get a report from them.

I know Lieutenant Revill was also in on this, and then they would also,
in addition to getting a report, they would personally interrogate each
one of them to see whether or not any information they had knowledge of
might be left out of the reports.

And you have a copy of all of these reports, both the reports the
officers made, the additional interrogation made by members of this
investigating group.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether they inquired as to the knowledge of
any of these people about conversations with Ruby immediately after the
shooting of Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. I believe they have some reports to that effect.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that a part of their responsibility to get those
reports?

Mr. CURRY. Yes; anything that they had, that they could get regarding
this.

Mr. RANKIN. And you would expect the police officers to tell anything
they knew at once?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. So far as you know has all of that information been
supplied to the Commission?

Mr. CURRY. So far as I know.

Mr. RANKIN. It has?

Mr. CURRY. So far as I know it has been supplied.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn about the claims of some police officers that
Ruby had said something about the killing to them shortly after killing
Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first learn that?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall exactly, the exact date that I learned of
this. But I think the first time it came to my knowledge was that Agent
Sorrels of the Secret Service, sometime after this told me, he said,
"Now Chief, I don't know that, they could--that I could testify to
this," but he said, "immediately after Oswald was shot, I went to his
cell"----

Mr. RANKIN. Whose cell?

Mr. CURRY. To Oswald's--I mean to Ruby's cell, "and I went in and
talked to him, told him who I was, and"----

Mr. RANKIN. Was anyone else present?

Mr. CURRY. There was a patrolman and a guard, I think, and perhaps a
detective.

Mr. RANKIN. Who were they?

Mr. CURRY. I believe Dean was present, Sergeant Dean, I don't know who
these officers were but it is revealed in these reports that have been
made.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. Sorrels told me, he said, "I asked Ruby why he did it and he
said somebody had to kill the son-of-a-bitch and the police department
couldn't do it."

I believe he also said, "I couldn't think, stand the thought of having
Jacqueline Kennedy having to return to Dallas and go through a trial
for him." I told him this was not for the Secret Service or not for
publication, I just asked him the question but he said, "I did not warn
him against himself, about his constitutional rights, so I don't know
that I would be allowed to testify to this."

Mr. RANKIN. When did Sorrels first tell you that?

Mr. CURRY. This was the--it seems to me like several days after this
occurred.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you report that to anyone?

Mr. CURRY. I believe I told Chief Stevenson about it or whoever was--or
perhaps Captain or Inspector Sawyer or some of them. This information
was relayed on to the investigating group.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether they recorded it any place?

Mr. CURRY. No; we called the officers, when I say we, the investigating
team did talk with the officers and they recall hearing this testimony.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know when they first gave you any information that
they knew of any such conversation?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall that; no, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall that the officers ever said to you or placed
in writing in any memorandum or communication to you that they heard
Ruby say anything beyond what you have described Mr. Sorrels to say?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. If your records show that the first time any such
information was communicated to you, was around February 18, 1964,
would you think that was a correct record?

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it is. When Sorrels, if that is when he says it is
when it was, perhaps that is when it was. But this was prior to Ruby's
trial that I know that he came forward with this information and he
said, "It is possible they can use this testimony in the trial of
Ruby", but he didn't feel like that he could testify to it because he
had not warned him of his constitutional rights.

But that these officers were present, and if they overheard it, then he
said, "You ought to at least talk to Henry Wade about it and he might
be able to get that in his testimony on that basis."

Mr. RANKIN. You think that Dean was one of the officers involved who
overheard it?

Mr. CURRY. I believe he was.

Mr. RANKIN. And who else?

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall now. It is in our reports.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the officer Archer?

Mr. CURRY. I believe Officer Archer was there.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it Officer Newcomb?

Mr. CURRY. I believe so.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you believe whether they testified to something like
that at the trial?

Mr. CURRY. I was not present during the trial but I understand they did
testify.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not those officers made a report
about what they knew about the killing of Oswald prior to February 18?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe they did.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't think they made any report to you or to the FBI
or anybody else?

Mr. CURRY. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. RANKIN. So if they did not include such information in any report
or statement prior to February 18, 1964, you don't know it?

Mr. CURRY. That is correct, I do not know it.

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask, when was, has there been testimony as to when
Agent Sorrels told the chief that he had heard this?

Mr. RANKIN. I don't recall the date.

Mr. CURRY. But it was--I don't recall the date but it was sometime
after the shooting of Oswald.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it 1 day or 2 days?

Mr. CURRY. It was several days but it was prior to the trial of Jack
Ruby.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it a week later?

Mr. CURRY. I would say perhaps it was more than a week later, it was
several weeks, I would say, but prior to the trial, Sorrels talked to
me and he said that this may be important in a trial of the case.

"Some of the things that Ruby told me immediately following the
shooting of Oswald," and he said, "I don't think I can testify to
it, but you might talk to Mr. Wade and he might be able to get the
testimony entered because these officers were not talking they just
overheard the conversation."

Mr. McCLOY. This was a substantial period after the date?

Mr. CURRY. The assassination.

Mr. McCLOY. The date of the assassination?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And the date that Sorrels was alleged to have heard this
from Ruby?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it before or after Christmas?

Mr. CURRY. I believe it was after Christmas. I just couldn't be sure
because I was not----

Mr. RANKIN. Where did the conversation occur?

Mr. CURRY. On the telephone.

Mr. RANKIN. Was anybody present?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr RANKIN. Did you make a written record of the information?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I just told Chief Stevenson, who is in charge of
criminal investigation, to attempt to determine who was present at that
time; that Oswald was--I mean that Ruby was talking to Sorrels, and to
see what they heard at that time, which they did, and the officers then
made a report.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell Chief Stevenson at that time what Sorrels had
told you?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he made any record of it?

Mr. CURRY. I doubt that he did.

Mr. RANKIN. You haven't tried to find out?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I haven't.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any practice in the police force about
recording statements by the accused in first-degree murder cases?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Now changing to another subject, do you recall--you said
that you had made some comments upon the evidence in regard to Oswald
and to the media--do you recall what you said about that?

Mr. CURRY. I believe I told them it had been reported that we had an
FBI report that they had been able to trace that weapon where he had
ordered it from Chicago, and it had been picked up under the name of
Hidell and that the handwriting was the same on the order blank as
Oswald's.

Mr. RANKIN. Was this told to a news conference or over the TV?

Mr. CURRY. Well, the TV was there. It was not a news conference. I was
walking down the hall, and they surrounded me.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell them anything else about the evidence you had
against Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. I only told them I believed that we had some other evidence,
but I didn't tell them what it was.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell them any more about the evidence that you
had against Oswald?

Mr. CURRY. I don't believe so; I don't recall it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell them about the evidence you had against
Oswald concerning the Tippit shooting?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I don't believe I made any comment.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know about when this was made, these statements were
made about the evidence?

Mr. CURRY. I believe this was on Friday, the 22d, during the late
evening.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it a common practice for you or someone for the police
department to tell about the evidence that you had?

Mr. CURRY. It wouldn't be an uncommon practice. There is no law against
it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you often do it then?

Mr. CURRY. Well, I would say this was not really unusual. It might
be--this was an exceptional case; ordinarily I am not involved in
these investigations or in making statements, but this would not be an
unusual thing to say.

Mr. RANKIN. Someone from the police department often does it; is that
right?

Mr. CURRY. Well, frequently, if they are asked about it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether it is possible to monitor conversations
between the prisoner and the visitor on the intercom?

Mr. CURRY. Not by intercom. It would be--they are brought into--when a
prisoner is brought in to visit with an attorney or a relative he is
placed on one side of a wall and the prisoner--I mean the visitor--on
the other side, but we don't have any means of recording this. They
talk through by telephone. There is a glass that separates them.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you monitor any conversations between Lee Oswald and
his brother Robert, or Lee Oswald and Marina at any time?

Mr. CURRY. I did not, and I don't know of any. We don't have any way of
doing it. I mean we have no setup for doing this.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't know of any that was done?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. In regard to arrangements, do you know the Texas law as to
how soon after an arrest an arraignment is required?

Mr. CURRY. Excuse me now; I am not an attorney.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRY. It is my understanding that, so far in Texas, being brought
immediately before a magistrate would be during the normal course of
that court's business.

Mr. RANKIN. Your law----

Mr. CURRY. When they are in session.

Mr. RANKIN. Your law says he shall be brought immediately.

Mr. CURRY. Immediately, but it has been----

Mr. RANKIN. But in interpretation you ordinarily follow a practice
of----

Mr. CURRY. During the normal course of the court's business. This was
actually unusual because this type of arraignment--because usually it
would have been later than this, but we were trying to take whatever
precautions we could to see that he was given his--we were not
violating his civil rights. That is the reason that we did arraign him
in the city hall. Ordinarily we would have taken him before a court.

Mr. RANKIN. I didn't understand you to say that the justice of the
peace told him he had a right to counsel or said anything about that.

Mr. CURRY. I don't recall whether he did or whether he did not. He read
all this to him.

Mr. RANKIN. That is, he read the complaint to him?

Mr. CURRY. The complaint, and I don't recall what all he said to him.

Mr. RANKIN. So, according to the practice in Texas at the time that
he was taken for arraignment would have been the usual practice or a
little earlier?

Mr. CURRY. A little earlier, actually.

Mr. McCLOY. Were you present at any investigation or interrogation of
Ruby?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you hear any further elaboration of this charge that
Oswald made that Hosty had mistreated his wife; what was the nature of
the mistreatment?

Mr. CURRY. I was not present when this happened. This was told to me, I
think Captain Fritz told me this, and he seemed to gather that he had
more or less sort of browbeat her in interrogating her is what Fritz,
the impression that Fritz got.

Mr. McCLOY. When was that? Do you have any reason to know--Captain
Fritz will perhaps tell us about it--as to when that interrogation of
Hosty and Mrs. Oswald took place?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. You don't take normally any tape recordings of witnesses'
examinations?

Mr. CURRY. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. I guess that is all, except the general question I have
of Chief Curry. Do you know anything else with respect to this whole
matter that you think would be of any help to this Commission in
getting at the facts?

Mr. CURRY. Not that I know of, except to say we were extremely sorry
that, of course, this thing happened in Dallas. We thought we were
taking every normal precaution that we could take to insure the safety
of the President in cooperating with the Secret Service and all other
agencies and we felt like we had done a good job.

After the assassination and the murder of our officer, that our
officers had done a good job in making a quick apprehension of the
alleged person guilty of this, and that we will have to admit that
although we thought that adequate precautions had been taken for the
transfer of this prisoner, that one of our officers momentarily stepped
away from his post of duty, and that during this moment of negligence
on his part, as far as we could determine Ruby went down the ramp, the
Main Street ramp, and concealed himself behind some news media and
detectives and as Oswald was brought out he stepped forward and shot
him.

And if we had it to do over again, and I think this, that some policy
should be set up for the news media, whereby if anything of this
magnitude ever occurs again, that we would not be plagued by the
confusion present that was present at that time, and that the news
media should accept some of the responsibility for these things and
agree among themselves to have representatives that can report back to
them.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, I am not quite clear about the situation with
regard to your practices in the police force, and the news media.
I understand what happened, as you described it at the time of the
episodes that we have been going into, and I understand that you would,
if there was a matter of this magnitude again--you would expect and
want a very different change?

Mr. CURRY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And eliminate the interference by the news media?

Mr. CURRY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. But what do you do now about the ordinary case? Have you
changed your practices about the media at all?

Mr. CURRY. Not the ordinary cases; no.

Mr. RANKIN. And do they use the radio and TV in the police headquarters?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir; they do.

Mr. RANKIN. And they, the reporters, come in, and it is just the
difference between a great many?

Mr. CURRY. And a few is what made the difference in this.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you permit reporters now to come in and interrogate
prisoners as they did in this case by holding a microphone up to their
mouth and saying, "How did you do it?"

Mr. CURRY. They do the same as they do here; on the way from the
interrogation room to the jail elevator as they pass by they might run
along and ask him questions and try to get him to answer.

Mr. RANKIN. That could be done today just the same?

Mr. CURRY. Yes, sir. Because we have no way of keeping them out of the
public halls.

Mr. RANKIN. Don't you have jurisdiction as chief of police to exclude
them if you thought it was the wise thing to do?

Mr. CURRY. Yes. Now if I had it to do over again, of course, I would
exclude it.

Mr. RANKIN. And you could do it today in the ordinary case if you
wanted to?

Mr. CURRY. I would probably have my hide taken off by the news media,
but I could do it.

Mr. RANKIN. So, it is really a problem of weighing what the media will
do to you against other considerations?

Mr. CURRY. And this, too; it seemed like there was a great demand by
the general public to know what was going on.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. And that is what you were trying to satisfy?

Mr. CURRY. That is what I was trying to do.

Mr. RANKIN. Those are all the questions.

Mr. McCLOY. I don't think I have anything else.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you very much, Chief, for all of your help.

Mr. CURRY. Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. RANKIN. I want to offer the Exhibits 701 through 708, both
inclusive.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 701 through 708 were received in evidence.)


TESTIMONY OF J. W. FRITZ

Mr. McCLOY. You know the purpose of what we are here for, captain?

Mr. FRITZ. I think so.

Mr. McCLOY. We have a very broad mandate to look into all the
circumstances relating to these unfortunate incidents that occurred in
Dallas on November 22 last year, and thereafter.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And we have had Chief Curry on this morning, as I am sure
you understand, and we would like to continue our investigation through
you. We understand that you were in very direct contact with this
problem of investigation, and I will ask you to stand and raise your
right hand, sir.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this hearing will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Will you state your name, please?

Mr. FRITZ. J. W. Fritz.

Mr. BALL. Where do you live?

Mr. FRITZ. I live in Dallas.

Mr. BALL. Could you tell us something about yourself; tell us where you
were born and what your education is and what your training has been as
a police officer?

Mr. FRITZ. I was born in Dublin, Tex., and lived there for several
years. My father moved to New Mexico, and I grew up at Lake Arthur, N.
Mex. And then I came back to Texas, and came to the police department
in January of 1921, and have been there ever since.

Mr. BALL. You started as a patrolman, did you, in the Dallas Police
Department?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I started as a patrolman, worked as a patrolman
approximately 2 years, I am not sure of the exact time and I was then
moved to the detectives' office and have come up through the ranks
there, up and down.

Mr. BALL. You are now a captain of police, are you?

Mr. FRITZ. Captain of homicide and robbery bureau; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How long have you held that office?

Mr. FRITZ. Since it was set up, I believe, in 1932 or 1933, I am not
sure.

Mr. BALL. You have been head of homicide and robbery detail since 1932
or 1933?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right. I have had other jobs, too. One time I had
the whole CID; they didn't call it CID at that time; they called it
detectives' office, but I kept the homicide and robbery under my
supervision during that time. I later went back with the homicide and
robbery, full time.

Mr. BALL. Is there a division of detectives separate from homicide and
robbery?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, we call it now the CID. It would be ordinarily called
the detective division; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who is in charge of that?

Mr. FRITZ. Who is in charge of it?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Of course, we are all directly under the chief, and Chief
Stevenson is the head of the CID, M. W. Stevenson.

Mr. BALL. Have you had any special training in police schools or places
like that?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, of course, I have had a good many years of experience,
and I attempted, I still go to school to our police schools, and I now
attend seminars at different places, Oklahoma University and Texas
University and go to most any training school that is available.

Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, you had been told the President or
before November 22, 1963, you had been told that the President was
coming to Dallas?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And had you taken certain precautions for his safety?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, we had taken some precautions but those were changed.
We were told in the beginning that we would be in the parade directly
behind it, I don't know whether it was the second or third car, but the
Vice President's car, that we would be directly behind that, and we did
make preparation for that.

But at 10 o'clock the night before the parade, Chief Stevenson called
me at home and told me that had been changed, and I was assigned with
two of my officers to the speakers' stand at the Trade Mart.

Mr. BALL. Was most of your work out at the Trade Mart that day?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, we didn't have a great deal of work to do there, other
than check the speakers' stand and make a check to see if everything
was all right before the President got there. He would have been there
in 10 more minutes.

Mr. BALL. Did you check the waiters who had been hired?

Mr. FRITZ. That wasn't my job.

Mr. BALL. Someone else did?

Mr. FRITZ. Someone else did; yes.

Mr. BALL. How many men did you have assigned?

Mr. FRITZ. Where?

Mr. BALL. With you at the Trade Mart.

Mr. FRITZ. Two.

Mr. BALL. Who were they?

Mr. FRITZ. Detectives Sims and Boyd.

Mr. BALL. And they are both homicide?

Mr. FRITZ. Both homicide officers; yes. I had other officers assigned
to different places. I had two of my officers assigned to ride in the
car that was in front of the parade a half mile, with Chief Lumpkin.
That was Senkel and Turner.

Mr. BALL. You were at the Trade Mart when you heard the President had
been shot?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. That was about what time you heard that? You have a little
notebook there.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I have a notebook.

Mr. BALL. Did you make notes as of that time?

Mr. FRITZ. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the
tragedy.

Mr. BALL. How long after?

Mr. FRITZ. We started on it real soon after, and we have been working
on it ever since.

Mr. BALL. Did somebody assist you in the preparation of that notebook?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who was that?

Mr. FRITZ. I had several officers assist me with this, and some
secretaries, of course, that helped us with it. I had my lieutenant, T.
L. Baker, help me to put this book together, this larger book, I think
you have a copy of it there, and to make some additional books like
this.

Of course, we worked the whole office ever since it happened so it is
hard to say just who helped.

Mr. BALL. Now, the book you are talking about is a notebook that you
have with you, the book at which you are looking now?

Mr. FRITZ. This is the book I am talking about.

Mr. BALL. You made a formal report, didn't you, to the attorney general
of Texas?

Mr. FRITZ. We, we didn't make it for the attorney general of Texas.
At the time we made this we were just making, we were told that we
would probably need a report for this investigation, and we started
immediately to making this. We didn't know at that time the attorney
general would need one of these but when we were told he would need one
we, of course, sent him one, too.

Mr. BALL. What I want to do is distinguish between the books you are
looking at for this record.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. You have a book that is of some size there?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you call that what?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, "Investigation of the Assassination of President
Kennedy."

Mr. BALL. That is the same as Commission's Document No. 81B. So, then,
you have a smaller book before you, haven't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; a little index book.

Mr. BALL. An index.

Mr. FRITZ. It really is an index book for this larger file but it is
kind of a quick reference book.

Mr. BALL. I see. Now, what time did you, what time was it that you
heard the President had been shot?

Mr. FRITZ. I show that he was shot at 12:35, and one of the Secret
Service men who was assigned the same location where we were assigned,
got a little call on his, evidently got a call on his little transistor
radio and Chief Stevenson, who was also assigned to some part of the
building there, came to me and told me that the President had been hit
at the underpass, and asked me to go to the hospital and see what I
could do.

Mr. BALL. You say you know he was shot at 12:35?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. You mean that is the time you heard about it?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, we heard about it immediately after that, and we
arrived and we checked----

Mr. BALL. What time did you hear about it?

Mr. FRITZ. Just when Chief Stevenson came to me and told me.

Mr. BALL. Did you make a note of it at the time?

Mr. FRITZ. No sir; I didn't make a note of it at the time.

Mr. BALL. When you heard of this what did you do?

Mr. FRITZ. Immediately left, and I told the two officers with me, Mr.
Sims and Boyd that we would run to our police car that was parked
nearby, listened to radio call to see whether it was a hoax or whether
it was the truth. It was only 10 minutes' time for the President's
arrival, we didn't want to leave unless this was a genuine call, and a
true call.

When we got to the radio, of course, we began to get other news. We
went to Parkland Hospital as we had been instructed, and as we drove
up in front of the hospital, we I suppose intercepted the chief, Chief
Curry, between the curb and the hospital, and I told him we had had a
call to the hospital but I felt we were going to the wrong place, we
should go to the scene of the crime and he said, "Well, go ahead," so I
don't think our car ever quit rolling but we went right to the scene of
the crime.

Mr. BALL. Did you go directly to a building?

Mr. FRITZ. Directly to the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. BALL. What time did you arrive there?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, sir; we arrived there--we arrived at the hospital at
12:45, if you want that time, and at the scene of the offense at 12:58.

Mr. BALL. 12:58; the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Were there any officers there at the time?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In the front?

Mr. FRITZ. Several officers; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Do you know who they were?

Mr. FRITZ. I couldn't give you the name of all of them.

Mr. BALL. What did you do when you got to this building?

Mr. FRITZ. Some officer told us they thought he was in that building,
so we had our guns----

Mr. McCLOY. Thought who was in the building?

Mr. FRITZ. The man who did the shooting was in the building. So, we,
of course, took our shotguns and immediately entered the building and
searched the building to see if we could find him.

Mr. BALL. Were there guards on the doors of the building at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure, but I don't--there has been some question
about that, but the reason I don't think that--this may differ with
someone else, but I am going to tell you what I know.

Mr. BALL. All right.

Mr. McCLOY. By all means.

Mr. FRITZ. After I arrived one of the officers asked me if I would like
to have the building sealed and I told him I would.

Mr. BALL. What officer was that?

Mr. FRITZ. That is a uniformed officer, but I don't know what his
name was, he was outside, of course, I went upstairs and I don't know
whether he did because I couldn't watch him.

Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?

Mr. FRITZ. We began searching the floors, looking for anyone with a gun
or looked suspicious, and we searched through hurriedly through most
all the floors.

Mr. McCLOY. Which floor did you start with?

Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I
think we went up probably to the top.

Different people would call me when they would find something that
looked like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from
floor to floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until
someone called me and told me they wanted me to come to the front
window, the corner window, they had found some empty cartridges.

Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.

Mr. BALL. What did you do?

Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch
anything until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just
as they were lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see
that that was done, and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took
pictures, and dusted the shelfs for prints.

Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?

Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.

Mr. BALL. Day?

Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?

Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to
see whether he could.

Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?

Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to
preserve that evidence and I went right ahead.

Mr. BALL. What happened after that?

Mr. FRITZ. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they had
found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same thing,
not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes until we
could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get over there
he made pictures of that.

Mr. BALL. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened
then?

Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live
shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.

Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave
it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.

Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?

Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?

Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.

Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a
Mauser?

Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called
it most everything.

Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?

Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people
talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or
not.

Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?

Mr. FRITZ. No sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and
you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.

Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any--did you ever say that it was a
7.65 Mauser?

Mr. FRITZ. No sir; I am sure I did not.

Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?

Mr. FRITZ. No sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too
positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles
myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any
different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.

Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?

Mr. FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir.

Mr. BALL. You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected
this live cartridge?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me,
Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later
I asked him to bring it down--I don't believe I ever carried that rifle
to city hall. I believe Lieutenant Day carried it to city hall, anyway
if you will ask him he can be more positive than I.

Mr. BALL. While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the
time we finished Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees
had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name,
Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving
address.

Mr. BALL. This was after the rifle was found?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; after the rifle was found.

Mr. BALL. Another witness has testified that the rifle was found at
1:22 p.m., does that about accord with your figures or your memory?

Mr. FRITZ. Let's see, I might have that here. I don't think I have that
time.

Mr. BALL. Do you have the time at which the shells were found?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have that time.

Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there at the Texas School Book
Depository?

Mr. McCLOY. Can I ask one question there, did you take any precautions
as to fingerprints before you ejected this?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. So in your opinion your fingerprints wouldn't show?

Mr. FRITZ. He could have taken mine but I let him dust first before I
ejected a shell.

Mr. BALL. How long did you stay at the Texas School Book Depository
after you found the rifle?

Mr. FRITZ. After he told me about this man almost, I left immediately
after he told me that.

Mr. BALL. You left almost immediately after he told you that?

Mr. FRITZ. Almost after he told me that man, I felt it important to
hold that man.

Mr. BALL. Did you give descriptions to Sims and Boyd?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I told them to drive me to city hall and see if
the man had a criminal record and we picked up two other officers and
my intentions were to go to the house at Irving. When I got to the city
hall, I asked, because, I will tell you why I asked because while we
were in the building we heard that our officer had been killed, someone
came in and told me, I asked when I got to my office who shot the
officer, and they told me his name was Oswald, and I said, "His full
name?" And they told me and I said, "That is the suspect we are looking
for in the President's killing."

So, I then called some of my officers to go right quickly, and asked
them about how much evidence we had on the officer's killing and they
told me they had several eye witnesses, and they had some real good
witnesses, and I instructed them to get those witnesses over for
identification just as soon as they could, and for us to prepare a real
good case on the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him
without bond while we investigated the President's killing where we
didn't have so many witnesses.

Mr. BALL. Now, you instructed some other officers to go to Irving,
didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. And you told Sims and Boyd to stay with you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I don't believe I sent them to Irving, I have the
names of the officers I sent to Irving.

Mr. BALL. Who did you send to Irving?

Mr. FRITZ. To Irving, Officer Stovall, Rose, and Adamcik.

Mr. BALL. After you had done that what did you do?

Mr. FRITZ. I sent some officers--you mean right at that time? I also
sent officers over to the Beckley address, you know, as soon as we got
there, I don't believe we had the Beckley address at this part of this
question.

Mr. BALL. You didn't have it at that time, did you?

Mr. FRITZ. Not right at this time, but as soon as I got to that address.

Mr. BALL. Let's come to that a little later and we find out when you
got there.

Mr. FRITZ. When I got there?

Mr. BALL. Yes. What did you do after you had sent the officers to
Irving?

Mr. FRITZ. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just before
I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my office
that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer was, I
think we can find out, I have--since I have talked to you this morning
I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who that
officer was, but I am not sure yet.

Mr. BALL. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on
Beckley?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Had he been brought into the station by that time?

Mr. FRITZ. He was at the station when we got there, you know.

Mr. BALL. He was?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; so then I talked to him and I asked him where his
room was on Beckley.

Mr. BALL. Then you started to interrogate Oswald, did you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you called him into your room?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Will you describe the interrogation room, what it looks like
and where it is located?

Mr. FRITZ. It is on the, room 317, on the third floor of the courts
building, and it isn't a large office. I believe it is 9-1/2 feet by 14
feet, I have the exact measurements that I think are correct. Glass all
around, and it has a door leading out into a hallway. My secretaries
are seated in the front. There is a lieutenant's office and desk across
the hall from me. To my right and through the back window out of my
office would be the squadroom where the officers write their reports.
And at the end of the hall I have an interrogation room and one
interrogation in back of the squadroom.

Mr. BALL. Your room opens onto----

Mr. FRITZ. A little hallway.

Mr. BALL. A little hallway?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. That is not the main hall that goes through the third floor,
is it?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir? No, no, a little hallway in the office.

Mr. BALL. The main corridor on the third floor--your office does not
open onto the main corridor of the third floor, does it?

Mr. FRITZ. My own office?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; when I say my office, the homicide and robbery
office, my office opens onto the main hallway.

But my little office, a private office opens into a smaller hallway.

Mr. BALL. Where was Oswald being kept before you got there, what room
was Oswald in?

Mr. FRITZ. When I got there he was in the front interrogation room at
the end of the little hall.

Mr. BALL. Here is a map or a diagram drawn by Chief Curry. It is
Commission Exhibit 701. Take a look at this, is that a diagram of the
floor?

Mr. FRITZ. This would be my office right here.

Mr. BALL. That would be the entry to the homicide and robbery?

Mr. FRITZ. Homicide and robbery bureau.

Mr. BALL. This is your office?

Mr. FRITZ. My office opens right here.

Mr. BALL. Off of the hall?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Off the homicide and robbery?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; there should be another line, wait just a minute. There
is a little mistake right here, would it be all right if I correct it?

Mr. BALL. Go ahead and correct it, your office is farther back from the
hall, isn't it?

Mr. FRITZ. You see this, coming up from the hall, down at this end
the administrative office, the chief's office, and the dispatcher's
office over here, and over here is the chief's office back here, here
are some assistant chiefs all along here, and in this corner. Now, in
coming down this hall, this is open right in here that makes a square
that goes into the other building in city hall, and this comes to the
elevators, the elevators are right here.

Now then, right here in this little jail office, a little small office
for the jail elevators right here, and two toilets right here. Now
then, this should have a hallway in here like that, beginning right
here.

Mr. BALL. You are adding to Chief Curry's map showing a little hallway?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right. This is the lieutenant's office right here.

Mr. BALL. You are marking "Lieutenant's office."

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and that is his--that is placed there just like
my office is, and right at the end of this hall, right here, using a
little part of that probably, but in there is a little conference room
right in here which comes clear across here.

Here, I have a desk, a metal desk with all the records, daily record,
the working records stacked right on here for the benefit of the
officers who work in this squadroom right here with these desks.

Mr. BALL. Where is the door to your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Here is the door to my office right here.

Mr. BALL. Mark that, please. Show me where Oswald was kept.

Mr. FRITZ. In this little place right here.

Mr. BALL. Put a big X there where Oswald was kept.

Mr. FRITZ. At first?

Mr. BALL. At first.

Mr. FRITZ. He was there when I came in. We didn't keep him there long.

Mr. BALL. That was only a few steps from your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Only a few steps. That is where he was when I came into the
office.

Mr. BALL. In the room marked "X" on this Exhibit No. 701 is where he
was?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. After a few moments you had him come in, in a little while,
to your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Do you have that in time when he came into your office?

Mr. FRITZ. The chief's map would have been, I could have made this
better if I had used the chief's map and put the lieutenant's office
over here.

Mr. BALL. Don't worry about it. That is close enough. We have him from
X which is the conference room into your office.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; my desk is right here and I sit behind it right here
and there are some chairs and telephone table right here and I had him
sitting in a chair, right here.

Mr. BALL. Right beside you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I have other chairs along here.

Mr. BALL. All right.

Now, Captain, about what time did you first bring him to your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Let's see, I have it right here. Oswald was arrested at 1:40
and I think he was taken to the city hall about 2:15 and I started
talking to him probably a little bit after that.

Mr. BALL. About what time?

Don't you have a time marked in your report there?

Mr. FRITZ. I think so.

Mr. BALL. Of 2:25.

Mr. FRITZ. 2:25?

Mr. BALL. On page 237 of your report, your report of Sims and Boyd
refers to a time that he was brought to your room, and I believe 165.

Mr. FRITZ. My report, my report should have a report right there that
should show it. This shows here 2:15 and I don't think that is right.

Mr. BALL. Mr. Baker's report on 165 gives the time also.

Mr. FRITZ. The nearest that I have here then would be shortly after
2:15 p.m.

Mr. BALL. You will notice that Sims and Boyd make it, state they
brought him from the conference room to your office at about 2:20.

Mr. FRITZ. That might be all right because I have 2:15 here but I think
2:15 may be 5 or 10 minutes too early.

Mr. BALL. It was soon after you got there?

Mr. FRITZ. Soon after I got there.

Mr. BALL. That you brought him into your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who was present when you talked with him?

Mr. FRITZ. At that time, when I first brought him in there there would
be Sims and Boyd and probably one or two officers from the office, I
am not sure, just who else might have been there. I know those two, I
am sure, I believe those two were there. Just about the time I started
talking to him, I had just started to question him, I got a phone
call from Mr. Shanklin, Gordon Shanklin, agent in charge of the FBI
calling for Mr. Bookhout, and I asked Mr. Bookhout to go to pick up the
extension.

Mr. BALL. Was Mr. Bookhout there?

Mr. FRITZ. He had just come into the lieutenant's office and Mr.
Shanklin asked that Mr. Hosty be in on that questioning, he said he
wanted him in there because of Mr. Hosty knowing these people and he
had been talking to them and he wanted him in there right then.

So, I got up from my desk and walked over to the lieutenant's office
and asked Mr. Bookhout to come in, the reason I asked both of them to
come in and Mr. Bookhout is in my office most of every day and works
with us in a lot of cases and asked him to come in with Mr. Hosty.

Mr. BALL. So Bookhout and Hosty came into your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Was anyone else present?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember whether there was anyone else right at that
time or not.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to
you?

Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said
to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning
those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these
notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days
later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.

Mr. BALL. What is your best memory of what you said to him when he
first came in?

Mr. FRITZ. I first asked him as I do of most people something about
where he was from, and where he was raised and his education, and I
asked him where he went to school and he told me he went to school in
New York for a while, he had gone to school in Fort Worth some, that
he didn't finish high school, that he went to the Marines, and the
Marines, and finished high school training in the Marines.

And I don't remember just what else. I asked him just the general
questions for getting acquainted with him, and so I would see about how
to talk to him, and Mr. Hosty spoke up and asked him something about
Russia, and asked him if he had been to Russia, and he asked him if he
had been to Mexico City, and this irritated Oswald a great deal and he
beat on the desk and went into a kind of a tantrum.

Mr. BALL. What did he say when he was asked if he had been to Mexico
City?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he had not been. He did say he had been to Russia,
he was in Russia, I believe he said for some time.

Mr. BALL. He said he had not been in Mexico City?

Mr. FRITZ. At that time he told me he had not been in Mexico City.

Mr. BALL. Who asked the question whether or not he had been to Mexico
City?

Mr. FRITZ. Mr. Hosty. I wouldn't have known anything about Mexico City.

Mr. BALL. Was there anything said about Oswald's wife?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. He said, he told Hosty, he said, "I know you."
He said, "You accosted my wife on two occasions," and he was getting
pretty irritable and so I wanted to quiet him down a little bit because
I noticed if I talked to him in a calm, easy manner it wasn't very hard
to get him to settle down, and I asked him what he meant by accosting,
I thought maybe he meant some physical abuse or something and he said,
"Well, he threatened her." And he said, "He practically told her she
would have to go back to Russia." And he said, "He accosted her on two
different occasions."

Mr. BALL. Was there anything said about where he lived?

Mr. FRITZ. Where he lived? Right at that time?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. I am sure I had no way of asking him where he lived but I am
not too sure about that--just how quick he told me because he corrected
me, I thought he lived in Irving and he told me he didn't live in
Irving. He lived on Beckley as the officer had told me outside.

(At this point Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

Mr. FRITZ. And I asked him about that arrangement and I am again, I
can't be too sure when this question was asked. I asked him why his
wife was living in Irving and why he was living on Beckley and he said
she was living with Mrs. Paine. Mrs. Paine was trying to learn to speak
Russian and that his wife, Mrs. Oswald, had a small baby and Mrs. Paine
helped with the baby and his wife taught Mrs. Paine Russian and it
made a good arrangement for both of them and he stayed over in town.
I thought it was kind of an awkward arrangement and I questioned him
about the arrangement a little bit and I asked him how often he went
out there and he said weekends.

I asked him why he didn't stay out there. He said he didn't want to
stay out there all the time, Mrs. Paine and her husband didn't get
along too well. They were separated a good part of the time and I asked
him if he had a car and he said he didn't have a car, he said the
Paines had two cars but he didn't use their cars.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him anything about his address or did he
volunteer the address?

Mr. FRITZ. He volunteered the address at Beckley?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I will tell you, whether we asked him or told him one,
he never did deny it, he never did deny the Beckley Street address at
all. The only thing was he didn't know whether it was north or south.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him whether it was north or south?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, but he didn't know. But from the description of
surroundings we could tell it was North Beckley.

Mr. BALL. Up to that time you hadn't sent any men out to North Beckley,
had you?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I sent them out there real soon and Officer Potts
called me back from out there and talked to me on the telephone and
gave me a report from out there on the telephone, and I am sure that
that is the time that he told me about the way he was registered, and I
asked Oswald about why he was registered under this other name.

Mr. BALL. What other name?

Mr. FRITZ. Of O. L. Lee.

Mr. BALL. O. H. Lee?

Mr. FRITZ. O. H. Lee. He said, well, the lady didn't understand him,
she put it down there and he just left it that way.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him whether he had signed his name O. H. Lee?

Mr. FRITZ. No, I hadn't asked him.

Mr. BALL. Did you know that he had personally registered?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. BALL. He said the lady didn't understand him?

Mr. FRITZ. He said the lady didn't understand him and he just left it
that way.

Mr. BALL. How long did this first questioning take?

Mr. FRITZ. Of course, I talked to him several times during that
afternoon. I would have to go out and talk to every officer and give
them different assignments and talk to them about these witnesses, and
help some in getting the witnesses over there.

I also asked Lieutenant Day to bring the rifle down after I sent after
Mrs. Oswald, and had her to look at the rifle. She couldn't identify
it positively but she said it looked like the rifle that he had, but
she couldn't say for sure. She said she thought he brought it from New
Orleans.

Mr. BALL. How long a time did you sit with Oswald and question him this
first time?

Mr. FRITZ. The first time, not but a few minutes.

Mr. BALL. That was the time Hosty and Bookhout were there?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right. But sometimes when I would leave the office
to do something else, it is hard to imagine how many things we had
happening at the one time or how many different officers we had doing
different things without seeing it but we were terribly busy.

I had called all my officers back on duty and had every one of them
assigned to something, so going back and forth kept me pretty busy
running back and forth at the time of questioning.

I don't know when I would leave, I suppose Mr. Bookhout and Mr. Hosty
asked him a few questions, but I don't believe they questioned him a
great deal while I was gone.

Mr. BALL. You said just a few minutes, what did you mean by that, 15,
20, 25?

Mr. FRITZ. It would be pretty hard to guess at a time like that because
we weren't even quitting for lunch so I don't even know, time didn't
mean much right at that time. For a few minutes, you would think 30 or
40 minutes the first time.

Mr. BALL. Thirty or forty minutes?

Mr. FRITZ. I am guessing at that time.

Mr. BALL. He hadn't been searched up to that time, had he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he had been searched.

Mr. BALL. Wasn't he searched later in the jail office?

Mr. FRITZ. He was searched, the officers who arrested him made the
first search, I am sure. He had another search at the building and I
believe that one of my officers, Mr. Boyd, found some cartridges in his
pocket in the room after he came to the city hall. I can't tell you the
exact time when he searched him.

Mr. BAIL. You don't have the record of the time when he was searched?

Mr. FRITZ. No.

Mr. BALL. You remember they found a transfer of Dallas Transit Company?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; found a transfer.

Mr. BALL. And some bullets?

Mr. FRITZ. Bullets; yes, sir. Cartridges.

Mr. BALL. He had an identification bracelet, too, didn't he?

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure about that.

Mr. BALL. You don't remember?

Mr. FRITZ. No.

Mr. BALL. You had a showup that afternoon?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask what kind of bullets these were?

Mr. FRITZ. .38, cartridges for a .38 pistol.

Mr. McCLOY. Pistol?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, pistol cartridges.

Mr. BALL. You had a showup that afternoon?

Mr. FRITZ. That first showup was for a lady who was an eye witness and
we were trying to get that showup as soon as we could because she was
beginning to faint and getting sick.

In fact, I had to leave the office and carry some ammonia across the
hall, they were about to send her to the hospital or something and we
needed that identification real quickly, and she got to feeling all
right after using this ammonia.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember her name?

Mr. FRITZ. I have her name here.

Mr. BALL. Was that Mrs. Markham?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, Helen Markham.

Mr. BALL. That was the first showup, was it?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Were you there?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. With her?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Will you tell me what happened there?

Mr. FRITZ. She looked at these people very carefully, and she picked
him out and made the positive identification.

Mr. BALL. What did she say?

Mr. FRITZ. She said that is the man that I saw shoot the officer.

Mr. BALL. Who did she point out?

Mr. FRITZ. She pointed out Oswald; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In your showup room you have the prisoners separated from the
visitors?

Mr. FRITZ. There is a screen. They are on a stage with numbers over
their heads for identification, and measurements to show their height,
and this is lighted back there so the people can see them plainly,
and the people who are looking at them usually sit at desks out some
distance, probably as far as here from that window from the showup
screen.

Mr. BALL. Near the window, you mean about 15, 20 feet.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; about that far.

Mr. BALL. And then, now in this showup there were two officers of the
vice squad and an officer and a clerk from the jail that were in the
showup with Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. That is true. I borrowed those officers, I was a little bit
afraid some prisoner might hurt him, there was a lot of excitement and
a lot of feeling right about that time so we didn't have an officer in
my office the right size to show with him so I asked two of the special
service officers if they would help me and they said they would be glad
to, so they took off their coats and neckties and fixed themselves
where they would look like prisoners and they were good enough to stand
on each side of him in the showup and we used a man who works in the
jail office, a civilian employee as a third man.

Mr. BALL. Now, were they dressed a little better than Oswald, do you
think, these three people?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I don't think there was a great deal of difference.
They had on their regular working clothes and after they opened their
shirts and took off their ties, why they looked very much like anyone
else.

Mr. BALL. They were all handcuffed together, were they?

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure, I don't remember for sure if they were all
handcuffed together or not. They probably did. I couldn't be positive
about that.

Mr. BALL. Now, after you had had the showup with Helen Markham, did you
question Oswald again?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Go directly from the showup room up there?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I am not sure whether directly, but shortly, there
wouldn't be too much time when we talk to him after that.

Mr. BALL. Your records show the showup for Helen Markham was 4:45.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Do you think that is about right?

Mr. FRITZ. I think that is about right.

Mr. BALL. All right, now how long after that would you say you went
back to your office and talked to him again?

Mr. FRITZ. I would say within, it would take us a few minutes, you
know, to get him back from the showup, probably 15 minutes, something
like that.

Mr. BALL. Who was present?

Mr. FRITZ. Twenty minutes.

Mr. BALL. Who was present at this questioning?

Mr. FRITZ. This particular questioning?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. I believe--I don't want to be sure about whether Mr. Hosty
stayed at this next time or not because he left at some time. Mr.
Bookhout stayed and my officers were there.

Mr. BALL. Now, there was a time when you asked him where he worked and
what he did?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And was that the first----

Mr. FRITZ. That was the first time.

Mr. BALL. The first question--what did he tell you about that?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me he worked at the Texas School Book Depository.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you----

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him how he got his job down there, too.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that someone that he knew, a lady that he knew
recommended him for that job and he got that job through her. I believe
the records show something else but that is what he told me.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the
employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he
didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there
was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be
any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't
keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers,
Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr.
Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he
told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him
on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him
in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held
his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and
the officer let him go.

Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the
officer stopped him all right.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich
and a Coca-Cola.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.

Mr. BALL. That same time you also asked him about the rifle.

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure that is the time I asked him about the rifle.
I did ask him about the rifle sometime soon after that occurred, and
after the showup; I am not sure which time I asked him about the rifle.

Mr. BALL. Did you bring the rifle down to your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Not to him; not for him to see.

Mr. BALL. You never showed it to him?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir. I asked him if he owned a rifle and he said he did
not. I asked him if he had ever owned a rifle. He said a good many
years ago he owned a small rifle but he hadn't owned one for a long
time. I asked him if he owned a rifle in Russia and he said, "You know
you can't own a rifle in Russia." He said, "I had a shotgun over there.
You can't own a rifle in Russia." And he denied owning a rifle of any
kind.

Mr. BALL. Didn't he say that he had seen a rifle at the building?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he had seen a rifle at the building 2
or 3 days before that Mr. Truly and some men were looking at.

Mr. BALL. You asked him why he left the building, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. He told you because he didn't think there would be any work?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to
North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes
and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his
pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it."
Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just
about it.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he killed Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir?

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he shot Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say.

Mr. FRITZ. He denied it--that he did not. The only thing he said he had
done wrong, "The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer
in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it." He said,
"That is the only law I violated." He said, "That is the only thing I
have done wrong."

Mr. BALL. Now, in this first conversation he told you that he had lived
at 1026 Beckley, didn't he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. He didn't know whether it was north or south.

Mr. BALL. And you sent a group of officers out there to search that
address?

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

Mr. BALL. Before you talked to him the second time you had talked to
Potts on the telephone, had you not?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I had.

Mr. BALL. He told you what he had done?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. I should have remembered that when I talked to you
this morning.

Mr. BALL. Wasn't there some conversation also about what his political
beliefs were?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that is later. I asked him about his political
beliefs and he said that he believed in fair play for Cuba. He said
he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba organization. They had
headquarters in New York, had an office in New Orleans.

At one time he had been secretary for this organization down there. I
asked him if he belonged to any other organizations of any kind, and he
said he belonged to the American Civil Liberties Union, and I asked him
what dues he paid. He said, "$5 per month." I believe he said, or for a
year. I am not positive about that. I would have to look at my notes.

Mr. BALL. Was that at the first or second questioning?

Mr. FRITZ. I think it was the second or third; that was later.

Mr. BALL. Later on?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. I don't think I talked to him about his political
beliefs until later.

Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first time
you talked to him?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and
I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it.
I told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney
he wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it. He said he wanted an
attorney in New York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and he said
that is who he wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he liked. He
said, well, he knew about a case that he had handled some years ago,
where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act, and he
said, "I don't know him personally, but that is the attorney I want."

He said, "If I can't get him then I may get the American Civil
Liberties Union to get me an attorney."

Mr. BALL. Was there anything said about calling him on the telephone?

Mr. FRITZ. A little bit later.

Mr. BALL. Not that time?

Mr. FRITZ. Not that minute. A little bit later, he asked something
else about an attorney and I said, "Did you call an attorney?" And he
said, "You know I can't use the telephone." And I said, "Yes, you can;
anybody can use a telephone." So, I told them to be sure to let him use
a telephone and the next time I talked to him he thanked me for that,
so I presume he called.

Mr. BALL. You don't know whether he called?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know whether he did or not.

Mr. BALL. When you say a little bit later, you mean another period of
questioning?

Mr. FRITZ. Sometime during that talk.

Mr. BALL. You haven't identified these periods of questioning by time.

Mr. FRITZ. I can't identify them positively. I can do the best I can
by memory, but I wouldn't want to try to answer any of these questions
by time because I might get them in the wrong question and in the
wrong--time span.

Mr. BALL. At 6:30 you had another showup, at which time McWatters,
Guinyard, and Callaway--do you remember those witnesses? Callaway is
the car salesman, and Sam Guinyard is the porter at the used-car lot at
the corner of Patton and Jefferson, and McWatters is a cabdriver--no;
is a busdriver.

Mr. FRITZ. We have the names; if those names are right, that is true.
At that time on this showup we put some officers up on the stage with
him; officers stayed on the stage with him during the showup.

Mr. BALL. I point that time out as 6:30 because it appears that you
started to question Oswald after you had the Markham showup sometime
after 4:35, 4:40, 4:45. Did you question him steadily from then until
6:30, the time of the second showup?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't--I don't believe there was any time when I went
through a very long period without having to step to the door, or step
outside, to get a report from some pair of officers, or to give them
additional assignments.

Mr. BALL. Where did you keep him; in what room?

Mr. FRITZ. In my office there.

Mr. BALL. He was in your office all the time?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; within there.

Mr. BALL. Between the two showups at 4:35 and 6:30, he was in your
office all the time?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I believe he was there all that time; let's see, 4:30
to 6:30; I don't remember him being carried out there any time.

Mr. BALL. Was he being questioned by somebody all the time, whether you
or somebody else?

Mr. FRITZ. I doubt it, because I don't think those officers talked to
him very much while I was out of the office, I think they might have
asked him a few questions, but didn't ask him much.

Mr. BALL. Were you present at the showup when Callaway and Guinyard and
the busdriver were there?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe so.

Mr. BALL. Now, your records show that in your office at 6:37 there was
an arraignment; do you remember that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I remember that arraignment.

Mr. BALL. Will you tell us what happened then? It doesn't show
arraignments.

Mr. FRITZ. Do you show arraignment for 7:30?

Mr. BALL. No; 6:30. 7, you discussed, you met with Alexander, the
district attorney's office, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. I probably did. I probably talked to him about the evidence.

Mr. BALL. He was arraigned at 7:10.

Mr. FRITZ. He was in our outer office most all the time and I talked to
him two, three different times.

Mr. BALL. Did he ever take part in the questioning of Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe so; no, sir.

Mr. BALL. What happened at 7:10?

Mr. FRITZ. 7:10 we had this arraignment with Judge David Johnston,
and present. I was present, and Officers Sims, Boyd, Hall, and Mr.
Alexander from the district attorney's office, and that was in my
office.

Mr. BALL. How was the arraignment conducted?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, the judge gave him a warning, talked to him for a
little bit.

Mr. BALL. What warning did he give him?

Mr. FRITZ. He advised him of his rights. I believe he had a form; I
couldn't repeat it, of course, but I believe he had some forms that he
went over with him.

Mr. BALL. What rights did he advise him of; do you know?

Mr. FRITZ. Of his rights for an attorney, and everything that he told
was supposed to be voluntary and things of that kind.

Mr. BALL. He was advised that he had a right to an attorney, was he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I am sure he was; I advised him on that on two or
three different occasions.

Mr. BALL. Did--you have a rule in Texas, do you, that whatever a
witness, a person in custody, says cannot be used against him unless he
is warned?

Mr. FRITZ. We do have; yes, sir. We have to warn them before we can
use the testimony. We have to warn them in the beginning before he is
questioned.

Mr. BALL. Before he is questioned you must warn him?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Before you questioned Oswald the first time, did you warn him?

Mr FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him? What were the words you used?

Mr. FRITZ. I told him that any evidence that he gave me would be used
against him, and the offense for which the statement was made, that it
would have to be voluntary, made of his own accord.

Mr. BILL. Did he reply to that?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that he didn't want a lawyer and he told me once
or twice that he didn't want to answer any questions at all. And once
or twice he did quit answering any questions and he told me he did want
to talk to his attorney, and I told him each time he didn't have to if
he didn't want to. So, later he sometimes would start talking to me
again.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember when you warned him again?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I warned him two or three different times; yes,
sir.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember when those times were?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; but during the afternoon.

Mr. BALL. They were--you were more or less continuously questioning
through the afternoon, were you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Now, at 7:10, he was arraigned in your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. By arraign you mean he was informed of the charge against him?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right.

Mr. BALL. He wasn't asked to plea.

Mr. FRITZ. Before a judge, before a justice of the peace, a magistrate.

Mr. BALL. It is not your practice to ask for a plea at that stage, is
it?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we don't.

Mr. BALL. All you do is advise him of his rights and the charge against
him?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right, I am not a lawyer, you might feel--I don't
want to leave a bad impression, I am just telling you what we do.

Mr. BALL. What the practice is in Texas.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did Oswald make any reply to Judge Johnston?

Mr. FRITZ. He said a lot of sarcastic things to him.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. Irritable. I can't remember all the things that he said. He
was that way at each arraignment. He said little sarcastic things, some
of the things were a little impudent things.

Mr. BALL. After the arraignment, your records show that there was--he
talked to an agent named Clements, do you remember that?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that during one of the times when I was out, had
to leave the office for a minute to attend to something, Mr. Clements
asked me if it would be all right for him to take a little personal
history.

Mr. BALL. Were you present at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. No.

Mr. BALL. That was in your office?

Mr. FRITZ. In the office.

Mr. BALL. Who was there at the time?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know. He was there, I know some of my officers were
there, they had to watch him all the time.

Mr. BALL. Sims and Boyd?

Mr. FRITZ. If they weren't there, some homicide officers were.

Mr. BALL. You had two officers with him all times?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; sometimes three.

Mr. BALL. Always with him in the room?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; all the time. They never questioned him but they
stayed in the room.

Mr. BALL. Then your records show another showup at 7:50?

Mr. FRITZ. At what time?

Mr. BALL. 7:50, that is the third showup. Mrs. Davis----

Mr. FRITZ. That would be showup No. 3.

Mr. BALL. That is showup No. 3.

Mr. FRITZ. Showup No. 3 was held for Barbara Jean Davis.

Mr. BALL. And Virginia Davis.

Mr. FRITZ. Virginia Davis.

Mr. BALL. Were you there at the time of the showup?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't believe I was there, Mr. Hall, Mr. Sims,
Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Moore.

Mr. BALL. Do you know who chose the people for the showup there?

Mr. FRITZ. Who showed the people; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who chose the people. There is a Walter, Richard Walter
Borchgardt.

Mr. FRITZ. Are those the people you mean for the showup?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't know who chose those people.

Mr. BALL. Don Braswell and John Abel.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; that would be done by my officers.

Mr. BALL. And you don't think you were present at that?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't believe so.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him if he had kept a rifle in the garage at
Irving?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did. I asked him and I asked him if he had
brought one from New Orleans. He said he didn't.

Mr. BALL. He did not.

Mr. FRITZ. That is right.

I told him the people at the Paine residence said he did have a rifle
out there, and he kept it out there and he kept it wrapped in a blanket
and he said that wasn't true.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember when that was that you asked him?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; during some of those questions.

Mr. BALL. It was after Stovall and Adamcik had come back?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe so.

Mr. BALL. Now, during the evening, did you question him some more?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I am sure that I did. Let me see.

Mr. BALL. It shows he was fingerprinted at 8:55.

Mr. FRITZ. I probably talked to him a little bit more after that. It
shows he was fingerprinted at what time?

Mr. BALL. 8:55. Or 9 o'clock, around 9 o'clock. Fingerprinted, at that
time there was a paraffin test of the hands and face.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe he was fingerprinted. I think we made the
paraffin test in my office.

Mr. BALL. There was a paraffin test.

Mr. FRITZ. I allowed them to use any office right there to make a
paraffin test.

Mr. BALL. And your records show he was fingerprinted there, too.

Mr. FRITZ. It is possible, I didn't stay there with him. He could have.
I don't think they fingerprinted him at that time. I wouldn't see any
need for it.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk--you remember Wesley Frazier who came into
the department and made a statement, do you, the boy who----

Mr. FRITZ. I think I remember some man. I believe that is his correct
name, some man who came in with some story about seeing Oswald run from
the building.

Mr. BALL. No.

Mr. FRITZ. That is not the one?

Mr. BALL. A boy who lived in Irving who drove Oswald weekends back and
forth from Irving.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You remember you talked to him that night and he told about
a package that Oswald carried into the Texas School Book Depository
Building that morning.

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

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what that was?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he asked him what it was and he told him it was
curtain rods.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to Oswald about that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. When?

Mr. FRITZ. I talked to him about that on the last morning before his
transfer.

Mr. BALL. That was on Sunday morning?

Mr. FRITZ. Sunday morning, that would be the 24th, wouldn't it?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. And I asked him about that and he denied having anything
to do with any curtain rods. It is possible that I could have asked
him that on one of those other times, too, but I know I asked him that
question the last morning.

Mr. BALL. Well, you learned about it on Friday night according to your
reports here when Mr. Frazier came in and you gave Frazier a polygraph
test.

Mr. FRITZ. I hesitated to ask him about those curtain rods and I will
tell you why I hesitated, because I wanted to find out more about that
package before I got started with the curtain rods because if there
were curtain rods I didn't want to mention it to him but we couldn't
find--I talked to his wife and asked her if they were going to use any
curtain rods, while I was talking to her that afternoon and she didn't
know anything about it.

No; I believe I talked to Mrs. Paine, one of them.

Mr. BALL. Do you think you talked to Oswald before Sunday morning about
curtain rods?

Mr. FRITZ. It is possible but I know I talked to him Sunday morning.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell him what Frazier had told you?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I
told him someone had told me.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?

Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and
it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he
didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his
lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out
of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with
this long package.

I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long
package?" He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Mr. BALL. Did Frazier ever tell you how long the package was?

Mr. FRITZ. He just measured, told me about that long.

Mr. BALL. Approximately how long?

Mr. FRITZ. I am guessing at this, the way he measured, probably 26
inches, 27 inches, something like that. Too short for the length of
that rifle unless he took it down, I presume he took it down if it was
in there, and I am sure it was.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what time you--was it the way Frazier showed
it to you--was it the size of a rifle that was broken down?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; it would be just about right.

Mr. BALL. Later that night you took him down to the showuproom again,
didn't you, when you had a press interview?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I didn't have a press conference.

Mr. BALL. You didn't?

Mr. FRITZ. No.

Mr. BALL. Did you give any instructions to the press conference?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the chief told me he wanted him brought down for a
press conference, and I told my officers to take them down and I asked
the chief to let me put it on the stage. I was a little bit afraid
something might happen to him in front of that stage, someone in the
crowd might hurt him but he said no, he wanted him out there in the
front, and I told him I would like to put him on the stage so that the
officers could jerk him inside the jail office if anything happened but
he said no, he wanted him in front, so I told the officers to take him
down.

I went down later to see how everything was going but I couldn't get
in. The crowd had jammed clear back out into the hall.

Mr. BALL. Do you know what time you sent him up to the jail?

Mr. FRITZ. I have it here, I think--12:05; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. 12:05?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask you a question?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Where was the--where did you first see the gun that was
presumably used in the murder of Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Of Tippit?

Mr. McCLOY. Tippit, yes; .38-caliber pistol.

Mr. FRITZ. The officers brought that in, you know, when they brought
him in from the arrest at Oak Cliff.

Mr. McCLOY. And they had that, you had seen it at about the time you
first saw Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, a few minutes later.

Mr. McCLOY. A few minutes later?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. It did show signs from your experience of having been
recently fired?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe you can tell about that too well any more.
You know the old style ammunition you could tell if a gun had been
fired recently by the residue left in the barrel and smelling the
barrel, but with the new ammunition they don't have that.

Mr. McCLOY. And this was new ammunition that he was using?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he was using new ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. Was the gun fully loaded when it was taken from him?

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't see it loaded, of course, it would have been
unloaded. I understood it was fully loaded, but I didn't see it.

Mr. DULLES. That is he had replaced the bullets that he had used, is
that it?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the people told us as he ran across the yard he
was reloading the gun as he ran across the yard. Yes; the witnesses
told us that.

Mr. McCLOY. If I can take you back a little further also.

Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the gun in the position, the rifle I am talking
about now.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle in the position in which it was found?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. McCLOY. Where was it found?

Mr. FRITZ. It was found back near the stairway in a little--some boxes
were stacked about this far apart, about that far apart. The rifle
was down on the floor and partially under these boxes back near the
stairway in the corner of the building.

Mr. McCLOY. This was on the sixth floor?

Mr. FRITZ. Sixth floor; yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Nobody had touched it by the time you saw it?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; nobody touched it. They called me as soon as they
saw it and I went back there and I saw it.

Mr. McCLOY. Then you say the rifle was then dusted?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Does that mean the laboratory people had already come there
then?

Mr. FRITZ. He came down from where he had been; he was on the same
floor checking the empty cartridges, and he came back.

Mr. McCLOY. Oh, yes.

Mr. FRITZ. To the back, when I called him, and he came back there and
checked the rifle; yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. When you went up to the sixth floor from which Oswald
apparently had fired these shots, what did it look like there, what was
the--how were things arranged there? Was there anything in the nature
of a gun rest there or anything that could be used as a gun rest?

Mr. FRITZ. You mean up in the corner where he shot from, from the
window?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; there were some boxes stacked there and I believe
one box, one small box I believe was in the window, and another box was
on the floor. There were some boxes stacked to his right that more or
less blinded him from the rest of the floor. If anyone else had been on
the floor I doubt if they could have seen where he was sitting.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see anything other----

Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day, of course, made a detailed description of
all of that and he can give it to you much better than I can.

Mr. McCLOY. He is going to be here?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and he will give it to you in detail; yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. When was the paper bag covering that apparently he brought
the rifle in, was that discovered in the sixth floor about the same
time?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; that was recovered a little later. I wasn't down
there when that was found.

Mr. DULLES. It was recovered on the sixth floor, was it not?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I believe so. We can check here and see. I believe
it was. But I wasn't there when that was recovered.

Mr. BALL. Here is a picture of Commission Exhibit 514.

Mr. FRITZ. That is the--do I have it turned around?

Mr. BALL. Do you recognize it?

Mr. FRITZ. That is it.

Mr. BALL. Is that the scene that was photographed by the crime lab
group?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; that is right. But there is one thing that this
picture is a little bit deceiving in one way. This picture is taken
with a man standing, no doubt, on boxes up high like this, standing
down level on the floor. This gun was partially under the end of those
boxes right there. You see the camera evidently took a picture under
like that, and he got a little more gun than you would see if you were
standing on the floor.

Mr. BALL. I want to ask you about a showup.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Callaway and Guinyard and McWatters. You did you say you were
present at that showup? That is No. 2.

Mr. FRITZ. No. 2 showup. I show there Leavelle, Brown, and Dougherty.
It doesn't show that I was at that showup.

Mr. BALL. You were at that showup?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it doesn't show.

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Callaway before he went to the showup?

Mr. FRITZ. Callaway--I will have to look there to see. Can you tell me
something about what he has testified?

Mr. BALL. Callaway is a tall blond man, he was a used car salesman,
used carlot on the corner of Patton and Jefferson.

Mr. FRITZ. I believe Officer Leavelle talked to him. Any of these
witnesses when I say I didn't talk to them, that doesn't mean I didn't
go out and say something to them but I didn't question them.

Mr. BALL. Did you say to anyone of these witnesses, "We think we have
got the man that killed Tippit and he is probably the man who killed
the President"? Anything like that?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember saying anything like that.

Mr. BALL. Did you say, "I want you to look at him good because we want
to make the identification."

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, no. We didn't need to. The first witness that went down
with me convinced me on the Tippit killing.

Mr. McCLOY. That is Mrs. Markham?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; Helen Markham. And she was a real good witness and she
identified him positively and picked him out in a manner that you could
tell she was honest in her identification.

Mr. BALL. We came up to the time you got him in jail that is at 12:05.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Were you through with him at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you see him again?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe we had another arraignment, did we not?

Mr. BALL. You had an arraignment charging him with the assassination of
President Kennedy, murder of President Kennedy.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I went to that arraignment.

Mr. BALL. That was at what time? I believe you showed it at 1:35 a.m.
in your records.

Mr. FRITZ. That would be about right.

Mr. BALL. 1:35?

Mr. FRITZ. I will tell you in a minute to be sure. I show 1:35.

Mr. BALL. That was where?

Mr. FRITZ. In the identification bureau.

Mr. BALL. Who was present?

Mr. FRITZ. That is just outside the jail.

Mr. BALL. Who was present at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I show Bill Alexander of the district attorney's
office, Henry Wade. That was before Judge Johnston also, and I was
there, and I am sure of three or four other people that I can't name.

I think Chief Curry might have gone to this, I can't answer for him,
but I believe he might have.

Mr. BALL. That is one, 1:35 a.m., shortly after midnight was the
arraignment.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Now, your records show that he was checked in the jail at
1:10 a.m. and it doesn't show a checkout when he was taken to the
arraignment.

Mr. FRITZ. To the arraignment. It probably wouldn't show that.
Sometimes those cards, I don't usually make cards if the man is still
in the custody of the jailers, and sometimes, of course, they might
miss a card anyway because we use a lot of civilian employees up there.

Mr. BALL. And the jailer was there with him, wasn't he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. He brought him out.

Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you
questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his
pocket with the name Alek Hidell?

Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember
correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New
Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it
might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was
the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or
something.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. We have pictures of those cards here. You no doubt have them.

Mr. BALL. Yes. We have them. Did he say that he had used that as a name?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that is a name he picked up in New Orleans.

Mr. BALL. Did he say----

Mr. FRITZ. I presumed by that he had used it by saying he had picked it
up in New Orleans.

Mr. BALL. To one officer he said he didn't want to talk about that or
he wouldn't talk about that?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right. Very often he would do that. He would tell
him some things and tell me some things.

Mr. BALL. I am talking about this card, A. Hidell. Do you recall
whether he told you he had picked it up in New Orleans and--or did he
tell you he didn't want to talk about it? He wouldn't talk about it?

Mr. FRITZ. He didn't tell me he wouldn't want to talk about it. He told
me he had picked it up down there and when I questioned further then he
told me he didn't want to talk about it.

Mr. BALL. Now, the next morning or the next day you questioned him
again, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Let's see, that would be on the 23d.

Mr. BALL. You had another showup on the 23d in the afternoon, but
apparently that morning before the showup you talked to him in your
office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What do your records show as to the first time you talked to
him on November 23?

Mr. FRITZ. Let's see.

Mr. BALL. I believe if you will look on page 6 of 137B of your formal
report that will refresh your memory.

Mr. FRITZ. Which part of this do you want now?

Mr. BALL. I want to know what time you started to question him on
November 23.

Mr. FRITZ. I think I can get that time out of the little book.

Mr. BALL. If you look at the top of page 6 there.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't have it.

Mr. BALL. Do you have 137B?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I have it. I show 10:25 a.m.

Mr. BALL. 10:35?

Mr. FRITZ. 10:25.

Mr. BALL. 10:25 a.m.?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who was present at this time? Still--look at your notes there.

Mr. FRITZ. I show here Jim Bookhout, Forrest Sorrels, special agent in
charge of Secret Service. Robert Nash, who is U.S. marshal there in
Dallas, and an officer besides myself.

Mr. BALL. What officer beside yourself?

Mr. FRITZ. I have that in here.

Mr. BALL. Tell me what you talked about this morning on the 23d? You
called him down there for a certain purpose, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Let's see if this is the morning of the 24th, is it--is this
the 23d or 24th?

Mr. BALL. This is Saturday morning, the 23d.

Mr. FRITZ. Saturday morning.

Mr. BALL. You learned certain things from your investigation of the day
before, hadn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. One of them was you found he had a transfer, didn't you, in
his pocket when he was arrested?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I sure talked to him about the transfers.

Mr. BALL. All right. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He admitted the transfer.

Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you
to tell me what he said about the transfer.

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that was the transfer the busdriver had given
him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will
remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North
Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me
about him riding a cab.

So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said
yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He
said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance,
and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and
caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and
I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said
there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the
busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he
said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.

I asked him how much the cabfare was, he said 85 cents.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he went directly to his home?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he said he went straight home.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you learn from the cabdriver that he hadn't taken him
to 1026 North Beckley?

Mr. FRITZ. I knew he had taken him near there but I am telling you what
he told me, he told me he had taken him home.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him whether he had gone directly home?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't think so.

Mr. BALL. Then you found out the day before about the Wesley Frazier
package, hadn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I found out about the package from Irving.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And also that he usually went home on Friday night and this
time he went home on Thursday night.

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him why he had changed nights.

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRITZ. And let me see what he told me about why he had changed. The
man I talked to told me he usually went out on weekends, on Friday, so
I believe he told me, I am not positive why he told me why he went home
on this different night but I think he told me because someone else was
going to be over there on weekends or something to that effect.

I can look right here and see what he told me.

Mr. BALL. All right, look and see. You also asked him that day about
the curtain rods, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Had you asked him about that the night before, do you know or
was this the first time you talked to him about it?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think I asked him the night before, I am sure I did
not. I am sure I did not ask him the night before. I remember I was
pretty hesitant about asking him about them at all because I told you
I didn't want to tell him--I didn't want him to tell me about curtain
rods until I found out a little more about them.

Mr. BALL. But you asked him about them this morning?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. He had told Frazier that he had curtain rods in the package?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he denied having curtain rods or any package other
than his lunch.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you also ask him what he had done when he went home,
what, when he went to 1026 North Beckley?

Mr. FRITZ. When he went to Beckley?

Mr. BALL. What he did.

Mr. FRITZ. What he did when he went on North Beckley?

Mr. BALL. After the cab ride, what he had done.

Mr. FRITZ. This time he told me a different story about changing the
clothing. He told me this time that he had changed his trousers and
shirt and I asked him what he did with his dirty clothes and he said, I
believe he said, he put them, the dirty clothes, I believe he said he
put a shirt in a drawer.

Mr. BALL. And you asked him again, didn't you, what he was doing at the
time the President was shot?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, he told me about the same story about this lunch.

Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President
was shot.

Mr. BALL. With whom?

Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down
there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what he was eating?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me, I believe, that he had, I am doing this from
memory, a cheese sandwich, and he also mentioned he had some fruit, I
had forgotten about the fruit until I looked at this report.

Mr. BALL. Did he say that was in the package he had brought from home?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; there was one reason I asked him about what was
in the package, we had had a story that had been circulated around the
meantime about some chicken bones. I am sure you heard of that, and I
wanted to find for sure what he did have in his lunch and he told me
about having--he told me they did not have any chicken out there and
I also talked with the Paines and they told me they didn't have any
chicken in the icebox, they did have some cheese.

Mr. BALL. But he said he had had lunch with Junior?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and with someone else.

Mr. BALL. Did you find out that there was an employee named Junior, a
man that was nicknamed Junior at the Texas School Book Depository?

Mr. FRITZ. Probably we have it here, some of the officers probably did,
we had all these people checked out. I didn't do it myself probably.

Mr. BALL. That same morning, you asked him also about his affiliations,
didn't you ask him if he belonged to the Communist Party?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him if he belonged to the Communist Party.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not. He said he never had a card. He told me
again that he did belong to the Fair Play for Cuba organization, that
he was in favor of the Castro revolution and I don't remember what else
he might have told me.

Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was
arrested, did you question him about that this morning?

Mr. FRITZ. That morning?

Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him
where he got it.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort
Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a
little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further
about the pistol.

Mr. BALL. Did the FBI, did any FBI agent question him that morning?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; Mr. Bookhout asked a few questions along, I don't
remember just exactly what they asked, but he asked him a few questions.

Mr. BALL. Was there any further questioning about an attorney, whether
or not he wanted a lawyer and who he wanted?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; there probably was because I talked to him about
a lawyer a number of times and he said he didn't want the local
attorneys, some attorney had been up to see him after one of these
questionings, and he said he didn't want him at all. He wanted Mr. Abt.
And he couldn't get him and I told you about the ones there in the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. BALL. Didn't he tell you at one time he didn't want to answer any
questions until he talked to his lawyer?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me that two or three times.

Mr. BALL. This morning he told you that, didn't he?

Mr. FRITZ. He probably did.

Mr. BALL. Look on your notes there on the page 137D and see whether or
not that refreshes your memory? (Commission Document 81B.)

Mr. FRITZ. 137G?

Mr. BALL. 137D.

Mr. FRITZ. I told him--you know he had told me he could not use the
telephone because he didn't have the money to pay for a call. I told
him he could call collect from the jail to call anyone he wanted to,
and I believe at that time he probably thanked me for that.

But I told him that we allowed all prisoners to do that.

Mr. BALL. Did he say he didn't have money enough?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that but as I said I told him he didn't need the
money, he could call him collect, and use the jail phone, telephone.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. That seemed to please him all right, because he evidently
did because the next time I saw him he thanked me for letting him use
the phone, but I told him it wasn't a favor; everyone could do that.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know who he called?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I wasn't there.

Mr. DULLES. Is there any record?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe there would be. I think you give him the use
of the telephone and they could call when they wanted to. He could have
called half a dozen people if he wanted to.

Mr. DULLES. He couldn't make a long distance call, could he? I suppose
he could if he called collect.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Was Mr. Kelley of the Secret Service present at this time,
this morning?

Mr. FRITZ. He was there most of the time after the 22d. He wasn't there
on the 22d.

Mr. BALL. This is the morning of the 23d we are talking about.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he was there, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or
his family?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any
particular comment to make about the President.

He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to
that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one
time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and
this is a very serious charge."

He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.

I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few
days and there would be another President.

Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything about Governor Connally?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't think I questioned him about the Governor
at that time. I might have asked him at one time. I remember telling
him at one time he shot the Governor.

Mr. DULLES. Will you give us that?

Mr. FRITZ. He denied shooting any of them.

Mr. DULLES. Did he express any antipathy for or friendship for----

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; he didn't. He didn't express--during one of Mr.
Hosty's talks with him he had talked to him about Governor Connally,
and about some letters but that information I don't have. That is
something Mr. Hosty will have to tell you about.

Mr. BALL. Your notes show at 11:33 he went back to the jail and about
an hour later at 12:35 he was brought back.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In your office for another interview.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In which Mr. Kelley of the Secret Service was present?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Are we now on Saturday noon?

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir; this is noon about 12:35.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In the meantime your officers had brought back from Irving
some pictures that they found in the garage, hadn't they?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you had had them blown up, hadn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right.

Mr. BALL. What pictures--and you showed Oswald a picture at this time?

Mr. FRITZ. A picture of him holding a rifle and wearing the pistol.
It showed a picture of him holding a rifle and wearing the pistol. I
showed him first an enlarged picture.

Mr. BALL. I will show you Commission Exhibit No. 135.

Mr. FRITZ. That is the picture.

Mr. BALL. That is the picture you showed him?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; that is a similar picture, that is a copy of the
picture I showed him.

Mr. BALL. You had had your laboratory enlarge the picture that your men
had brought back from Irving?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he said that wasn't his picture, he said, "I have
been through that whole deal with all people in the cameras," he said,
"One has taken my picture and that is my face and put a different
body on it." He said, I know all about photography, I worked with
photography for a long time. That is a picture that someone else has
made. I never saw that picture in my life."

I said, "Wait just a minute, and I will show you one you have seen
probably," and I showed him the little one this one was made from and
when I showed him the little one he said, "I never have seen that
picture, either." He said, "That is a picture that has been reduced
from the big one."

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission No. 133, is that the small picture?

Mr. FRITZ. The small picture; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. A picture of the small picture?

Mr. FRITZ. A picture of the small picture, I guess this is.

Mr. BALL. There are two pictures on 133. Which one was it?

Mr. FRITZ. On the left.

Mr. BALL. The one on the left?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the one holding the two papers.

Mr. BELIN. As you face the picture?

Mr. BALL. As you face the picture the one on the left? [Exhibit No.
133-A.]

Mr. FRITZ. There is a lot of questioning in our mind about the time of
this middle day questioning here. We checked it over and over and we
can't be sure about the time and I don't want to go on record as not
knowing whether this time is correct because it might not be.

Mr. BALL. You mean 12:35?

Mr. FRITZ. 12:35.

Mr. BALL. But you do know this conversation----

Mr. FRITZ. I do know we talked to him a number of times all along, and
these questions and answers are right, but the times may be off.

Mr. BALL. You did show him this picture, a picture of Oswald with a
rifle and pistol?

Mr. FRITZ. I showed him that at one of those interviews, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And he denied that that was a picture of him.

Mr. FRITZ. That is true; yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. BALL. There was another showup that afternoon at 2:15?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. At which time two cabdrivers, one named Scoggins and one
named Whaley were shown Oswald. Were you present at that showup?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think so. I will look and see right quickly but I
don't think I was. That would have been on the 23d.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. That shows him--M. G. Hall--wait a minute, I am in the wrong
one, pardon me. Showup No. 4, shows Officers V. S. Hinkel, Walter
Potts, M. G. Hall, C. W. Brown, and J. R. Leavelle who was with the
people handling the showup.

Mr. BALL. Your records also show that you were brought--he was brought
to your office again at 6 o'clock?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Will you look at page 138B of your notes. (Commission
Document 81B) Was that the time you talked to him about the rifle?

Mr. FRITZ. 6 o'clock?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. That is when I showed an enlarged picture, yes, sir, that is
what I show here, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. In the meantime you had gone out to Neely Street, hadn't you,
to try to determine whether or not this was the place for the rifle?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we didn't find that out until some time later.

Mr. BALL. You didn't?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we had heard of the Neely Street address but we
didn't know that that was the place where the picture was taken. But
later on, Mr. Sorrels and some of the Secret Service men called me
and they had found out, I believe from Marina, that that is where the
picture was made and they called me and asked me to go with them and we
made some other pictures out there to show the place.

Mr. BALL. On this evening at 6 o'clock who was present at the
questioning?

Mr. FRITZ. At the questioning, just a minute.

Mr. DULLES. What is the reference to the Marines?

Mr. BALL. Marina.

Mr. DULLES. Marina, I didn't catch it.

Mr. BALL. Who was present at that, do you remember, on 6 o'clock on
Saturday evening, the 23d? See page 138B.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I believe Mr. Bookhout, Inspector Kelley, myself,
and officers.

Mr. McCLOY. This was an interrogation?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Was that the time when he told you, someone superimposed the
picture on his face?

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

Mr. BALL. After he had talked to you a while he told you he didn't want
to talk to you any more, didn't he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Look on the second page, 138C, and tell me what happened.
Give me in your own words what occurred there.

Mr. FRITZ. You mean about the picture?

Mr. BALL. Tell me in your own words, yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; at that time he told me that--the first of
the page up here is when he told me he didn't want to answer more
questions. "I just told you about that but you want to know something
else about this other party."

Mr. BALL. You talked to him sometime later.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I showed him this map, showed him a map of the
city of Dallas that he had, and the map had been brought in from his
address on North Beckley, and he told me that those markings, they had
several markings on this map, one of them was near----

Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, isn't that the next morning? We are talking
about Saturday night now, you have told us about showing him the
enlarged photograph.

Mr. FRITZ. I show 9:30 the morning of the 24th.

Mr. BALL. I am talking about the night.

Mr. FRITZ. All right.

Mr. DULLES. 6:30 at night.

Mr. BALL. 6:30 in the evening.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. You showed him the photographs?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; pictures.

Mr. BALL. And he told you they weren't his?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he tell you then? Didn't he tell you then he didn't
want to answer any more questions?

Mr. FRITZ. Let's see if he did.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. That is the time that he told me about the photography, that
he knew all about photography, and then he said, he didn't want to
answer any more questions.

Mr. BALL. What time did you put him back in jail?

Mr. FRITZ. 7:15 p.m.

Mr. BALL. And you didn't see him again that night?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Now, the next morning you checked him out of jail?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the 24th we had him down in the morning, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Who was present that time?

Mr. FRITZ. That time here at 9:30 in the morning, one of the postal
inspectors, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Sorrels, Mr. Bookhout, and I am not sure
about Mr. Sorrels staying in there all the time. He was in there part
of the time, and that is the time that I showed him the map, too, that
morning with these markings on it.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, he said they didn't mean anything. Those markings were
places he had gone looking for work. I asked him at that time, too,
more about his religious beliefs, and Inspector Kelley asked him what
he thought about religion and he said he didn't think too much of it. I
believe he said of the philosophy of religion.

So he asked him two or three other questions and he was a little
evasive so I asked him if he believed in a deity. He said he didn't
care to discuss that with me.

Mr. BALL. What else was said?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him, too, I believe on that same morning, I asked
him more about his political beliefs and he told me he didn't belong to
any political party and he told me he was a Marxist but that he wasn't
a Marxist-Leninist, that he was just a Marxist, and that he again told
me that he believed in the Castro revolution. That is the morning of
the transfer.

Mr. BALL. You asked him about the gun again, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about a lot of things that morning, I sure did.

Mr. BALL. Tell us about it.

Mr. FRITZ. He denied anything about Alek Hidell, and again about his
belief in the Fair Play for Cuba.

Mr. BALL. What about the rifle?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied
that address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even
denied living there. I told him he had people who visited him over
there and he said they were just wrong about visiting.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him again about the rifle, did you ask him if
that was the picture, that that rifle was his?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I am sure I did.

Mr. BALL. Look at your notes.

Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir. Yes, sir; I did. I asked him again if that
was his picture holding the rifle and he said it was not.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He denied it. He said he didn't have any knowledge of the
picture at all. He said someone else had made it, he didn't know a
thing about it or the rifle.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you also that same morning again ask him if he brought
a sack with him to work on the morning the President was killed?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I asked him. I believe that morning I might have asked
him that. I believe I asked him about the sack.

Mr. BALL. Without looking at your notes there let me ask you this.

Mr. FRITZ. All right.

Mr. BALL. When you did ask him about the sack, you did ask him about
it, a sack at one time bringing a sack to work that morning?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.

Mr. BALL. And you asked him the size and shape of the sack, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. He never admitted bringing the sack. I showed him the size
probably in asking him if he brought a sack that size and he denied it.
He said he brought his lunch was all he brought.

Mr. BALL. Didn't he say when you asked him the size and shape of the
sack that he had with him, he said, "I don't recall, it may have been
a small sack or a large sack. You don't always find one that fits your
sandwiches," something like that.

Mr. FRITZ. That might be true but he said it was a small sack. He said
it was a lunch sack.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you ask him where he usually kept his sacks, how he
carried it when he came to work in the car?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him where he had the sack--his lunch, and he said he
had it in the front seat with him.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he put any sack in the back seat?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not.

Mr. BALL. Did you tell him that Frazier had told you that he had had a
long parcel and placed it in the back seat?

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure about saying Frazier, I am looking at this
note to see if I did.

Mr. BALL. The driver of the car----

Mr. FRITZ. I remember telling him that someone told me that and I might
have told him that two people saw him because not only Frazier but
Frazier's sister saw that package, you know, and I did question him
about that.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything like this? "He might be mistaken or
perhaps thinking about some other time when he picked me up."

Mr. FRITZ. That is probably right.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember that?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember it this time but if it is in that note that
is probably right.

Mr. BALL. On the curtain rods story, do you remember whether you ever
asked him if he told Frazier that he had curtain rods in the package?

Mr. FRITZ. If I asked him what, please, sir?

Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask Oswald whether or not he had told Frazier
that he had curtain rods in the package?

Mr. FRITZ. I am sure I did but I can't remember that right now. But I
am sure I asked him that because I must have asked him that because I
asked him a lot of questions, I asked him if he was fixing his house, I
remember asking about that, and he said he was not.

Mr. BALL. He said he was what?

Mr. FRITZ. He was not.

Mr. BALL. He said he was not fixing it?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Do you know what he said in reply to your question?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't remember what he said about that.

Mr. BALL. Was he questioned about post office boxes that morning?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did, I asked him about those post office boxes,
because the postal inspector had told us about those boxes, and Mr.
Holmes did most of the talking to him about the boxes, and he knew
about the boxes and where they were, and he said he had, and I asked
him too if he had ordered a rifle to be shipped to one of those boxes,
and he said he had not, to one of those box numbers.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him why he had the boxes?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that he had, one of the boxes, if I remember
correctly, he never admitted owning at all. The other box he told me he
got his, he kept to get his mail, that he said he got some papers from
Russia and correspondence with people from Russia and he used that box
for his mail.

Mr. BALL. How long did you talk to him this morning of November 24?

Mr. FRITZ. Morning, well, let's see, I am not sure what time we started
talking to him.

Mr. BALL. 9:30.

Mr. FRITZ. 9:30, we talked to him then until about--I have the exact
time here.

Mr. BALL. Can we cut it shorter, your records show 11:15 in your office.

Mr. FRITZ. Here it is, 11:15.

Mr. BALL. Is that right?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. First of all, I am going to go through some generally without
identifying the particular place but just the subject matter.

In an interview with him you did ask him about the pistol, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Which pistol, the one he shot Tippit with?

Mr. BALL. The one he had with him when he was arrested.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about it, yes, I did.

Mr. BALL. You asked him when he got it and where he got it?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he bought it in Fort Worth about 6 or 7 months ago.

Mr. BALL. How long ago?

Mr. FRITZ. 6 or 7 months.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you where in Fort Worth?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; he wouldn't tell me.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He just wouldn't tell me.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him why he had five live .38 caliber bullets in
his shirt?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; in his pocket?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. No; I didn't ask him that.

Mr. BALL. You didn't ask him that?

Mr. FRITZ. No.

Mr. BALL. Now you did ask him about the photograph, his photograph, the
photograph that was found in his garage?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right.

Mr. BALL. That shows him with a rifle and pistol?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He said it was not his picture at all.

Mr. BALL. You did ask him if he had purchased a rifle from Klein's
store in Chicago, Ill., didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not.

Mr. BALL. You did ask him how he explained the photograph, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. How he explained the photograph?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the photograph and he said someone else
took it. It wasn't his picture at all. He said someone in the hall had
taken his picture and made that photograph.

Mr. BALL. In other words, he said the face was his face but the picture
was made by somebody superimposing his face?

Mr. FRITZ. That is right; yes.

Mr. BALL. He denied ever having lived on Neely Street, did he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL. And you asked him also if he had ever owned a rifle?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he had not. He said a long time ago he owned a small
rifle.

Mr. BALL. What size did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He didn't say. He said small rifle.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he kept a rifle in Mrs. Paine's garage at
Irving, Tex.?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and I asked him if he brought it from New Orleans
and he said no.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him where he kept, if he did keep a rifle in a
blanket?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him if he kept it in a blanket and he said no.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you tell him someone told you he had kept it there?

Mr. FRITZ. Someone told me he had a rifle and wrapped in a blanket and
kept it in the garage and he said he didn't. It wasn't true.

Mr. BALL. Did he at any time tell you when you asked him if he owned a
rifle, did he say, "How could I afford to order a rifle on my salary of
a dollar and a quarter an hour," something like that?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember that.

Mr. BALL. You asked him whether or not he shot President Kennedy,
didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not.

Mr. BALL. And you asked him if he shot Governor Connally?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he said he didn't do that, he said he didn't shoot
Tippit.

Mr. BALL. With reference to where he was at the time the President was
shot, did he tell you what floor of the building he was on?

Mr. FRITZ. I feel sure that he told me he was on the second floor.

Mr. BALL. Look at 136B.

Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir.

Mr. BALL. The second paragraph down, 136B.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir. He said he usually worked
on the first floor. I asked him what part of the building at the time
the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time
on the first floor.

Mr. BALL. In his first interview you say that Hosty asked him if he had
been to Mexico.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; he did.

Mr. BALL. He denied it. Did he say he had been at Tijuana once?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember him saying he had been at Tijuana.

Mr. BALL. What did you remember him saying?

Mr. FRITZ. I remember him saying he had been to Russia, told me he had
been to Russia, and was over there for some time, and he told Hosty
that he had a record of that, knew he had been there, told him a number
of things so far as that is concerned.

Mr. BALL. What did he say about Mexico?

Mr. FRITZ. Mexico, I don't remember him admitting that he had been to
any part of Mexico.

Mr. BALL. What do you remember him saying?

Mr. FRITZ. I remember he said he did not go to Mexico City and I don't
remember him saying he ever went to Tijuana.

Mr. BALL. In your report at 138E you have made a statement there of the
conditions under which this interrogation proceeded, haven't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.

Mr. BALL. Will you tell us about that. You can describe it either as
you state it here in your own words, but tell us what your difficulties
were?

Mr. FRITZ. I can tell you in just a minute. My office is small as you
know, it is a small office, it doesn't have too much room to begin with.

With all the outer office full of officers who all wanted to help and
we were glad to have their assistance and help, and we appreciate it,
but in the hallway we had some 200 news reporters and cameramen with
big cameras and little cameras and cables running on the floors to
where we could hardly get in and out of the office.

In fact, we had to get two police officers assigned to the front door
to keep them out of the office so we could work.

My office is badly arranged for a thing of this kind. We never had
anything like this before, of course. I don't have a back door and I
don't have a door to the jail elevator without having to go through
that hall for 20 feet, and each time we went through that hallway to
and from the jail we had to pull him through all those people, and
they, of course, would holler at him and say things to him, and some of
them were bad things, and some were things that seemed to please him
and some seemed to aggravate him, and I don't think that helped at all
in questioning him. I think that all of that had a tendency to keep him
upset.

Mr. BALL. What about the interview itself?

Mr. FRITZ. Now the interview itself inside, of course, we did have a
lot of people in the office there to be interviewing a man. It is much
better, and you can keep a man's attention and his thoughts on what you
are talking to him about better I think if there are not more than two
or three people.

But in a case of this nature as bad as this case was, we certainly
couldn't tell the Secret Service and the FBI we didn't want them to
work on it because they would have the same interest we would have,
they would want to do anything they could do, so we, of course, invited
them in too but it did make a pretty big crowd.

Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we
had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far
better.

Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
haven't gotten me one.

Mr. BALL. And you had quite a few interruptions, too, during the
questioning, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; we had quite a lot of interruptions. I wish we had
had--under the circumstances, I don't think there is much that could
have been done because I saw it as it was there and I don't think there
was a lot that could have been done other than move that crowd out of
there, but I think it would have been more apt to get a confession out
of it or get more true facts from him if I could have got him to sit
down and quietly talked with him.

Mr. BALL. While he was in your custody up to this time at 11:15, when
he left your office what precautions did you take for his safety in
custody?

Mr. FRITZ. In custody. We took all kinds of precautions to keep him,
anyone from hurting him. We had an officer go with the jailer and back
and we did everything we thought we could do.

As I told you a while ago we even put officers on the stage with him
and when we couldn't do that put officers at the end of the stage with
him so they could get quickly to him if anybody tried to hurt him or
molest him.

Mr. BALL. In your office you always had officers with him?

Mr. FRITZ. Always, right near him.

Mr. BALL. When you went down this crowded hallway, how did you protect
him?

Mr. FRITZ. There were officers went with him each time.

Mr. BALL. How many?

Mr. FRITZ. From three to six.

Mr. BALL. And in the jail, what did you do?

Mr. FRITZ. In the jail, I don't know. I didn't handle the jail.

Mr. BALL. You didn't handle the jail?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't handle the jail. I am sure though they used
more than average precautions up there.

Mr. BALL. When you left at 11:15, what was your purpose in leaving at
11:15?

Mr. FRITZ. To transfer him to the--you are talking about the 24th?

Mr. BALL. On the 24th, yes.

Mr. FRITZ. To transfer him to the county jail.

Mr. BALL. Had you been requested by Sheriff Decker to transfer him
there before?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir. I had talked to the chief about transferring him
down there. The chief had called me on the 23d, on the 23d, I can't
give you the exact minute, probably a little after noon, he had called
me and asked me when we would be ready to transfer him and I told him
we were still questioning him. We didn't want to transfer him yet. He
said, "Can he be ready by about 4 o'clock? Can he be transferred by 4
o'clock?" I told him I didn't think we could.

Mr. BALL. That would be Saturday afternoon?

Mr. FRITZ. That would be the 23d, would be Saturday, yes, sir. Then he
asked me could he be ready by 10 o'clock in the morning, so I could
tell these people something definitely, and I felt sure we would be
ready by then. However, we didn't, we ran overtime as you can see by
this report, an hour and a half over, when they come over to transfer
him.

Mr. BALL. Why did you say you would not be ready by 4 o'clock on
Saturday?

Mr. FRITZ. We wanted to ask him some more questions, to get more
information.

Mr. BALL. Did you consider transferring him at night?

Mr. FRITZ. At night?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. During the night on Saturday night, I had a call at my home
from uniformed captain, Captain Frazier, I believe is his name, he
called me out at home and told me they had had some threats and he had
to transfer Oswald.

And I said, well, I don't know. I said there has been no security
setup, and the chief having something to do with this transfer and you
had better call him, because--so he told me he would.

Mr. BALL. Did you think----

Mr. FRITZ. He called me back then in a few minutes and he told me he
couldn't get the chief and told me to leave him where he was. I don't
think that transferring him at night would have been any safer than
transferring, may I say this?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Any safer than transferring him during the day. I have
always felt that that was Ruby who made that call, I may be wrong, but
he was out late that night and I have always felt he might have made
that call, if two or three of those officers had started out with him
they may have had the same trouble they had the next morning.

I don't know whether we had been transferring him ourselves, I don't
know that we would have used this same method but we certainly would
have used security of some kind.

Mr. BALL. Now weren't you transferring him?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What do you mean if we were transferring him ourselves?

Mr. FRITZ. I mean transferring like I was told to transfer him.

Mr. BALL. I beg your pardon?

Mr. FRITZ. I was transferring him like the chief told me to transfer
him.

Mr. BALL. How would you have transferred him?

Mr. FRITZ. I did do one thing here, I should tell you about. When the
chief came back and asked me if I was ready to transfer him, I told him
I had already complained to the chief about the big cameras set up in
the jail office and I was afraid we couldn't get out of the jail with
him with all those cameras and all those people in the jail office.

So when the chief came back he asked if we were ready to transfer and I
said, "We are ready if the security is ready," and he said, "It is all
set up." He said, "The people are across the street, and the newsmen
are all well back in the garage," and he said "It is all set."

And at that time he told me, he said, "We have got the money wagon up
there to transfer him in," and I said, "Well, I don't like the idea,
chief, of transferring him in a money wagon." We, of course, didn't
know the driver, nor who he was, nor anything about the money wagon,
and he said, "Well, that is all right. Transfer him in your car like
you want to, and we will use the money wagon for a decoy, and I will
have a squad to lead it up to the central expressway and across to the
left on Elm Street and the money wagon can turn down Elm Street and you
can turn down Main Street, when you get to Main Street, going to the
county jail," and he told me he and Chief Stevenson would meet me at
the county jail, that is when we started out.

Mr. BALL. How would you have done it if you were going to do it?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I hesitate to say because it didn't work good this
way. If I had done it like I would do it or usually do it or something
and it hadn't worked I would be just in the same shape you know, and
it would be just as bad, so I don't like to be critical of something
because it turned out real bad.

You can kind of understand my--I know that our chief didn't know
anything was going to happen or he surely wouldn't have told me to
transfer it that way.

Mr. BALL. How would you have done it?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, we transferred Ruby the next day at about the same
time, and I had two of the officers from my office to pick me up away
from the office. We drove by the county jail, saw that the driveway was
open. We had about the same threats on him that we did with Oswald.
We saw that the driveway was open. I went back to the bus station and
I called one of my officers upstairs, gave him the names of two other
officers, told him to get those two officers and not tell anyone even
in the office where they were going, mark Ruby transferred temporarily,
which means coming to the office or going for some fingerprints or
anything, mark him transferred temporarily, bring him down to the jail
elevator at the bottom of the jail, put two of them to stay in the jail
elevator with him. For the other one to come to the outside door and
when he saw our car flush with the door, bring that man right through
those cameras and put him in the back seat, and they did, they shot him
right through those people and they didn't even get pictures and we had
him lie down on the back seat and two officers lean back over him and
we drove him straight up that same street, turned to the left down Main
Street, ran him into the jail entrance, didn't even tell the jailer we
were coming and put him in the jail. It worked all right.

But now if it hadn't worked, you know, I don't want to be saying that
I know more about transferring than someone else, because this could
happen to me. I could see if it happened to Ruby, I would have had all
the blame.

Mr. BALL. Now, if on that morning at 11:15 you planned to transfer him,
didn't you, according to the chief's orders?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. And you were through questioning him, weren't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir?

Mr. BALL. You were all through questioning him?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; we had everything that we could do at that time. I
would have talked to him later in the county jail but we didn't need to
hold the man any longer.

Mr. BALL. Had he been handcuffed?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and I told--he was already handcuffed, and I told
one of the officers to handcuff his left hand to Oswald's right hand,
and to keep him right with him.

Mr. BALL. That was Leavelle?

Mr. FRITZ. Leavelle, yes, sir. He first started the other hand on the
other side, and I told Officer Graves to get on the other side and
Montgomery to follow him, and I would go down and an officer by the
name of Swain who works across the hall from us came over and offered
to help us, he went down the jail elevator and he went out ahead of me
and I went out in back of him and I was approaching our car to open the
back door to put him in, they were having a terrible time to get the
car in through the people--they were crowding all over the car--and I
heard the shot and I turned just in time to see the officers push Ruby
to the pavement.

Mr. BALL. When you came out of the jail door were the lights on?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the lights were on. I don't believe they were on
as we came to the door, but they came out immediately as we were coming
out of the door, and I asked one of the officers, two of them answered
me if everything was secure and they said everything was all right. So
we came out.

Mr. BALL. What about the lights?

Mr. FRITZ. The lights were almost blinding.

Mr. BALL. Did you see the people in the crowd?

Mr. FRITZ. I could see the people but I could hardly tell who they
were, because of the lights. I have been wearing glasses this year and
with glasses those lights don't help you facing a bright light like
that, the lights were glaring.

Mr. BALL. How far ahead of Ruby were you?

Mr. FRITZ. Well. I thought they were right behind me almost but I
noticed from the picture they were a little further back than I
actually thought they were, probably where Mr. Baker is to this
gentleman. I believe maybe a little bit farther than that, maybe
about----

Mr. BALL. How far behind Oswald were you, how far behind Oswald. Oswald
was behind you?

Mr. FRITZ. Behind me.

Mr. BALL. How many feet would you say?

Mr. FRITZ. In feet I would say probably 8 feet.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever know of Jack Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I never did know him. I never knew him at all. Some
of the officers knew him. But I never knew him.

Mr. BALL. Were there any flashbulbs or were they just steady beams of
light?

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't see any flashing lights. These were steady blinding
lights that I saw. That I couldn't see, you might say.

Mr. DULLES. These were television cameras?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BALL. Did you hear of Warren Reynolds?

Mr. FRITZ. Warren Reynolds?

Mr. BALL. Who was shot sometime afterwards?

Mr. FRITZ. Used car lot man?

Mr. BALL. Used car lot?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him. He was shot through the head.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't talk to him very long because I didn't have to
talk to him long or I didn't have to talk to him very long but he told
me two or three different stories and I could tell he was a sick man
and he had no doubt brain damage from that bullet and he is apt to say
anything.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that--he told me two or three stories, one story
he told me when they first brought him into me, for me to talk to him,
he told me that he saw this Ruby coming down there and he told him--he
said he followed him up and saw which way he went.

Mr. BALL. Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. Saw Oswald.

Mr. BALL. Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, Oswald, and I questioned him further and I asked him,
how far, how close was the closest you were ever to him, how far were
you from him? He said, well, from that car lot across the street there.
Well, of course, if he had been at a car lot across the street it would
be difficult to follow him on the sidewalk. It would be quite difficult
so I talked to him for just a short time and I didn't bother with him
any more.

I already had some history on him because the other bureau, the forgery
bureau had been handling him and they had already told me a lot about
him. They discounted anything that he told.

Mr. BALL. Did you find out who shot him and why he was shot?

Mr. FRITZ. This man on the car lot?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. They think it might have been over a car deal but they are
not positive and I don't know that he will ever tell them.

Mr. BALL. Have you ever discovered any connection between the shooting
of Warren Reynolds and the killing?

Mr. FRITZ. Never.

Mr. BALL. The assassination of the President?

Mr. FRITZ. None at all.

Mr. BALL. The killing of Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. No; we found nothing. We checked it.

Mr. BALL. Any connection between Oswald and Warren Reynolds or Ruby and
Warren Reynolds?

Mr. FRITZ. We found no connection. We had all kinds of rumors, of
course, that they were connected, and we didn't find anything.

Mr. BALL. Did you investigate it?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I had some officers investigate it, and the
forgery bureau investigated him because they were already working on
the shooting case. They handled all the shootings where people are not
killed.

Mr. BALL. I see.

Had you originally planned to be in the motorcade, had you been ordered
to be?

Mr. FRITZ. At first?

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRITZ. I had been; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Then it was changed, what day?

Mr. FRITZ. Ten o'clock the night before the parade, I got a call at
home telling me that my assignment had been changed and told me to go
to the speaker's tent.

Mr. BALL. Who called you?

Mr. FRITZ. Chief Stevenson.

Mr. BALL. Do you think that made any difference?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know. I wouldn't want to say because it is like
telling about those transfers, where we would have been in that parade
we would have been pretty close under that window we might have had a
man shot or have good luck or bad luck.

Mr. DULLES. I didn't quite get you where were you to be in the
motorcade if you had been?

Mr. FRITZ. Right behind the Vice President's car.

Mr. DULLES. Behind the Vice President's car?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Had there been a plan for a car in front of the President's
car?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I didn't make the arrangements for the parade.
That was only--those were the only instructions I had--was that one
assignment.

Mr. BALL. Did you--do you feel any resentment toward the Secret Service
or the FBI men because they were in your office?

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, no, no, because I work with them all the time.

Mr. BALL. You do?

Mr. FRITZ. Mr. Bookhout is in my office with the FBI. My books are all
on the outside and they check my books as often as I do.

Mr. BALL. Well, do you think you could have done a better job perhaps
if there hadn't been some investigators?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, that would be kind of a bad question.

Mr. BALL. I mean questioning Oswald.

Mr. FRITZ. Maybe they would have done better if I hadn't been there.

Mr. DULLES. How was the cooperation, was it pretty good between the
Secret Service and the FBI?

Mr. FRITZ. We got along fine with the Secret Service and FBI a hundred
percent.

Mr. McCLOY. Captain Fritz, did you have charge of the attempted
shooting of General Walker?

Mr. FRITZ. No; that wasn't homicide, it would be handled by Captain
Jones, it would have been the other bureau.

Mr. McCLOY. Captain Jones. Have we examined Captain Jones?

Mr. HUBERT. A deposition has been taken.

Mr. DULLES. You had nothing to do with the investigation of the Walker
case?

Mr. FRITZ. Not at all. That happened to be Captain Jones and Lieutenant
Cunningham.

Mr. DULLES. Did that case come up at all in any of your interrogations
of Oswald? Did you ever ask him whether he was involved or anything of
that sort?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that I ever asked him about that. If I did, I
don't remember it. I don't remember asking about that, asking him about
that at all. We had a little information on it but I didn't want to mix
it up in that other case and I didn't want to mix it up.

Mr. McCLOY. I would like to go back some distance. When you first went
into the building there.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And as of your knowledge, when did the first broadcast go
out of a description of Oswald, according to what information you had
on the subject?

Mr. FRITZ. I wouldn't have that because I hadn't heard a broadcast of
a description when I went into the building. So if one went out it
probably was after I went in.

Mr. McCLOY. When Mr. Truly told you that one of his men was missing?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; then he gave me a description of him.

Mr. McCLOY. And he gave you a description at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; home address.

Mr. McCLOY. That was his home address and also a description?

Mr. FRITZ. His home address and a description, what he looked like, his
age, and so forth.

Mr. McCLOY. Now that description, to whom was that description given?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I never did give it any anyone because when I got to
the office he was there.

Mr. McCLOY. He was there when you got to the office?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. I understand----

Mr. FRITZ. I think I could help you a minute about that description
that went out over the radio but I didn't hear it. When I got to the
building, some officer there told me, said we think the man who did
the shooting out of the window is a tall, white man, that is all I
had. That didn't mean much you know because you can't tell five or six
floors up whether a man is tall or short.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you question the colored men that were on the fifth
floor?

Mr. FRITZ. I talked to part of them. Most of them were questioned by
the other officers, investigating officers I had assigned there; yes,
sir. I talked to very few of them. I did do this. I did assign an
officer to take affidavits from all of those people.

Mr. McCLOY. Were you present at the showup at which Brennan was the
witness?

Mr. FRITZ. Brennan?

Mr. McCLOY. Brennan was the alleged----

Mr. FRITZ. Is that the man that the Secret Service brought over there,
Mr. Sorrels brought over?

Mr. McCLOY. I don't know whether Mr. Sorrels----

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think I was present but I will tell you what, I
helped Mr. Sorrels find the time that that man--we didn't show that he
was shown at all on our records, but Mr. Sorrels called me and said he
did show him and he wanted me to give him the time of the showup. I
asked him to find out from his officers who were with Mr. Brennan the
names of the people that we had there, and he gave me those two Davis
sisters, and he said, when he told me that, of course, I could tell
what showup it was and then I gave him the time.

Mr. McCLOY. But you were not present to the best of your recollection
when Brennan was in the showup?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe I was there, I doubt it.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you ever inspect these premises on Neely Street?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I did. With the Secret Service. We went over there
and we searched that apartment thoroughly. It was vacant. The man came
over that owned it, opened the house for us, we searched it thoroughly
and went through the yard and made some pictures in the backyard
exactly like that with another man, of course, holding the papers.

Mr. McCLOY. Are the pictures in the record?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; we have them in the record, the ones we made over
there. I suppose you have them here.

Mr. McCLOY. Do we have the pictures?

Mr. BALL. I don't believe we have any pictures that you made.

Mr. FRITZ. Of the one we made over in the backyard.

Mr. McCLOY. I think it is important we get those because of the charge
this picture was doctored. Have a picture of the premises which these
pictures were taken.

Mr. BALL. Maybe Lieutenant Day has them.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; those pictures were made with--we have them, I am
sure of that, our men made the pictures. I believe we have them right
here. Maybe we didn't bring them, but we have them.

Mr. BALL. Could you send them to us?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; Lieutenant Day may have some with him. His men have
them.

Mr. BALL. Maybe Lieutenant Day has them. I have a few questions here.
You mentioned that Hosty, the first day he was there you said that he
said he knows these people. Did he tell you that he knew Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I will tell you, he wasn't talking to me really.

Mr. BALL. What did he say to Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. That was the agent--what did Hosty say to Oswald?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. Or what did----

Mr. BALL. Did Hosty say?

Mr. FRITZ. I thought you meant what about Shanklin said to Hosty.

Mr. BALL. Did Hosty say to you that he knew Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. I heard Mr. Shanklin tell Mr. Hosty on the telephone. I had
Mr. Bookhout pick up the telephone and I had an extension.

Mr. BALL. What did he hear?

Mr. FRITZ. He said is Hosty in that investigation, Bookhout said no.
He said, "I want him in that investigation right now because he knows
those people he has been talking to," and he said some other things
that I don't want to repeat, about what to do if he didn't do it right
quick. So I didn't tell them that I even knew what Mr. Shanklin said. I
walked out there and called them in.

Mr. BALL. Was Oswald handcuffed at all times during the interrogation?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe he was; yes, sir, I believe we kept him handcuffed
at all times. The first time we brought him in he was handcuffed with
his hands behind him and he was uncomfortable and I had the officers
change them and put his hands up front.

Mr. BALL. Was he fed any time during that day?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he was. I don't remember buying him something
to eat. I usually do, if they are hard up in jail at the time I buy
something to eat but some of the other officers remember me buying him
food but the only thing he would drink was I believe some milk and ate
a little package of those crackers sandwiches and one of the other
officers bought him a cup of coffee and that is all he would either eat
or drink, that is all he wanted.

Mr. BALL. Now he talked to his wife and----

Mr. FRITZ. And his mother.

Mr. BALL. And his brother, Robert?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I am pretty sure he did.

Mr. BALL. Where did he talk to them?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that would be up in the jail. He didn't want them
in my office.

Mr. BALL. Do you have that jail----

Mr. FRITZ. Wait just one second. No, sir; that was in the jail.

Mr. BALL. Is the jail wired so that you can listen to conversations?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it isn't. Sometimes I wish I could hear some of the
things they say but we don't.

Mr. BALL. In other words, you don't monitor conversations?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we let them talk to anyone they want to. If they
are allowed to use the telephone, of course, they are allowed free use
of it. Sometimes they do a little better than that. Sometimes they
place a long distance call and charge it to the city.

Mr. McCLOY. When you went in, Captain Fritz, and you saw the site which
Oswald is alleged to have fired the shot from----

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see any signs of a lunch there, a chicken there?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I will tell you where that story about the chicken
comes from. At the other window above there, where people in days past,
you know had eaten their lunches, they left chicken bones and pieces
of bread, all kinds of things up and down there. That isn't where he
was at all. He was in a different window, so I don't think those things
have anything to do with it. Someone wrote a story about it in the
papers, and we have got all kinds of bad publicity from it and they
wrote in telling us how to check those chicken bones and how to get
them from the stomach and everything.

Mr. DULLES. What was Oswald's attitude toward the police and police
authority?

Mr. FRITZ. You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just
talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right
until I asked him a question that meant something, every time I asked
him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he
immediately told me he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to
anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it
one time, I asked him if he had had any training, if he hadn't been
questioned before.

Mr. DULLES. Questioned before?

Mr. FRITZ. Questioned before, and he said that he had, he said yes, the
FBI questioned him when he came back from Russia from a long time and
they tried different methods. He said they tried the buddy boy method
and thorough method, and let me see some other method he told me and he
said, "I understand that."

Mr. DULLES. Did you ask him whether he had had any communist training
or indoctrination or anything of that kind?

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him some questions about that and I asked him where
he was in Russia. He told me he was in Russia, first I believe he told
me, first I believe he said in Moscow, and then he said he went to
Minsk, Russia, and I asked him what did you do, get some training, go
to school? I suspected he had some training in sabotage from the way
he talked and acted, and he said "no, I worked in a radio factory." He
acted like a person who was prepared for what he was doing.

Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks
with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating
the President?

Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that
we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.

Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.

Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing
it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that
he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.

(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

Mr. FRITZ. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I
noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with
some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if
you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before
his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered
if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other
than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling
about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had
debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair
Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he
was doing it because of that.

Mr. DULLES. Did he express any animosity against anyone, the President
or the Governor or Walker or anybody?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; he did not. Not with me he didn't.

Mr. DULLES. Not with you?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir. He just, the fact he just didn't talk about them
much. He just didn't say hardly anything. When I asked him he didn't
say much about them.

Mr. McCLOY. You knew Officer Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. I wanted to tell you one thing before I forget. One time I
asked him something about whether or not, either I asked him or someone
else in there asked him, if he thought he would be better off, if he
thought the country would be better off with the President killed and
he said, "Well, I think that the Vice President has about the same
views as the President has." He says he will probably do about the same
thing that President Kennedy will do.

Mr. DULLES. Oswald said that to you?

Mr. FRITZ. Either to me or someone, it could be one of the other
officers who asked that question while they were talking about him.

Mr. McCLOY. Of course, you knew Officer Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't know him. I didn't know him. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. He didn't work directly under you?

Mr. FRITZ. I looked at his record and saw that the chief of the
personnel file and I looked at the personnel file and I talked to a
number of officers who did know him and they speak very highly.

Mr. DULLES. Have you ever reviewed his record since these events?

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't exactly review it but I read a good part of it and
the chief read a good part of it to me.

Mr. DULLES. The record is good?

Mr. FRITZ. The record is good. It was average, it looked better than
a lot of them do. It is all right. It had the same little things that
happen to most officers, maybe some little complaint about something
minor, nothing of any consequence.

Mr. McCLOY. So far as you know he had no connection with Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. I am sure he did not. I think I know what you people have
probably heard. We hear all kinds of rumors down our way and I am not
trying to volunteer a lot of things here. I know you have a lot of
business to do, have you heard something about some connection between
Oswald and Ruby and Tippit, and some fourth person. I heard some story,
we didn't find any ground for it at all. We didn't find any connection
of any kind that would connect them together. I can't even find a
connection between Ruby and Oswald and I can't place them in the same
building at the same time nor place them in the same building together,
YMcA, one of them lived there and one of them was taking some kind of
an athletic course there.

Mr. McCLOY. But not at the same time?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I can't place them there at the same time; no, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Have you discovered any connection between any of your
officers and Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I think a lot of the officers knew Ruby. I think about
two or three officers in my office knew him, and I think practically
all of the special service officers who handle the vice and the clubs
and the liquor violations, I think nearly all of them knew him and, of
course, the officer knew him who had arrested him carrying pistols a
time or two, two or three times, uniformed officer mostly. He seemed to
be well known. It seems a lot of people in town knew him. But I never
was in his place and I didn't know him. Twenty years ago I might have
been in his place.

Mr. BALL. Captain Fritz, from being with Oswald for a couple of days
what were your impressions about him? Was he afraid, scared?

Mr. FRITZ. Was he afraid?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't believe he was afraid at all. I think he
was a person who had his mind made up what to do and I think he was
like a person just dedicated to a cause. And I think he was above
average for intelligence.

I know a lot of people call him a nut all the time but he didn't talk
like a nut. He knew exactly when to quit talking. He knew the kind of
questions. I could talk to him as long as I wanted to if I just talked
about a lot of things that didn't amount to anything. But any time I
asked him a question that meant something he answered quick.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever hear of a lawyer in Chicago that called up and
offered to help Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. Some lawyer from Chicago sent him a wire.

Mr. BALL. Did you see the wire?

Mr. FRITZ. I saw the wire; yes.

Mr. BALL. Do you know who the lawyer was?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't remember his name. I believe he probably
had it delivered to the jail.

Mr. BALL. To Oswald, a lawyer from Chicago offered his services to
Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; Ruby too. But I am talking about the one to Oswald. I
don't know that I would even know his name if I heard it.

Mr. BALL. We have some pictures here from the crime laboratory as
we have marked Exhibits 712, 713, and 714. The witness has already
identified a picture of Oswald. I show you this, Captain, can you tell
me which one of these pictures on Exhibit 714 that you showed to Oswald
the day when you interrogated him, asked him it that was his picture?

Mr. FRITZ. It is the one with the two papers in his hand.

Mr. BALL. The one to the right. Did you ever show him the one to the
left?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think so.

Mr. BALL. We offer 713, 712, and 714 as two pictures taken.

Mr. FRITZ. These are the pictures I told about a while ago.

Mr. BALL. They were taken by your crime lab?

Mr. FRITZ. Our crime lab took these pictures when I went over there
with Mr. Sorrels.

Mr. BALL. Where were they taken?

Mr. FRITZ. In the backyard of the Neely Street address. If you will
note, you will see in this picture, you notice that top right there of
this shed. Of course, this picture is taken up closer, but if you step
back further you can see about where the height comes to on that shed
right there. Not exactly in the same position.

Mr. BALL. I offered these. (Commission Exhibits Nos. 712, 713, and 714
were admitted.)

Mr. FRITZ. It shows the gate.

Mr. BALL. Indicating the location of the picture taken--this set will
indicate the pictures were all taken at the Neely Street backyard.

Mr. DULLES. You recall the date of these pictures, in April?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe they will be dated on the back of them.

Mr. DULLES. April, so the trees would be about the same.

Mr. BALL. When were the pictures taken by your crime lab?

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure but I believe the date will be on the back of
the picture. November 29, 1963. Picture made by Officer Brown who works
in the crime lab.

Mr. BALL. Captain, I would like to ask you some more questions about
your prisoner.

Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir.

Mr. BALL. The first day that you had Oswald in custody, did you
get a notice from the FBI, any of the FBI officers that there had
been a communication from Washington suggesting that you take extra
precautions for the safety of Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; there was not.

Mr. BALL. Do you recall whether or not on Friday----

The CHAIRMAN. What was your answer to that?

Mr. FRITZ. I did not, I got no such instructions. In fact, we
couldn't--we would have taken the precautions without the notice but we
did not get the notice, I never heard of that.

Mr. BALL. Do you recall that on Friday, November 22, Wade asked you or
did he or didn't District Attorney Wade ask you to transfer Oswald to
the county jail for security?

Mr. FRITZ. That would be on the night of the 22d?

Mr. BALL. On the night of the 22d.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he asked me if I would transfer him that night.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?

Mr. FRITZ. I told him we didn't want to transfer him yet. We wanted to
talk to him some more. We talked a little bit. He didn't actually want
him transferred. He just was more or less talking about whether or not
we wanted to transfer him.

Mr. BALL. Now on Saturday Decker called you and asked you to transfer
him?

Mr. FRITZ. On Saturday did he call me and ask me to transfer him?

Mr. BALL. Yes, that would be the 23d.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; he did not.

Mr. BALL. Did Chief Curry tell you that Decker had called or anything
of that sort?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; when I was talking to Chief Curry on one of those
conversations, I don't think it is the conversation now when he told
me about the hours, I think it is another conversation, I told him, I
said, "I don't know whether we were going to transfer him or Decker was
going to transfer him," and Chief Curry said, "We are going to transfer
him, I have talked to Decker, we are going to transfer him."

Mr. BALL. When were the plans for the transfer made?

Mr. FRITZ. When were the plans made?

Mr. BALL. Yes; do you know?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't know about that. The only thing I know is what I
told you about when the chief told me about would he be ready by 10
o'clock that morning, and I told him I thought we could.

Mr. BALL. You didn't make the plans yourself?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. They were made by the chief?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; they were made by the chief.

Mr. BALL. When did the chief first tell you what the plans were?

Mr. FRITZ. That was on the 23d. He didn't tell me about all the plans,
of course, at that time because I told you when he came up to tell us
about that, when he asked when we were ready to go he told me about the
armored car, that is the first I had ever heard of that.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever tell any of the press the time that Oswald would
be moved?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I was interrogated by a
bunch of them as I started to leave the office on the night of the 23d.
As we started to the elevator, a group of us from my office, and some
of the FBI officers, we started to the elevator some 10 or 20 reporters
came up and said the chief said we were going to transfer him at 10
o'clock the next morning and if we were and I didn't talk to them so I
don't think I ever said much if anything to them because I know one of
them followed me almost to my parking lot, I know, asking me questions
about the transfer.

Mr. BALL. At 11:15 when they left your office, do you know whether or
not there was any broadcast over your radio as to your movements?

Mr. FRITZ. On our radio?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. I wouldn't know.

Mr. BALL. Or on any radio, were there any radio broadcasters on your
floor at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. Any of those newsmen?

Mr. BALL. Newsmen?

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, yes; they might not have been on the floor but they were
all down in the basement. You are talking about the morning of the 24th?

Mr. BALL. On the morning of the 24th when you were moving?

Mr. FRITZ. Any number of them downstairs. I don't remember whether
there were any upstairs or not. There probably was maybe a few of them
because I don't think there was any time when there wasn't a few of
them up there, but we didn't leave through that hall and go through the
elevator. We went through the mail elevator.

Mr. BALL. On the 22d and 23d, the third floor was full of newspapermen
and photographers?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; all the time, completely full.

Mr. BALL. Had they left the third floor on the 24th?

Mr. FRITZ. A lot of them had; yes, sir. A lot of them had, and were
downstairs in the basement.

Mr. BALL. How about the television cameras?

Mr. FRITZ. I noticed--television cameras, they were downstairs too.

Mr. BALL. They weren't up on the third floor?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe--there could have been one or two of them
left up there, I don't think many of them were still up there.

Mr. BALL. Most of them were downstairs?

Mr. FRITZ. Most of them were downstairs. I wouldn't say there weren't
any up there because I don't think there was any time when there wasn't
at least a few of them up there.

Mr. BALL. Now, when you went down the jail elevator and you said you
got out and went forward to see if everything was secure. What did you
mean by that?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, I meant if everything, it was all right for us to go
to our car with him. We didn't want to leave the jail office with him
unless everything was all right because as long as we were in the jail
office we could put him back in the elevator and if everything wasn't
all right, I didn't want to come out with him.

Mr. BALL. And you went ahead, didn't you?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; first Lieutenant Swain and then I went out and
then the other officers followed me with the prisoner.

Mr. BALL. Was the car there you were going to get in?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Had you reached the car yet?

Mr. FRITZ. I was just in the act of reaching for the door to open the
back door, I looked at that picture, and it doesn't show the exact
distance I was from the car but I couldn't have been any further than
reaching distance.

Mr. BALL. When you left, or after Ruby shot Oswald, he was taken
upstairs, wasn't he?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he was. He was first carried into the jail office,
you mean Ruby?

Mr. BALL. Ruby, when Ruby shot Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Oswald was carried into the jail office and put on the floor
there. Ruby was brought into the jail office. Now I believe that Ruby
was brought into the jail office after Oswald, I believe Oswald was
already on the floor or behind there because I know the officers had
taken Ruby upstairs went behind me and I saw them pass behind me with
him to the jail.

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. Did I talk to him; no, sir; I talked to him later.

Mr. McCLOY. I wonder if at this time you would want a little recess?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am comfortable.

Mr. McCLOY. I think we kept the chief on a little bit too long this
morning.

Mr. FRITZ. If it is all right with you.

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Ruby at that time?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; not at that time.

Mr. BALL. Later?

Mr. FRITZ. I talked to him later, probably an hour later. I guess I
have the exact time here if you need it.

Mr. BALL. What did Ruby say to you, do you have the exact time?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, he told me, I told him, I, of course, wanted to know
something about premeditation because I was thinking about the trial
too and I told him I wanted to ask him some questions and he said,
well, he first said, "I don't want to talk to you, I want to talk to
my lawyers," and he said, I believe he told me too that he had been
advised by a lawyer, and I asked him some other question and he said,
"Now if you will level with me and you won't make me look like a fool
in front of my lawyers I will talk to you."

I didn't ask him one way or the other, but I did ask him some questions
and he told me that he shot him, told me that he was all torn up about
the Presidential killing, that he felt terribly sorry for Mrs. Kennedy.
He didn't want to see her to have to come back to Dallas for a trial,
and a lot of other things like that.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him how he got down to the jail?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me he came down that ramp from the outside. So I
told him, I said, "No, you couldn't have come down that ramp because
there would be an officer at the top and an officer at the bottom and
you couldn't come down that ramp." He said, "I am not going to talk to
you any more, I am not going to get into trouble," and he never talked
to me any more about it.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to him again?

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think I ever talked to him after that. I talked to
him a little while then and I don't believe I ever talked to him after
that. I asked him when he first decided to kill Oswald, and he didn't
tell me that. He told me something else, talked about something else.

Mr. BALL. What was that time, you said you could give us the time?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I can give you the time. 3:05.

Mr. BALL. What time?

Mr. FRITZ. 3:05.

Mr. BALL. 3:05 in the afternoon?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you know that Archer or Dean or Newman had talked to Ruby?

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't know that they had talked to him. I knew that some
officers had talked to him but I didn't know who they were.

Mr. BALL. Were there any reports given you by any one of these three
men, Dean----

Mr. FRITZ. They weren't given to me. Those reports were given to the
investigative team that the chief setup headed by Captain Jones and
some of the inspectors and they gave me a copy. I have copies of it.

Mr. BALL. You have copies of those reports?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. BALL. Do you know, did you know prior to the trial of Ruby that
either Dean or Archer or Newman, either one, had claimed to have talked
to Ruby about his premeditation in the killing of Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Well, sir, I didn't know, I wouldn't have known that. They
never told me about that. I wouldn't have known. I think that maybe the
chief had taken some report from Dean, but I didn't see that until, I
think I put it in this book a few days ago.

Mr. BALL. Well now, did you have charge of the investigation of the
Oswald killing?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. You were in charge of that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Then all the reports would come to you?

Mr. FRITZ. Come here; yes, sir. With one exception. The reports from
all those officers in the security in the basement. You see, I had
nothing to do with setting up the security in the basement, that
was under the security division and the chief might have given that
assignment to, those are in a different book, they are in a report
made to this investigative team appointed by the chief. We have their
copies, too.

Mr. BALL. Well, but you had charge of the investigation of the homicide?

Mr. FRITZ. The homicide but I didn't have charge of the investigation
of the basement incident.

Mr. BALL. Well, the reason for my question is that there has been some
question raised as to testimony in the Ruby trial of these men, Dean,
Archer, and Newman.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I heard that.

Mr. BALL. And they have testified to certain statements made that they
heard from Ruby afterward, and the question is whether or not these men
have reported to you that they had heard that.

Mr. FRITZ. They didn't report it to me; no, sir.

Mr. BALL. Or reported it in writing to their department?

Mr. FRITZ. They didn't report it to me, if they reported to anyone
I didn't get it. But I understand that Dean had made some kind of
special report to the chief but that wasn't to me.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever know a man named Roger Craig, a deputy sheriff?

Mr. FRITZ. Roger Craig, I might if I knew which one he was. Do we have
it here?

Mr. BALL. He was a witness from whom you took a statement in your
office or some of your men.

Mr. FRITZ. Some of my officers.

Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.

Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.

Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting
he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository
Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a
colored man.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.

Mr. BALL. I am stating this. You remember the witness now?

Mr. FRITZ. I remember the witness; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did that man ever come into your office and talk to you in
the presence of Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. In the presence of Oswald?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure he did not. I believe that man did come
to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and
I believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute
and I let someone else take an affidavit from him. We should have that
affidavit from him if it would help.

Mr. BALL. Now this man states that, has stated, that he came to your
office and Oswald was in your office, and you asked him to look at
Oswald and tell you whether or not this was the man he saw, and he
says that in your presence he identified Oswald as the man that he had
seen run across this lawn and get into the white Rambler sedan. Do you
remember that?

Mr. FRITZ. I think it was taken, I think it was one of my officers, and
I think if he saw him he looked through that glass and saw him from the
outside because I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring him in the
office with Oswald.

Mr. BALL. You are sure you didn't?

Mr. FRITZ. I am sure of that. I feel positive of that. I would remember
that I am sure.

Mr. BALL. He also says that in that office----

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up from
his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now everybody
will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?

Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.

Mr. BALL. That didn't occur?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it didn't. That man is not telling a true story if
that is what he said. Do you have any--could I ask a question, is it
all right if I ask a question?

Mr. McCLOY. All right, go ahead.

Mr. BALL. Go ahead.

Mr. FRITZ. I was going to ask if we had any affidavits from any of our
officers that would back that up? If they did I never heard of it.

Mr. BALL. If you are here tomorrow.

Mr. FRITZ. It is something I don't know anything about.

Mr. BALL. If you are here tomorrow I would like to show you the
deposition of the man for you to read it.

Mr. FRITZ. I am sure I would know that. The only time I saw the man hit
the desk was when Mr. Hosty talked to him and he really got upset about
that.

Mr. DULLES. Is that in the testimony, have you testified about that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. That shows his agitation over the alleged----

Mr. FRITZ. Questioning.

Mr. McCLOY. Questioning of his wife.

Mr. FRITZ. That is right.

Mr. BALL. In the light of your experience in this case, do you think
you should alter your regulations with the press, have a little more
discipline when the press are around?

Mr. FRITZ. We can with the local press. We can't do much with those
people that we don't know from those foreign countries, and from
distant States, they don't ask us. They just write what they hear of
and we read it.

Mr. BALL. No; but I mean in the physical control of your plant there?

Mr. FRITZ. There at city hall?

Mr. BALL. Do you think you should alter your policy?

Mr. FRITZ. We think we can control it normally, because those officers,
those people from the press there wouldn't come in and start taking
pictures without permission. They wouldn't do that without asking, and
then usually I ask a prisoner because some prisoners don't want their
pictures taken and sometimes they do, if they want it taken why it is
all right. Sometimes we don't let them take them at all, depending on
circumstances.

Mr. BALL. Do you permit television interrogation of your prisoners in
jail?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Or in the----

Mr. FRITZ. In the jail I don't have charge of the jail but I am sure
they don't because I haven't heard of that. We don't have it in the
office either.

Mr. McCLOY. But----

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think it is a good idea at all because I don't know
what that man might say.

Mr. BALL. I agree.

Mr. McCLOY. You would have jurisdiction to keep out foreign
correspondents if you wanted to?

Mr. FRITZ. Keep them out of the office; yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Keep them out of the building?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I wouldn't have charge of the building but I can
keep them out of my office, up to that door, I can have enough officers
I can take care of that fine. Out in that building, that is more or
less a job for the uniform division.

Mr. DULLES. A job for the uniform division, the police?

Mr. FRITZ. A job for the uniform division, they can take charge of it
and they have uniforms.

Mr. DULLES. Who establishes the policy?

Mr. FRITZ. The chief of police establishes the policy. He has
assistants, of course.

Mr. McCLOY. You have testified that you were really hampered in your
investigation, in your interrogation of Oswald by reason of the
confusion.

Mr. FRITZ. I think so.

Mr. McCLOY. By reason of too many people being around, isn't that right?

Mr. FRITZ. I think so, but I am not sure that could have been avoided
under these circumstances.

Mr. McCLOY. Well, couldn't you----

Mr. FRITZ. I think that----

Mr. McCLOY. Couldn't you have demanded that your office be cleared so
that you could have a quiet investigation?

Mr. FRITZ. I could hardly tell the Secret Service and the FBI or any
other Federal agency--I had the outer office had Texas Rangers out
there, several of them, and you could understand why they would be in
there because the Governor had been shot and they work directly for the
Governor out of Austin, so you could hardly tell people like that that
you don't want them to help.

Now, if this were just an average case, just an average hijacking case
we have, we could easily, we could handle it with all ease but where
the President of the United States is killed it would be hard to tell
the Secret Service and the FBI that they couldn't come in.

Mr. McCLOY. But you could have told the newspaper people, the media
people that they couldn't come in.

Mr. FRITZ. I didn't let them come in my office or in my part of the
office.

Mr. McCLOY. They never were in your office when you were examining
Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. Never. I think one of them got inside of the outer office
but someone immediately put him out.

Mr. DULLES. What is the jurisdiction of the city manager as compared to
the chief of police, does he have authority over the chief of police?

Mr. FRITZ. The city manager is our big boss, he is over all of us. He
is over the chief of police and he operates the city. He is responsible
only to the mayor and city council. And I think that they give him a
pretty free hand.

We have got a city manager and he tells, he sets the policies, of
course, maybe I made a mistake when I told you that the chief of police
sets the policies of our police department, but the city manager would
set the policies for the city as a whole.

Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you have anything else that you think that is on your
mind that might help us in getting at the rockbottom of either the
Oswald murder or the President's murder?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe that you people know about everything that we
know. We have tried to get everything in this book. We have tried not
to withhold anything, and I will tell you something about this case
that I told some people in the beginning.

I don't know of anything about this case that we can't tell all about,
the truth about it from start to finish now. I think the truth fits it
better than anything we can do to it. I hope I have gotten this story
to you correctly. I hope I haven't made some mistakes in some of my
testimony about time and the dates and things because if I have----

Mr. McCLOY. Are there any further leads that you would like to follow
up or do you feel that the case is from your point of view closed in
terms of--

Mr. FRITZ. We won't ever close it. We never close any murder case and
we won't ever close it. I will tell you what, if anything came up about
this case that we thought we could do to help on it, and it came up
10 years from now we would work on it. We would work on it regardless
of what time it came up. I do think this, that there have been a lot
of things about this case that we won't be able to handle. If we get
any information about anything that involves foreign relations we will
pass that on to the people who know what to do with it. We won't try to
handle anything like that because we might do a very wrong thing. We
would give that to either the FBI or the Secret Service, depending on
the type of information it was, and they would pass it on to wherever
they wanted to.

Mr. McCLOY. Are there any pending leads in this case that you feel that
you would like to follow up beyond?

Mr. FRITZ. Right now?

Mr. McCLOY. Right now.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't believe we have one. Do you think of any lead to
follow up? I can't think of one. If I thought of one we would sure
start on it. But I don't think we have.

Mr. BALL. There is one problem here in your records that we asked
about. Where was Oswald between 12:35 a.m., and 1:10 a.m., on Saturday,
November 23, that is right after midnight?

Mr. FRITZ. Right after midnight.

Mr. BALL. The jailer's records show he was checked out.

Mr. FRITZ. I think I know where he was right after midnight. I think
he went to the identification bureau to be fingerprinted and have his
picture made.

Mr. BALL. You know. You can probably advise him and he can tell us.
What is it?

Mr. FRITZ. I think that, if it is the time that I am thinking about, if
it is the time that after he was, after he had his arraignment, I think
from what we found out since then that he went there for picture and
fingerprints.

Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.

Mr. FRITZ. Maybe you should ask Lieutenant Baker here something that I
don't know anything about, that he knows, that might help to clarify
that question you asked me just then. I thought he went for the
picture, but tell him.


TESTIMONY OF T. L. BAKER

Mr. McCLOY. Lieutenant, will you be sworn, please?

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BAKER. I do.

Mr. BALL. State your name.

Mr. BAKER. T. L. Baker.

Mr. BALL. What is your occupation?

Mr. BAKER. Lieutenant, police department, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. BALL. You are up here with Captain Fritz?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you are the man who prepared Commission Document 81-B; is
that correct?

Mr. BAKER. I assisted in it, sir.

Mr. BALL. You were sort of the editor, is that right?

Mr. BAKER. Something like that.

Mr. BALL. The question we addressed to Captain Fritz was where was
Oswald between the 12:35 and, I believe, 1:10 in the evening, 1:10
a.m., on Saturday, November 23, that is, right after midnight?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; at 12:35 a.m., Lieutenant Knight of the I.D.
bureau took him out of the jail on the fifth floor and with the
assistance of Sergeant Warren and one of the jailers brought him to the
fourth floor where the I.D. bureau was located.

Mr. McCLOY. The I.D. bureau is the identification bureau?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir. There in the presence of Sergeant Warren and
this jailer, one of his assistants, he was processed through the I.D.
bureau, which consists of taking his pictures and fingerprints and
making up the different circulars that go to the FBI, and so forth.
When they had finished processing him, he returned him to the jail.
Lieutenant Knight released him. He was placed back in the jail at 1:10.
Approximately 1:30 Sergeant Warren received a call from Chief Curry,
advising him to bring him back to the identification bureau the same
place, for arraignment. Sergeant Warren and the same jailer returned
him to the I.D. bureau, where he was arraigned by Judge Johnston at
approximately 1:35 a.m. This arraignment took approximately 10 minutes,
and he was returned to the fifth-floor jail by Sergeant Warren at
approximately 1:45 a.m.

Mr. BALL. That is all.

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much.


TESTIMONY OF J. W. FRITZ RESUMED

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one question?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Had you or your office, to your knowledge, ever heard of
Oswald prior to November 22, 1963?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I never heard of him, and I don't believe anyone in
my office had ever heard of him, because none of them knew him when we
got him. That was our first----

Mr. DULLES. There are no reports; you found no reports in your files?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. About him that antedated November 22, 1963?

Mr. FRITZ. We had no reports on him at all.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you ever hear of a man named Weissman? Does that mean
anything to you, Bernard Weissman?

Mr. FRITZ. The name sounds familiar. I don't know him. I saw that ad
that he had in the paper, and had his name signed to it at the bottom.

Mr. McCLOY. But that is all you know about him?

Mr. FRITZ. That is all I know about him.

Mr. McCLOY. Any other questions?

Mr. DULLES. I have no other questions.

Mr. McCLOY. We are through. We thank you very much for your
cooperation, Captain.


TESTIMONY OF J. C. DAY

Mr. McCLOY. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give at this
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?

Mr. DAY. I do.

Mr. BELIN. State your name for the Commission.

Mr. DAY. J. C. Day.

Mr. BELIN. What is your occupation?

Mr. DAY. Lieutenant, Dallas Police Department assigned to the crime
scene search section of the identification bureau.

Mr. BELIN. How old are you?

Mr. DAY. Fifty.

Mr. BELIN. How long have you been associated with the Dallas Police
Department?

Mr. DAY. Twenty-three years.

Mr. BELIN. Did you go to school in Texas?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. How far did you get through school?

Mr. DAY. Through high school.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I went to work for a machinery company there in Dallas for
about 9 years before I went with the city.

Mr. BELIN. Then you went there directly to the city?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Were you on duty on November 22, 1963?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Could you describe your activities from about noon on of
that day?

Mr. DAY. I was in the identification bureau at the city hall. About a
quarter of one I was in the basement of the city hall, which is three
floors under me--actually I am on the fourth floor--and a rumor swept
through there that the President had been shot.

I returned to my office to get on the radio and wait for the
developments. Shortly before 1 o'clock I received a call from the
police dispatcher to go to 411 Elm Street, Dallas.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular building at that particular location?

Mr. DAY. The Texas School Book Depository, I believe is the correct
name on it.

Mr. BELIN. Did you go there?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I went out of my office almost straight up 1
o'clock. I arrived at the location on Elm about 1:12.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got there?

Mr. DAY. I was directed to the sixth floor by the police inspector who
was at the front door when I arrived.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know who that was?

Mr. DAY. Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the sixth floor?

Mr. DAY. I had to go up the stairs. The elevator--we couldn't figure
out how to run it. When I got to the head of the stairs, I believe
it was the patrolman standing there, I am not sure, stated they had
found some hulls over in the northeast corner of the building, and I
proceeded to that area--excuse me, southeast corner of the building.

Mr. BELIN. Now, in your 23 years of work for the Dallas Police
Department, have you had occasion to spend a good number of these years
in crime-scene matters?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. How long, about?

Mr. DAY. The past 7 years I have been--I have had immediate supervision
of the crime-scene search section. It is our responsibility to go to
the scene of the crime, take photographs, check for fingerprints,
collect any other evidence that might be available, and primarily we
are to assist the investigators with certain technical parts of the
investigation.

Mr. BELIN. Do you carry any equipment of any kind with you when you go
there?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. We have a station wagon equipped with fingerprint
equipment, cameras, containers, various other articles that might be
needed at the scene of the crime.

Mr. BELIN. Have you had any special education or training or background
insofar as your crime-scene work is concerned?

Mr. DAY. In the matter of fingerprints, I have been assigned to the
identification bureau 15 years. During that time I have attended
schools, the Texas Department of Public Safety, on fingerprinting; also
an advanced latent-print school conducted in Dallas by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. I have also had other schooling with the Texas
Department of Public Safety and in the local department on crime-scene
search and general investigative work.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that you were informed when you got
there that they had located some hulls?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?

Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner--southeast corner of the
building, and first made photographs of the three hulls.

Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?

Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as
they were found before they were moved.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you some pictures here and ask you to say
if these pictures are the photographs you took. First, I will hand you
a picture marked "Commission Exhibit 715," and ask you to state, if you
know, what this is.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. That is one of the photographs we made of the hulls
on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. Now, who took the actual picture?

Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker; R. L. Studebaker.

Mr. BELIN. Who is he?

Mr. DAY. At my direction.

Mr. BELIN. Who is he?

Mr. DAY. He is one of the officers who took this under my supervision,
and he accompanied me from the office to this building.

Mr. BELIN. Can you see in this picture the location of the hulls?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I wonder if you could take this pen and circle the hulls
that you see there.

Mr. McCLOY. I only see two.

Mr. DAY. The other one doesn't show in this picture, I don't believe.

Mr. BELIN. You have circled two hulls that appear to be resting near
what would be the south wall of the building; is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Can you see the third hull in that picture?

Mr. DAY. I think you can barely see the tip end of it sticking out
there. I believe that is it.

Mr. BELIN. Do you want to circle where you think you can see the third
tip sticking out? I am now going to hand you what is marked "Commission
Exhibit No. 716," and ask you to state, if you know, what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is another view taken from a different angle of the same
location. All three hulls are clearly visible here.

Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know
whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these
hulls were moved?

Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my
knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.

Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?

Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be
wrong about that.

Mr. BELIN. Now, turning again to Exhibit 715, I notice that there is a
box in a window which is partially open. I am going to first ask you to
state what window this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the south window closest to Houston Street or, in
other words, it is the easternmost window on the south side of the
building on the sixth floor.

Mr. BELIN. Was this window in about the same location with respect to
how far it was open at the time you got there?

Mr. DAY. That is the position it was in when I got there.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including
the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those
boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to show you a picture which has been
identified previously in Commission testimony as Commission Exhibit
482, which purports to have been a picture taken by a newspaper
photographer shortly after the assassination, showing the easternmost
windows on the south side of the fifth and the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository Building.

You will notice there are two Negro males looking out of the lower pair
of windows, which would be the fifth-floor windows, and above that
there is one window which appears to be open with a box or boxes in it.

I am going to first ask you to state whether or not the boxes in that
picture, Exhibit 482, appear to be in the same location as you saw them
when you first got on the crime scene.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I believe they are.

Mr. BELIN. Now, as you face the picture, the box to the right, which
would be to the east, has a corner sticking out, or just a corner of
the box shows. Is that the same box that appears to be resting on the
window ledge in Exhibit 715?

Mr. DAY. In my opinion, it is.

Mr. BELIN. I also note there is another box that appears to be in the
window on Exhibit 482. Is this box shown at all on either Exhibit 715
or 716, if you know?

Mr. DAY. No; I don't think it is.

Mr. BELIN. What do you think happened to this other box in the window
on Exhibit 482?

Mr. DAY. I think the box you see through the window is to the west of
the box you see here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing out that the box you see in the window, and
you are now pointing to Exhibit 482----

Mr. DAY. I think that is east of the four boxes shown in your No. 715.
Well, there are----

Mr. BELIN. Let me give you another question. On Exhibit 715 there is
only one box shown in the window actually resting on the ledge, which
is the box that you identified the corner out of in the eastern part of
the window shown on 482.

Now, what is the fact as to whether or not this other box on 482 would
have been resting on the ledge, or is it a pictorial view of something
that actually was in back of the window?

Mr. DAY. I think this is one of the boxes 2 feet 11 inches back from
the wall. There were two stacks of them, one behind the window sill
that you see here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to the window sill between the pair of
windows on Exhibit 482?

Mr. DAY. That you can't see in this picture. This one is the other one
I am trying to say, this stack here--there are two stacks of boxes
here. This one is behind here. You can't see it.

Mr. BELIN. What you are pointing is, as you point to Exhibit 715, you
are saying that the tier of boxes which is in the left foreground, if
you were standing outside taking a picture, would be hidden by the
heavy beam between the windows, but beyond that, to the east of that,
there is another tier of boxes of which you think this other box in
Exhibit 482 is one; am I correct? Is this correct?

Mr. DAY. That is correct.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you Exhibit 716, will you see this at all on Exhibit
716?

Mr. DAY. This is the box, I think, showing here.

Mr. BELIN. Do you want to make an X on the box on Exhibit 716 that you
think is the other box showing in the window on Exhibit 482?

Mr. DAY. The corner that is showing I don't believe shows in the
picture.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You put an X on a box which I would say, looking
at this picture, appears to be the fourth box starting from the bottom
count, and you believe that is the picture or--that is the box that is
shown in the window?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. DAY. I don't know what time this was taken. Do you?

Mr. BELIN. Well, you are asking with regard to Exhibit 482? We know it
was taken, I would say, not more than a minute after the shooting. This
is our best recollection based on testimony of the two people in the
window below, because this was their position as they saw the shooting,
and the photographer himself says that after the shots were fired, he
jumped out of the motorcade and took two shots of the building. This
could have been the first or the second shot he took. He used two
different cameras, so I don't imagine it would have been very long
after the actual shots were fired.

For the record, I should add one other thing at this point. There is
testimony by the deputy sheriff that found the shells, that after he
found them he leaned out of the window to call down to try and tell
someone that he found something, and it is conceivable that he moved a
box, although he did not so testify. In other words, I don't want you
to take this as the testimony of anyone----

Mr. DAY. What I am getting at, this box doesn't jibe with my picture of
the inside.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing now to the other box on Exhibit 482. You
say that does not jibe with the chart that you have here that you
brought with you of boxes that you had inside.

Let me ask you this: When did you prepare your chart of boxes inside?

Mr. DAY. This chart here was prepared on the 25th. However, pictures
were made immediately after my arrival.

Mr. BELIN. You are talking now about Exhibit 715 and Exhibit 716?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; don't jibe with that box there.

Mr. BELIN. What I am asking you then is this: Is it possible that
the box that is shown on Exhibit 482 is not shown on Exhibit 715 and
Exhibit 716? By that I mean not the box that you see a corner of, but
I am talking about the other box that is clear to the west of the
easternmost window.

Mr. DAY. I just don't know. I can't explain that box there depicted
from the outside as related to the pictures that I took inside.

Mr. BELIN. In other words, what you are saying is that on the sixth
floor window the westernmost box on Exhibit 482, you cannot then relate
to any of the boxes shown on Exhibits 715 or 716?

Mr. DAY. That is correct.

Mr. BELIN. Do you wish to correct your testimony with regard to the X
you placed on the fourth box on the stack in Exhibit 716?

Mr. DAY. Yes; that is just not the same box. It is not the same box.
This is the first time I have seen No. 482.

Mr. BELIN. All right. We will substitute for 716 then a copy of the
picture without the X mark on it.

Mr. McCLOY. 482 was taken by the news photographer?

Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Immediately after the shooting?

Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. The two colored men were still in the position where they
were?

Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir. He actually took two pictures. He took one of
the building--that showed most of the south side of the building,
and another with a different kind of lens that was aimed up to that
particular corner. I will check to see if I can find the other picture,
Mr McCloy. Commission Exhibit 480 is the first picture that he took, or
I shouldn't say the first--one of the two pictures he took.

You can see the southeast corner window on the sixth floor, and I will
show you, Lieutenant Day, that you can still see two of those boxes
there, and you can see on the window below, at least you can see, one
of the Negro men. The other picture was Exhibit 481, and I believe 482
was actually an enlargement of 481.

Mr. DAY. I still don't quite understand that one in relation to
pictures here unless something was moved after this was taken before I
got there.

Mr. BELIN. What you are saving is on that southeast corner window, on
the sixth floor, you do not understand the box that is the westernmost
box of the two boxes in the window unless it was moved by someone
before you got there to take the pictures?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What about the other box as shown on Exhibit 482, does that
appear to be in substantially the same position as the box in the
window shown on your Exhibit 715?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it appears to be the same.

Mr. BELIN. Now, on Exhibit 715, that box appears to be almost resting
against the east part of the window where it does not so appear on
Exhibit 482. Is this an optical illusion on 715?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I don't think it was up against the window sill. It
was over as indicated on 482.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, you took some two pictures of those shell
casings. Let me first get you through all the pictures you took.

Where did you next take pictures on the sixth floor after you took the
pictures of the shell casing; what did you do then?

Mr. DAY. I went, after these were taken--after your number----

Mr. BELIN. 715 and 716.

Mr. DAY. Were taken, I processed these three hulls for fingerprints,
using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them
to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As
I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the
northwest part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted
photographs.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put
any initials on those at all, any means of identification?

Mr. DAY. At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope
marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took
possession of them.

Mr. BELIN. Well, did you at any time put any mark on the shells?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Let me first hand you what has been marked as
"Commission Exhibit," part of "Commission Exhibit 543-544," and ask you
to state if you know what that is.

Mr. DAY. This is the envelope the shells were placed in.

Mr. BELIN. How many shells were placed in that envelope?

Mr. DAY. Three.

Mr. BELIN. It says here that, it is written on here, "Two of the three
spent hulls under window on sixth floor."

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you put all three there?

Mr. DAY. Three were in there when they were turned over to Detective
Sims at that time. The only writing on it was, "Lieut. J. C. Day." Down
here at the bottom.

Mr. BELIN. I see.

Mr. DAY. "Dallas Police Department," and the date.

Mr. BELIN. In other words, you didn't put the writing in that says,
"Two of the three spent hulls."

Mr. DAY. Not then. About 10 o'clock in the evening this envelope came
back to me with two hulls in it. I say it came to me, it was in a group
of stuff, a group of evidence, we were getting ready to release to the
FBI. I don't know who brought them back. Vince Drain, FBI, was present
with the stuff, the first I noticed it. At that time there were two
hulls inside.

I was advised the homicide division was retaining the third for their
use. At that time I marked the two hulls inside of this, still inside
this envelope.

Mr. BELIN. That envelope, which is a part of Commission Exhibits 543
and 544?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I put the additional marking on at that time.

Mr. BELIN. I see.

Mr. DAY. You will notice there is a little difference in the ink
writing.

Mr. BELIN. But all of the writing there is yours?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Now, at what time did you put any initials, if you did put
any such initials, on the hull itself?

Mr. DAY. At about 10 o'clock when I noticed it back in the
identification bureau in this envelope.

Mr. BELIN. Had the envelope been opened yet or not?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it had been opened.

Mr. BELIN. Had the shells been out of your possession then?

Mr. DAY. Mr. Sims had the shells from the time they were moved from the
building or he took them from me at that time, and the shells I did not
see again until around 10 o'clock.

Mr. BELIN. Who gave them to you at 10 o'clock?

Mr. DAY. They were in this group of evidence being collected to turn
over to the FBI. I don't know who brought them back.

Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope sealed?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Had it been sealed when you gave it to Mr. Sims?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; no.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 545," I will ask
you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is one of the hulls in the envelope which I opened at 10
o'clock. It has my name written on the end of it.

Mr. BELIN. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it?

Mr. DAY. On the small end where the slug would go.

Mr. BELIN. And it has "Day" on it?

Mr. DAY. Scratched on there; yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. With what instrument did you scratch it on?

Mr. DAY. A diamond point pencil.

Mr. BELIN. Did anyone else scratch any initials on it that you know of?

Mr. DAY. I didn't see them. I didn't examine it too close at that time.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what kind of a cartridge case that is?

Mr. DAY. It is a 6.5.

Mr. BELIN. Is that the same kind of a cartridge case that you saw when
you first saw these cartridge cases?

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other testimony you have with regard to the
chain of possession of this shell from the time it was first found
until the time it got back to your office?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I told you in our conversation in Dallas that I
marked those at the scene. After reviewing my records, I didn't think
I was on all three of those hulls that you have, indicating I did not
mark them at the scene, then I remembered putting them in the envelope,
and Sims taking them.

It was further confirmed today when I noticed that the third hull,
which I did not give you, or come to me through you, does not have my
mark on it.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I did interview you approximately 2 weeks ago in
Dallas, more or less?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. At that time what is the fact as to whether or not I went
into extended questions and answers as contrasted with just asking
you to tell me about certain areas as to what happened? I mean, I
questioned you, of course, but was it more along the lines of just
asking you to tell me what happened, or more along the lines of
interrogation, the interrogation we are doing now?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Which one?

Mr. DAY. Wait a minute now. Say that again. I am at a loss.

Mr. BELIN. Maybe it would be easier if I just struck the question and
started all over again.

Mr. DAY. I remember you asking me if I marked them.

Mr. BELIN. Yes.

Mr. DAY. I remember I told you I did.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. DAY. I got to reviewing this, and I got to wondering about whether
I did mark those at the scene.

Mr. BELIN. Your testimony now is that you did not mark any of the hulls
at the scene?

Mr. DAY. Those three; no, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I believe you said that you examined the three shells today?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. While you were waiting to have your testimony taken here?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; that is what confirmed my thinking on this. The
envelope now was marked.

Mr. BELIN. And the shells were in the same envelope that it was marked?

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what
Commission Exhibit 543 is?

Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that
was found at the School Book Depository Building?

Mr. DAY. I think it is.

Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is?

Mr. DAY. It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty,
the captain that I worked under.

Mr. BELIN. Was he there at the scene?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came
up, later. I didn't send that.

Mr. BELIN. This was----

Mr. DAY. That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by
homicide division when the other two were originally sent in with the
gun.

Mr. BELIN. You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the
one that was retained in your possession for a while?

Mr. DAY. It is the one that I did not see again.

Mr. BELIN. It appears to be flattened out here. Do you know or have you
any independent recollection as to whether or not it was flattened out
at the small end when you saw it?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. BELIN. Now, handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit
544, I will ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the second hull that was in the envelope when I marked
the two hulls that night on November 22.

Mr. BELIN. I have now marked this envelope, which was formerly a part
of Commission Exhibits 543 and 544 with a separate Commission Exhibit
No. 717, and I believe you testify now that Commission Exhibit 544 was
the other shell that was in the envelope which has now been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 717.

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Does that cartridge case, Exhibit 544, have your name on it
again?

Mr. DAY. It has my name on the small end where the slug would go into
the shell.

Mr. BELIN. Are all of the three shells of the same caliber?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other testimony you have with regard to the
cartridge cases themselves?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Can you explain how you processed these shells for
fingerprints?

Mr. DAY. With black fingerprint----

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask before you get to that, is this all your
handwriting?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. The narrative as well as the signature?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this and this. That is not, this is not.

Mr. McCLOY. Who is that, what is that initial, do you know?

Mr. DAY. I think that is Vince Drain, the FBI agent it was released to.
It looks like a "V. D." I don't know whether his initial is "E" or not.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you identify those marks up there, what they are?

Mr. DAY. Those "Q" numbers, I believe, are FBI numbers affixed here in
Washington.

Mr. BELIN. Returning to Exhibit 717----

Mr. McCLOY. Not returning. That is what that last question was about.

Mr. BELIN. I believe the last questions were the initials on the
cartridge cases. Strike the question then.

We will start all over again. On Commission Exhibit No. 717 I see some
initials with the notation "11-22-63" in the upper left-hand corner as
you take a look at the side which has all of your writing on it here.
Do you know whose initials those are?

Mr. DAY. I think it is Vince Drain, FBI, but I am not sure.

Mr. BELIN. You think it is the initials of Vincent E. Drain?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I am not sure if his middle initial is "E". I know
it is Vince Drain.

Mr. BELIN. Now, on the other side I see some other initials on here
with some date and time. Do you know whose initials those are?

Mr. DAY. "R. M. S." stands for R. M. Sims, the detective whom I turned
it over to. That is the date and the time that he took it from me.

Mr. BELIN. What date and time does it show?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963, 1:23 p.m.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you originally stated that you had all three
of these cartridge hulls put in Exhibit 717, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And then you turned it over to Detective Sims?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope sealed when you turned it over to Detective
Sims?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't think so.

Mr. BELIN. Did you seal it?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When you got the envelope back later that night was the
envelope sealed?

Mr. DAY. I don't think so.

Mr. BELIN. To the best of your knowledge, had it been sealed and
reopened or was it just unsealed?

Mr. DAY. To the best of my knowledge it was not sealed. It is possible
I could be wrong on that, but I don't think it was sealed.

Mr. McCLOY. In order to make the record perfectly clear, at least my
understanding perfectly clear, did I understand that you testified that
your initial which appears on that exhibit was--not your initial but
your signature which appears on that exhibit was--put on there before
the other writing, namely to the effect that there were two of the
three hulls enclosed, that was put on the envelope?

Mr. BELIN. You are referring, Mr. McCloy, to the signature on the
bottom of Commission Exhibit 717, "Lieutenant J. C. Day."

Mr. McCLOY. That is what I am referring to.

Mr. DAY. That was put on there before.

Mr. McCLOY. That was put on there----

Mr. DAY. At 1:23 p.m.

Mr. BELIN. And the remainder of the writing was put on that night at
the Dallas Police Department, is that right?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; about the same time that I marked those two hulls.

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what exactly you did in testing those
hulls for fingerprints?

Mr. DAY. I used fingerprint powder, dusted them with the powder, a dark
powder. No legible prints were found.

Mr. BELIN. After you did this, you dusted the prints and you put them
in the envelope, 717, and then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I released them to Detective Sims or rather he took them.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. At that time I was summoned to the northwest corner of the
building.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. Sir?

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I met Captain Fritz. He wanted photographs of the rifle before
it was moved.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if Captain Fritz told you that the rifle had
not been moved?

Mr. DAY. He told me he wanted photographs before it was moved, if I
remember correctly. He definitely told me it had not been moved, and
the reason for the photographs he wanted it photographed before it was
moved.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what the reporter has marked or what
has been marked as Commission Exhibit 718, and ask you to state, if you
know, what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is a photograph made by me of the rifle where it was
found in the northwest portion of the sixth floor, 411 Elm Street,
Dallas.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 719 and ask you to state if you know what that is.

Mr. DAY. It is a picture of the portion of the northwest floor where
the rifle was found. This is a distance shot showing the stack of boxes.

Mr. BELIN. Is Commission Exhibit 718 a print from the same negative as
Commission Exhibit 514?

Mr. DAY. The same negative?

Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAY. No, I don't think so. This is a copy of this picture.

Mr. BELIN. You are saying 514 was made, I assume, as a copy of 718. By
that you mean a negative, a second negative, was made of 718 from which
514 was taken?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Otherwise it is the same?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. 718 appears to be a little clearer and sharper.

Mr. DAY. You can tell from looking at the two pictures which is the
copy.

Mr. BELIN. Was any other picture of that rifle made in that position?

Mr. DAY. Nos. 22 and 23 were both made.

Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were
both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----

Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.

Mr. BELIN. Whose knee appears?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; showing. Identical shots, we just made both to be
sure that one of us made it, and it would be in focus.

Mr. BELIN. For this reason I am introducing only 718, if that is
satisfactory.

Mr. McCLOY. Very well.

Mr. BELIN. How did you stand to take the picture, Exhibit 718?

Mr. DAY. I was on top of a stack of boxes to the south of where the gun
was found.

Mr. BELIN. I wonder if you could put on Exhibit 719 the location with
an "X" where you stood to take the picture, 718.

Mr. DAY. I was in that position looking this way, but you can't tell
which box I was on looking from that angle.

Mr BELIN. I mean, you have placed an "X" on Exhibit 719. Were you
sitting or standing on top of a stack of boxes in that general area?

Mr. DAY. Kneeling.

Mr. BELIN. Kneeling?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. In what direction would your face have been?

Mr. DAY. Facing north and down.

Mr. BELIN. Facing north and looking down?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; to the floor.

Mr. BELIN. Can you see the rifle at all in Exhibit 719?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Had the rifle been removed when 719 was taken, if you know?

Mr. DAY. I don't remember.

Mr. BELIN. Could you locate with an arrow on Exhibit 719 the place
where the rifle would have been?

Mr. DAY. Here.

Mr. BELIN. You have so noted with an arrow on 719. Was the rifle
resting on the floor or not?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. It was?

Mr. DAY. The rifle was resting on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. What else did you do in connection with the rifle at that
particular time?

Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz was present. After we got the photographs I
asked him if he was ready for me to pick it up, and he said, yes. I
picked the gun up by the wooden stock. I noted that the stock was too
rough apparently to take fingerprints, so I picked it up, and Captain
Fritz opened the bolt as I held the gun. A live round fell to the floor.

Mr. BELIN. Did you initial that live round at all?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; my name is on it.

Mr. BELIN. When did you place your name on this live round, if you
remember?

Mr. DAY. How?

Mr. BELIN. When?

Mr. DAY. At the time, that was marked at the scene.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you Commission Exhibit No. 141. I will ask you to
state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. It has "Day" on it where I scratched it on the small end where
the slug goes into the shell.

Mr. BELIN. What is this, what is Exhibit 141?

Mr. DAY. That is the live round that fell from the rifle when Captain
Fritz opened the bolt.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with this after you put your name on it?

Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz took possession of it. I retained possession of
the rifle.

Mr. BELIN. Did you process this live round at all for prints?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I did. I did not find any prints.

Mr. McCLOY. Before Captain Fritz ejected the live cartridge, did you
dust the rifle for fingerprints?

Mr. DAY. Not before.

Mr. BELIN. Did you dust the bolt for fingerprints?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Before the live round was ejected?

Mr. DAY. No, no; the only part that Captain Fritz touched was the round
nob. I looked at it through a glass and decided there was not a print
there, and it would be safe for him to open the bolt.

Mr. BELIN. You did this before it was ejected, before the live round
was ejected?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Who held the rifle while you looked at it with the glass?

Mr. DAY. I held it.

Mr. BELIN. In one hand?

Mr. DAY. One hand, using the glass with the other.

Mr. BELIN. How did you try to process the live round for prints?

Mr. DAY. With black fingerprint powder.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this in an effort, perhaps, to save time. In
all of your processing of prints did you use anything other than this
black powder at the scene that day?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. So whenever you say you processed for prints you used black
powder, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder?

Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to
the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the
magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough.

I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain
Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I
would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints.

Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying
glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on
the side of the housing.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, as I understand it, you held the stock of
the rifle when Captain Fritz operated the bolt?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Now, when you first came over to see the rifle, was it
easily visible or not?

Mr. DAY. I beg pardon?

Mr. BELIN. When you first came over to see the rifle, when you were
first called there, what is the fact as to whether or not it was easily
visible?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; you had to look over the box and down to see it. You
could not see it ordinarily walking down the aisle.

Mr. BELIN. Was anything resting on top of it?

Mr. DAY. On top of the gun?

Mr. BELIN. Yes.

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width
was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other
words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?

Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it
in an upright position.

Mr. BELIN. Was the location at which you found the rifle completely
surrounded by boxes or was it kind of like two parallel rows of boxes
without boxes at either end of it?

Mr. DAY. There was three or four rows of boxes there.

Mr. BELIN. What I mean is this: If you can visualize a narrow squared
"O," was it more like a narrow squared "O" so far as the boxes were
concerned, with sort of an island of space in the center or was it more
like just two basic rows of boxes with nothing at either end?

Mr. DAY. I don't quite follow you there.

Mr. BELIN. I will restate the question this way.

Mr. DAY. There were four parallel lines of boxes. The second line from
the north side was not completely filled. In other words, there was
vacant places in this particular line.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission
Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book
Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. What date?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?

Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.

Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is
scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock,
approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling
side of the stock, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any recollection as to what the serial number
was of that?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I recorded it at the time, C-2566.

Mr. BELIN. Before you say that----

Mr. DAY. C-2766, excuse me.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it
back to the office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.

Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository
Building?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took
it to the office where I dictated----

Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.

Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated,
Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a
clover-leaf design."

Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?

Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the
gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was
on the gun.

I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for
me.

Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.

Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints
are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the
barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found
under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed
by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what other processing you did with this
particular rifle?

Mr. DAY. Beg pardon?

Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints
I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were
rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them
rather than try to lift them.

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that
extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and
noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3
inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose.

Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?

Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?

Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on
the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?

Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.

Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood
is where you found the print?

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the
wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting
them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint
palmprint came off.

I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to
try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About
this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no
further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them
to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the
scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of
the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?

Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it
in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip,
C-2766.

Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph
of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?

Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't
been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off
and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty
well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this
case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints
that you said you thought you saw?

Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two
photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and
721. I will ask you to state what these are.

Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of
the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No.
C-2766.

Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable,
if you know?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these
prints.

Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these
pictures or not?

Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility
as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not
positively identify them.

Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they
were?

Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of
Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison
fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in
his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other processing that you did with the rifle?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the
FBI?

Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and
taken from the office.

Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. At what time did these same photographs which are the same
as Commission Exhibit 720 and 721 of this print----

Mr. DAY. About 8 o'clock, somewhere around 8 o'clock, in that
neighborhood.

Mr. BELIN. Of what date?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. What about the lift which has previously been marked as
Commission Exhibit 637?

Mr. DAY. About what?

Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?

Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not
release this----

Mr. BELIN. You are referring now----

Mr. DAY. On November 22.

Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637?

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on
the 22d?

Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints.
Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still
remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought
possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you
got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the
remaining print on the gun?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were
traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.

Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Exhibit
637 to the FBI?

Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on
November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26
we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.

Mr. BELIN. Did you do that?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and at that time I sent the lift marked----

Mr. BELIN. 637.

Mr. DAY. Yes. The gun was sent back again, and all of the other
evidence that I had, including cartons from Texas Bookstore, and
various other items, a rather lengthy list.

Mr. BELIN. Had the FBI in the interim returned the gun to you then
after you sent it to them on November 22?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When the rifle was photographed, as I understand it, you
were the one who lifted it out of there, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Was it wedged in very tight or could you readily lift it up
without moving any boxes?

Mr. DAY. It came out without moving any boxes. It wasn't wedged in.

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the
fingerprints to be you said you were positive--you couldn't make a
positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the
fingerprints of Lee Oswald?

Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the
man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar
to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could
bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive
identification as being his prints.

Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?

Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right
palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself
it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the
identification there.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, what is the fact as to whether or not
palmprints are a sound means of identification of an individual?

Mr. DAY. You have the same characteristics of the palms that you do
the fingers, also on the soles of feet. They are just as good for
identification purposes.

Mr. BELIN. Is there anything else you did in connection with the rifle,
the cartridges, the live cartridge, or the taking of prints from any of
these metallic objects that you haven't talked about yet?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I believe that is the extent of the prints on any of
those articles.

Mr. BELIN. Did you make a positive identification of any palmprint or
fingerprint?

Mr. DAY. Not off the rifle or slug at that time.

Mr, BELIN. At any other time did you off the rifle or the slugs?

Mr. DAY. After I have been looking at that thing again here today, that
is his right palm. But at that time I had not no----

Mr. BELIN. When you are saying you looked at that thing today, to what
are you referring?

Mr. DAY. Your No. 637 is the right palm of Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 629" I ask you to
state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. That is the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know where this print was taken?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it was taken by Detective J. B. Hicks in Captain
Fritz' office on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if
you know?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three. Two of them
were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed
taking myself in the identification bureau.

Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you took more than one?

Mr. DAY. In most cases, when making comparisons, we will take at least
two to insure we have a good clear print of the entire palm.

Mr. BELIN. Now, based----

Mr. DAY. One might be smeared where the other would not.

Mr. BELIN. Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a
definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify
the print shown on Commission Exhibit 637 as being from the right palm
of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?

Mr. DAY. Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without
further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down
and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would
say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it is, but I
would have to do some more work on that.

Mr. BELIN. Could you do that here in Washington before you go back,
sir, or would this necessitate going back to Dallas?

Mr. DAY. If I had the proper equipment I think I could do it here. I
don't have very good equipment for making comparisons here. I need two
fingerprint glasses.

It was my understanding the prints had been identified by the FBI. I
don't have official word on it.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other thing that you did with regard to the
rifle that you haven't discussed this far that you can remember right
now?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I released it to the FBI then, and they took
possession of it.

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever hear this rifle referred to as a 7.65 Mauser or
as any type of a Mauser?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it wasn't referred to as that. Some of the newsmen,
when I first carried the rifle out, asked me if it was a .30-06, and at
another time they asked me if it was a Mauser. I did not give them an
answer.

Mr. BELIN. Were there newsmen on the sixth floor at the time the rifle
was found, if you know?

Mr. DAY. I think there was.

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever describe the rifle as anything but a
6.5-caliber with regard to the rifle itself?

Mr. DAY. I didn't describe the rifle to anyone other than police
officers.

Mr. BELIN. Is the description that you used with the police officers
the same that you dictated here into the record from your notes?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else with regard to the rifle?

Mr. DAY. I can't think of anything else that I did with it at the time.

I don't know whether you are interested in this or not, but about,
it must have been about 8:30 I was processing the gun on the fourth
floor----

Mr. BELIN. Of the police department there?

Mr. DAY. Of the police department where my office is. The
identification bureau. And Captain Fritz came up and said he had Mrs.
Oswald in his office on the third floor, but the place was so jammed
with news cameramen and newsmen he did not want to bring her out into
it.

Mr. BELIN. Was this the wife or the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DAY. That was Marina, Oswald's wife. She had her baby with her, or
babies, and there was an interpreter down there. He wanted her to look
at the gun to see if she could identify it, didn't want to bring her
in through the crowd, and wanted to know if we could carry it down. He
said, "There is an awful mob down there."

I explained to him that I was still working with the prints, but I
thought I could carry it down without disturbing the prints, which I
did.

We waded through the mob with me holding the gun up high. No one
touched it. Several of the newsmen asked me various questions about
what the gun was at that time. I did not give them an answer.

When I went back to the office after Marina Oswald viewed the gun, they
still were hounding me for it. I told them to check with the chief's
office, he would have to give them the information, and as soon as I
got back to my office I gave a complete description, and so forth, to
Captain King on the gun.

Mr. BELIN. Were you there when Marina Oswald was asked whether or not
she could identify it?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. But I didn't understand what she said. I was
standing across the room from her where I couldn't understand. The
interpreter said something to her and said something to Captain Fritz.
I didn't catch what was said. I mentioned that because there was some
talk about a Mauser and .30-06 at the time and various other things,
that is the reason I mentioned it.

Mr. BELIN. You just refused to answer all questions on that, is that
correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. It wasn't my place to give them that information. I
didn't know whether they wanted it out yet or not.

Mr. McCLOY. There was never any doubt in your mind what the rifle was
from the minute you saw it?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; It was stamped right on there, 6.5, and when en route
to the office with Mr. Odum, the FBI agent who drove me in, he radioed
it in, he radioed in what it was to the FBI over the air.

Mr. BELIN. What else did you do, or what was the next thing you did
after you completed photographing and inspecting the rifle on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building for whatever prints
you could find, what did you do next?

Mr. DAY. I took the gun at the time to the office and locked it up in a
box in my office at Captain Fritz' direction.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I went back to the School Book Depository and stayed there.
It was around three that I got back, and I was in that building until
about 6, directing the other officers as to what we needed in the way
of photographs and some drawing, and so forth.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got back, what photographs did you
take?

Mr. DAY. We went, made the outside photographs of the street, we made
more photographs inside, and did further checking for prints by using
dust on the boxes around the window.

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as "Commission Exhibit 722"
and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is a view of Houston Street looking south from
the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when that was taken?

Mr. DAY. About 3 or 3:15, somewhere along there, on November 22, 1963.

Mr. McCLOY. You say from the sixth floor; was it from the farthest east
window?

Mr. DAY. The south window on the east end of the building.

Mr. BELIN. You don't mean that. State that again. What side of the
building was the window on?

Mr. DAY. It was on the south side of the building, the easternmost
window.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you took Exhibit 722 had any boxes been moved at
all?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Here is Exhibit 724, and I will ask you to state if you know
what that is.

Mr. DAY. This is a view from the same window looking southwest down Elm
Street. Actually this is the direction the shots were fired. When this
picture was made----

Mr. BELIN. When you say this picture you are referring to--I think I
have skipped a number here.

Mr. McCLOY. This is 722.

Mr. BELIN. All right. When 722 was made, you----

Mr. DAY. I did not know the direction the shots had been fired.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I'm going to hand you what I have already marked
as 724. What about that one?

Mr. DAY. This was made, 724 was made, some 15 to 20 minutes after 722
when I received information that the shooting actually occurred on Elm
rather than Houston Street. The boxes had been moved at that time.

Mr. BELIN. In 724 there are boxes in the window. Were those boxes in
the window the way you saw them, or had they been replaced in the
window to reconstruct it?

Mr. DAY. They had simply been moved in the processing for prints. They
weren't put back in any particular order.

Mr. BELIN. So 724 does not represent, so far as the boxes are
concerned, the crime scene when you first came to the sixth floor; is
that correct?

Mr. DAY. That is correct.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this: Had all of the boxes of the stack in
724 been replaced there or had any of the boxes been in a position they
were at the time you first arrived at the building, if you know?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not been placed in the proper position or
approximate position at the time we arrived.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to hand you what I will mark as "723" and
ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. 726----

Mr. BELIN. No; 723.

Mr. DAY. 723 is the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository Building.

Mr. BELIN. Who took that picture, if you know?

Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.

Mr. BELIN. Was it taken under your direction and supervision, Mr. Day?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I was present. The two metal boxes you will note to
the left, are our fingerprint equipment that inadvertently got into the
picture with a wide-angle lens camera.

Mr. BELIN. When you say to the left----

Mr. DAY. To the right.

Mr. BELIN. You mean as you face the picture to the right.

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Do you want to circle on Exhibit 723 your fingerprint
equipment?

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I will ask you to state if you know if this picture was
taken before any of the boxes shown on 723 were moved.

Mr. DAY. To the best of my knowledge they had not been moved.

Mr. BELIN. And straight ahead the camera is pointed toward it?

Mr. DAY. To the south.

Mr. BELIN. At which window?

Mr. DAY. Toward the window where the hulls were found.

Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as "725," and ask
you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. That is a view of the same window as 723 except it shows the
full length of the aisle.

Mr. BELIN. Was 725 taken before the boxes were moved, if you know?

Mr. DAY. I beg your pardon?

Mr. BELIN. Was Commission Exhibit 725 taken before any boxes were
moved, if you know?

Mr. DAY. To the best of my knowledge, nothing had been moved.

Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as 726 and ask
you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the next aisle over, or the next aisle west of the
aisle shown in 723. Actually, this was taken on November 25. Some
movement had been made of the boxes as shown in 723.

Mr. BELIN. All right. So you now are saying Commission Exhibit 726 was
taken on November 25----

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And there had been some movement of the boxes?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Generally did it depict the area as you saw it on November
22?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I am handing you Commission Exhibit 727 and ask you to state
if you know what that is.

Mr. DAY. 727 is the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository,
taken looking east along the inside of the south wall.

Mr. BELIN. When was that taken?

Mr. DAY. November 25, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Just by general means of identification, perhaps it might
help to see when some pictures were taken and some pictures were not
taken. I think you can see on Exhibit 727 that the shadows show that
the sun would not as yet have reached a due south position. Is that
correct?

Mr. DAY. That is correct. It was taken in the morning. This is the
morning shadow.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked 728, would you state if you
know what this is?

Mr. DAY. This is the third aisle from the east side of the building,
sixth floor, Texas School Book Depository.

Mr. BELIN. Was that taken on November 22 or November 25?

Mr. DAY. It was taken on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Again you can note the shadows at this time, and it would
appear as a southwesterly sun.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I notice a pop bottle there. Do you know whether or not that
pop bottle was there at the time you got to the scene?

Mr. DAY. It was, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Was it in the same relation as that two-wheeler cart, if you
know?

Mr. DAY. To the best of my knowledge nothing had been moved there.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else with the pop bottle when you were
in that area?

Mr. DAY. There was a brown-paper sack, like a lunch sack.

Mr. BELIN. About how large?

Mr. DAY. It does not show in the picture.

Mr. BELIN. Where would the sack have been located?

Mr. DAY. Sir?

Mr. BELIN. Where would that sack have been located, if you know?

Mr. DAY. I don't remember.

Mr. BELIN. Would this have been at the third pair of windows counting
from the east; when you meant the third aisle, did you mean the third
set of windows also?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. You mentioned a sack that would have been at that third
aisle. Was any kind of a sack found on the sixth floor, if you know?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?

Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in
the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs
were found.

Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?

Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?

Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.

Mr. DAY. Hulls.

Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. 729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east walls,
right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the Texas
Book Depository.

Mr. BELIN. I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture as
you face it, and I also notice a box.

I will first ask you to state if this picture was taken before or after
anything was removed from the area.

Mr. DAY. The sack had been removed.

Mr. BELIN. Had any change been made of the position of that box that is
set off by itself in the center of the picture?

Mr. DAY. I don't think the box--well, it is possible the box had been
moved. This is an approximate position of it. The box had been dusted
for powder and--dusted for prints. The black powder is visible on it.
It is possible the box may have been moved a tiny bit.

Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that
box?

Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall
at the top of the picture as shown here.

Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.

Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at
the top of the picture.

Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall,
would it not?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.

Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying
flat, if you remember?

Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best
of my knowledge.

Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also
appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.

Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast
corner of the building on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?

Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put
on there for the information of the FBI.

Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?

Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have
been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."

Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?

Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our
possession.

Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there?

Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about
11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows:
"FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only.
Inside has not been processed. Lieut. J. C. Day."

Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection
with the processing of this?

Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any
other means or any other place?

Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it
was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know by what means they found these?

Mr. DAY. It is apparently silver nitrate. It could be another compound
they have used. The sack had an orange color indicating it was silver
nitrate.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the sack when it came back from the FBI had a----

Mr. DAY. Orange color. It is another method of processing paper for
fingerprints.

Mr. BELIN. Was there anything inside the bag, if you know, when you
found it?

Mr. DAY. I did not open the bag. I did not look inside of the bag at
all.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put
this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left.
I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when
they brought other equipment in.

Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever get the kind of sample used at the School Book
Depository?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. I had the bag
listed as----

Mr. BELIN. Commission Exhibit 626 or 142.

Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and
I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a
similar--the tape--as of the same width as this. I took the bag over
and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the
bag.

Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. Sir?

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know
which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the
wrapping bench.

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 677,
I will ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the tape and paper collected from the first floor in
the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository on November
22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Does this have any identification marks on it?

Mr. DAY. It has my name, "J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department," and
also in my writing. "Shipping Department."

Mr. BELIN. Any other writing on there that you recognize?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; Detective Studebaker, who was with me, and in his
writing it says. "Paper sample from first floor, Texas School Book
Depository, Studebaker, 11-22-63."

The tape also has Studebaker's writing on it, "Tape sample from first
floor."

Mr. BELIN. I will ask you to state if you know what are Exhibits 730,
731 and 732?

Mr. DAY. These are photographs of the wrapping bench on the first
floor, Texas School Book Depository, taken by me on April 13, 1964,
after I had talked to you when I was back in the building. I didn't
have a previous picture of this wrapping bench.

Mr. BELIN. Does that represent the location on the first floor of
the School Book Depository Building where you got the tape sample,
Commission Exhibit 677?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it is approximately the same. I do not think the
benches had been changed since the November shooting.

Mr. BELIN. Do you recognize at any point on any of the exhibits the
actual tape machine that was used?

Mr. DAY. The one that we removed this from was the north roll and tape
on the east side of the bench.

Mr. BELIN. You are now pointing at Exhibit 730. I notice a roll of
paper underneath the bench in the center of the picture. Is that where
you got the big paper, the main paper on Commission Exhibit 677?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. To the best of my knowledge that is the roll we tore
the paper off of.

Mr. BELIN. What about tape itself?

Mr. DAY. The tape was from the machine immediately above that roll of
paper on top of the bench.

Mr. BELIN. Were there other tape machines there also?

Mr. DAY. Yes; but I didn't notice them at the time.

Mr. BELIN. How did you get the tape from out of the machine, if you
remember?

Mr. DAY. Just pulled the tape off and tear it out and tear it off.

Mr. BELIN. Was there a lever at all that you used, if you remember if
there is such a lever?

Mr. DAY. I don't remember. I don't think we used the lever.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with Commission Exhibit 677?

Mr. DAY. I released this, I released 677 to Vince Drain of the FBI,
11:45 p.m., November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 733 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the southeast corner of the sixth floor at the window
where the shooting apparently occurred. The boxes in front of the
window, to the best of our knowledge, in the position they were in when
we arrived there on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. So 733 represents a reconstruction in that sense, is that
correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What about Exhibit----

Mr. DAY. This, by the way, was taken on November 25, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. All right. What about 734?

Mr. DAY. That is another view of the same boxes shown in 733.

Mr. BELIN. In 734 you can also see this juncture of the south and east
walls of the sixth floor where you say the bag was found; is that
correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I want to turn for the moment to 729. I notice that the
box on 729 appears to have a portion of it torn off and then replaced
again. Is this correct or not?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 649 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is a portion torn from the box shown in 729.

Mr. BELIN. While you are holding that I'm going to hand you Commission
Exhibit 648 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. That is the box shown in 729 at the center of the picture.

Mr. BELIN. Is that the box, 648, from which 649 was torn?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. BELIN. Could you relate what transpired to cause 649 to be torn
from 648?

Mr. DAY. After I returned to the sixth floor of the Texas School
Book Depository after delivering the gun to my office, we processed
the boxes in that area, in the area of the window where the shooting
apparently occurred, with powder. This particular box was processed and
a palmprint, a legible palmprint, developed on the northwest corner of
the box, on the top of the box as it was sitting on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do when you developed this print?

Mr. DAY. I placed a piece of transparent tape, ordinary Scotch tape,
which we use for fingerprint work, over the developed palmprint.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. I tore the cardboard from the box that contained the palmprint.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. DAY. The box was left in its position, but the palmprint was taken
by me to the identification bureau.

Mr. BELIN. Did you make any identification of it?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Later that night when I had a chance to get
palmprints from Lee Harvey Oswald. I made a comparison with the
palmprint off of the box, your 729, and determined that the palmprint
on the box was made by the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Did you make any identification on Exhibit 649 which would
indicate that this is the palmprint you took?

Mr. DAY. It has in my writing, "From top of box Oswald apparently sat
on to fire gun. Lieut. J. C. Day," and it is marked "right palm of
Oswald. Lieut. J. C. Day."

There is also an arrow indicating north and where the palmprint was
found. It further has Detective Studebaker's name on it, and he also
wrote on there, "From top of box subject sat on."

Mr. BELIN. Now, when was that placed on that exhibit, that writing of
yours, when was it placed on there?

Mr. DAY. It was placed on there November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Can you identify by any way Commission Exhibit 648?

Mr. DAY. This has my name "J. C. Day" written on it. It also has "R. L.
Studebaker" written on it. It has written in the corner in my writing,
"Southwest corner box 18 inches from wall."

Mr. BELIN. I also see the name "W. H. Shelley" written on there. Do you
know when this was put on?

Mr. DAY. W. H. Shelley is the assistant manager apparently of the Texas
School Book Depository.

Mr. BELIN. Did he put it on at the time you found the box?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when that was placed on there?

Mr. DAY. That was placed there November 26. The box was not removed,
just the cardboard was removed on November 22--excuse me, November 25 I
should say that he put his name on there. I returned to the School Book
Depository on November 25 and collected this box.

Mr. McCLOY. Did he say southwest on that or southeast?

Mr. BELIN. I believe he said that he has here that the southwest corner
of the box is 18 inches from the wall.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; that being the south wall.

Mr. McCLOY. This is the southwest corner of the box he is talking about?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. That is what is written on Commission Exhibit 648.

Mr. McCLOY. It depends on where that box was. It is kind of a removable
direction, isn't it?

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission
Exhibit 641, Exhibit. 653, and Exhibit 654, and ask you to state if you
know what these are. I will start with 641 first.

Mr. DAY. 641 is a box found in front of the window, Texas School Book
Depository. Apparently the gun had rested across this. This is the top
box now of two that were sitting in the window.

Mr. McCLOY. At the sixth floor window from which the shots are alleged
to have been fired?

Mr. DAY. Where the gun was fired from.

Mr. BELIN. Does this box appear on Commission Exhibit 715?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; this does not show.

Mr. BELIN. In other words, what you are saying is that the box, 641, is
not the box which is shown in the window on 715?

Mr. DAY. That is correct.

Mr. BELIN. Taking a look now at the box No. 653, I want to ask you to
state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. This is the box that is shown on 715, that is in the window.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have any means of identification?

Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day," also "R. L. Studebaker" marked
"Box B."

Mr. BELIN. I see you have a notation about the top, which appears to be
reading on the side of the box. What does that mean?

Mr. DAY. That is the top of the box as it was sitting in the window
sill, on the window sill.

Mr. BELIN. I see you have an arrow with the arrow pointing to the north.

Placing the box on the table here with the arrow pointing in a north
direction, it would appear the box is lying on its side, is that
correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Is that the way you found it in the window before you moved
it?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Is that the way it is shown on 715?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any kind of a mark to show what the contents of
this box were?

Mr. DAY. It says "Ten Rolling Readers."

Mr. BELIN. Is there anything, any other identification, that you found
on it? Did you dust this for prints?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you find any?

Mr. DAY. Not with the powder.

Mr. BELIN. Did you find any in any way?

Mr. DAY. No; I didn't find any.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know if anyone else found any?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. BELIN. When did you put your initials on the boxes, 653 and 641, if
you know?

Mr. DAY. I am not certain whether it was the 22d or 25th when we
collected the boxes.

Mr. BELIN. I notice your initials are also on 641, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Again you have marked the side of the box as being the top,
is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Putting your initials on there?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and my name is on it "J. C. Day."

Mr. BELIN. If you put your initials on or your name on on November 25,
how do you know this was the same box that was there when you first
came?

Mr. DAY. There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box
that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the
recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the
wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this
scar on the box.

Mr. BELIN. When you came back on the 25th where did you find this box,
641?

Mr. DAY. They were still in the area of the window but had been moved
from their original position.

Mr. BELIN. Does that scar appear on the box in 733?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I see there was one box in the window which you have
reconstructed as being box 653, am I correct on that?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And then there is a box which is stacked on top of another
box, the upper box of that two-box stack is 641, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And there is a scar on top of that. Is this the same one
that you referred to at the top of 641?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when you initialed box No. 653?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't know exactly which day it was.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any independent recollection of this being the
same box you saw in the window?

Mr. DAY. I beg pardon?

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any independent recollection of this being the
same box that you saw in the window, if you don't remember when you
initialed it?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; except that it was still there in that area and had
been dusted on the 25th. We did dust it on the 22d.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this: When you were dusting it were there
remains of the dust on there?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When you put your initials on on the 25th were the dust
remains still there?

Mr. DAY. The dust was still there; yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. On all of these boxes, 641 and 653, and now handing you 654,
was there dust on 654 also?

Mr. DAY. All boxes had dust on them when I collected them.

Mr. BELIN. Were boxes Nos. 641, 653, and 654 open or closed?

Mr. DAY. They were closed and had books in them.

Mr. BELIN. Did they have tape around them?

Mr. DAY. They were sealed with tape.

Mr. BELIN. Turning to 664, do you see your name as a means of
identification on this box?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; "J. C. Day." It also has the name "R. L. Studebaker"
on it.

Mr. BELIN. I see there is an arrow pointing north here, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And the box appears with--it appears to have "top" written
on the box as it stands on one end, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; that is the top side as it was standing on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. Now, again turning to Exhibit 733, do you see where box 654
was then?

Mr. DAY. It would be the bottom box of the center stack. There are two
boxes.

Mr. BELIN. There are two boxes, and the upper box is marked "Ten
Rolling Readers," and 654 would be below that one?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. That is a reconstructed photo, to the best of your
knowledge, as to where the boxes were?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Is there any indication on any of these boxes which you
could identify as indicating on which box the rifle rested?

Mr. DAY. I beg your pardon?

Mr. McCLOY. Is there any indication on any of these boxes that could
tell you where the rifle rested?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. When it was fired?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I couldn't find a thing there.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission
Exhibit 735 and 736 and ask you to state if you know what these are.

Mr. DAY. 735 is the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint. 736 is
the left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when these prints were made?

Mr. DAY. They were made November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Does your name appear on these?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. With the permission of Commissioner McCloy, would it be
possible to have Xerox copies substituted for these so that the
original can go back with Lieutenant Day?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. As I understand it, these are the last original copies you
have of palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Were you there when these prints were made?

Mr. DAY. No, sir. The prints that were made in my presence, which I
compared with these, I can state are his, were sent to the FBI.

Mr. BELIN. Would these be the same prints as shown on Commission
Exhibit 628 and 629?

Mr. DAY. No, sir. They are still not the originals. They had my name
on it when I saw them sign it. But I did compare these with ones I saw
made personally of Oswald, and I can say this is his left hand, his
left palm, and his right palm.

Mr. BELIN. So you are saying 735 and 736 are his right and left palms.
What about 628 and 629?

Mr. DAY. 629 is the right palm, and 628 is the left palm of Lee Harvey
Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. What about 627, can you state what that is, if you know?

Mr. DAY. That is a set of fingerprints, standard set of fingerprints,
of Lee Harvey Oswald taken by Detective J. B. Hicks on November 22,
1963.

Mr. BELIN. You have just examined these with your magnifying glass, is
that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. And you so identify these?

Mr. DAY. They are the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald, whose
palmprints appear in 735 and 736.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, did you ever try to make any ballistic
identification of the bullet slug that was removed from the residence
of General Walker?

Mr. DAY. No, sir. I don't do that work. We have a laboratory in Dallas
that we ask to do that. Wait a minute now, you said identification? My
answer should be no, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I will ask you this. Have you ever seen Commission Exhibit
573 before, if you know?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what 573 is?

Mr. DAY. This slug was gotten from the home of former General Edwin
Walker, 4011 Turtle Creek, April 10, 1963, by Detective B. G. Brown,
one of the officers under my supervision. He brought this in and
released it to me.

Mr. BELIN. You are reading now from a report that is in your
possession, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Those are the official records of my office.

Mr. BELIN. Was that prepared under your supervision?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. In the regular course of your duties at the Dallas Police
Department?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. The slug has my name "Day" scratched in it.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not any ballistic identification was
made of this slug with regard to any rifle it may have been fired from?

Mr. DAY. No, sir. I released that to the FBI agent B. D. Odum on
December 2, 1963, at 4:10 p.m.

Mr. BELIN. Has that ever been back in your possession since that time?

Mr. DAY. Not since that time.

Mr. BELIN. Prior to that time do you know whether or not any positive
ballistic identifications were made of Exhibit 573 with regard to the
rifle from which it might have been fired?

Mr. DAY. It had not been compared with any rifle, to the best of my
knowledge.

Mr. BELIN. At this point we would like to offer and introduce in
evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 715 through 734, inclusive.

Mr. McCLOY. They have all heretofore been identified?

Mr. BELIN. Yes, they have; and I think 715 is the first one, and if
there have been any prior to 715 I would offer to introduce that also.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 715 through 734 inclusive, were received in
evidence.)

Mr. BELIN. I am also going to introduce 735 and 736. These are the
Xerox copies of those cards, of those palmprint cards, that I believe
you had, sir. Am I correct in that, and according to my records, the
next number for introduction of exhibits is 737.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 735 and 736 were received in evidence.)

Mr. BELIN. I am now going to hand you No. 737 and ask you to state if
you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the
Texas School Book Depository November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Who took that picture?

Mr. DAY. I took it myself.

Mr. BELIN. When?

Mr. DAY. About 9 or 9:30 p.m., November 22, on the fourth floor of the
City Hall in my office.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to now hand you what has been marked as 738 and
ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is a photograph of most of the evidence that
was returned to the FBI the second time on November 26, 1963. It was
released to Agent Vince Drain at 2 p.m., November 26.

Mr. BELIN. Who took that picture, if you know?

Mr. DAY. I beg pardon?

Mr. BELIN. Who took that picture?

Mr. DAY. I took this picture.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to now hand you what has been marked as
Commission Exhibit 739 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is a view of the Texas School Book Depository
made from about a half block south looking north on Houston Street on
November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Now, returning for the moment to Exhibit 738, do you
recognize any items in there as items that you turned over to the FBI?

Mr. DAY. All of these items were released to the FBI.

Mr. BELIN. Which ones are there now?

Mr. DAY. There is a shirt.

Mr. BELIN. This is the same shirt that has been marked Commission
Exhibit 150?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right. What else?

Mr. DAY. A revolver.

Mr. BELIN. Did you put any initials on the revolver or not?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't think I did.

Mr. BELIN. All right. What else?

Mr. DAY. A blanket.

Mr. BELIN. Is that the blanket that has been marked "Commission Exhibit
140" here?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right. What else?

Mr. DAY. A live round.

Mr. BELIN. Is that the live round that you earlier identified as what
Captain Fritz ejected from the rifle?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What else?

Mr. DAY. Two spent hulls, and an envelope in which they were in.

Mr. BELIN. Those are the ones you have earlier identified, is that
Correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What else?

Mr. DAY. One piece of cardboard with a palmprint on it that has been
identified as that of Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. That is the piece of cardboard that you tore off this
cardboard box, the cardboard box being Commission Exhibit No. 648, is
that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What else?

Mr. DAY. Two--correction, one .38-caliber slug, and a button off a
policeman's uniform.

Mr. BELIN. Is that slug, do you know where that came from?

Mr. DAY. I didn't personally collect that. It was in the stuff that was
given to Vince Drain.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Anything else, if you know?

Mr. DAY. There is a plastic box, I don't remember what was in it, a
slip of paper reading "Dallas County Hospital District," laying with
the box, and there is an envelope laying with the live round with
information stating that it is a live round from the gun found on the
sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you refer to the paper sack?

Mr. DAY. Yes; I didn't mention that. Also one homemade paper bag
previously identified as the bag found in the southeast corner of the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Mr. McCLOY. What is the revolver that you previously mentioned, where
did it come from?

Mr. DAY. I understand that was the one that was in Oswald's possession,
reportedly the one used to shoot the officer.

Mr. BELIN. You don't have any independent knowledge of that, do you?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I did not collect that.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked "Commission
Exhibit 740" and ask you to state if you know what that is. Do you have
any further comments, by the way, of 738?

Mr. DAY. I can tell from this what it is.

Mr. BELIN. You are looking toward your own inventory and you are
pointing to a picture of Exhibit 738?

Mr. DAY. Yes; it was a bullet fragment taken from the body of John
Connally at Parkland General Hospital in Dallas. The slip was in
connection with a fragment, the hospital slip previously mentioned.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else on 738?

Mr. DAY. That is all that is in the picture.

Mr. BELIN. All right. What about exhibit----

Mr. DAY. There was one other article released with this, an envelope
containing the three negatives I made of the prints on the side of the
magazine housing of that 6.5 rifle, which I did not definitely identify
as belonging to Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else on 738?

Mr. DAY. That is all, sir.

Mr. BELIN. What about Exhibit 740?

Mr. DAY. 740 is a photograph looking northeast toward the Texas School
Book Depository. This shows Elm Street at the point at which the
President was shot.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when that was taken?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963, in the afternoon sometime after 3 o'clock.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I am going to hand you Exhibit 741 and ask you to
state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. 741 is a photograph of the lunchroom area on the second floor
of the Texas School Book Depository taken November 25, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what direction the camera is facing?

Mr. DAY. The camera is facing west looking toward the west door of the
lunchroom.

Mr. BELIN. All right. I'm going to hand you what has been marked
"Exhibit 742" and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. That is the outside of the door shown in the picture on 741,
which door----

Mr. BELIN. There appear to be two doors shown on 741. One door that is
open and one door that is closed with the window in it.

Mr. DAY. This is outside of the door that is closed with the window
in it. This picture looks east, made on the second floor of the Texas
School Book Depository from a position near the stairway.

Mr. BELIN. That would be the stairway coming----

Mr. DAY. Stairway coming down from the third floor.

Mr. BELIN. I will hand you what has been marked "743" and ask you to
state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. 743 is a photograph of the stairway leading to the third floor
from the second floor of the southwest corner of the Texas School Book
Depository. Make a correction on that previous picture 742. I stated
that was taken from a position of the stairway leading to the third
floor. It should read taken from a position of the stairway leading to
the first floor.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other evidence pertaining to fingerprints or
palmprints that you have not discussed?

Mr. DAY. I can't think of any at the present time. I believe that
pretty well covers my participation in this investigation.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other evidence that you can think of pertaining
to the rifle that you have not discussed that you can think of at this
time?

Mr. DAY. Not that I can think of.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other thing that you did pertaining to the
investigation of the assassination of the President that you can think
of at this time?

Mr. DAY. Under my direction they made paraffin casts of the hand of Lee
Harvey Oswald in Captain Fritz' office.

Mr. BELIN. This was done under your direction?

Mr. DAY. I directed them to make it, and also paraffin casts or just of
a piece of paraffin on the left side of the face to see if there were
any nitrates there.

Mr. BELIN. On the left side or right side of the face?

Mr. DAY. Right side.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what the results of the paraffin tests were?

Mr. DAY. The test on the face was negative.

Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?

Mr. DAY. No; actually--had it not been for the particular type of case
and this particular situation here--we would not have at this time. It
was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying
later on, "Why didn't you do it?"

Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic
sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the
side of the face from a rifle.

Mr. BELIN. Well, the chamber, the nature of the chamber of the rifle,
would that have anything to do with that?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. In what way?

Mr. DAY. A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would
not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking
through a telescopic sight.

Mr. BELIN. Well, when you ran these tests you had understood that the
man, Oswald, had fired a pistol, too, hadn't he?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Would you expect to have any positive tests from a pistol on
the cheek?

Mr. DAY. I would expect more with a revolver with an open cylinder than
I would from a rifle. Actually, for most practical purposes, I would
not be surprised if there would be no nitrates from a man firing a
rifle.

Mr. BELIN. What about on the hands?

Mr. DAY. Even on the hands. It is possible, but it is more likely with
a revolver where you have a revolving cylinder and an opening between
the cylinder and the actual barrel where the nitrates can come out.

Mr. McCLOY. That was the type of pistol that was used to kill Tippit,
wasn't it?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did the paraffin show up nitrate?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; nitrates were present on the cast made of Oswald's
hands.

Mr. BELIN. Is there anything else, are there any other comments you
have with regard to the paraffin test, sir?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. You are showing me your report of paraffin findings. Is this
the same report that was sent into the FBI, if you know?

Mr. DAY. I think they were sent a report. This is the report submitted
by the laboratory at Dallas who first processed this paraffin. Later
on the FBI did come and want this paraffin, and it was turned over to
them, also the can from which this was made. I don't know what purpose
they wanted it for.

Mr. BELIN. I believe you mentioned that you took a measurement of the
area in which the long paper bag was found to show how big an area that
was with relation to the easternmost pair of windows on the east side
of the building, and the--on the south side of the building rather--and
on the southeast corner juncture of the south wall to the east wall.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Handing you what has been marked as "Commission
Exhibit 734"--you are using another exhibit there----

Mr. DAY. It is the same, it would be the same. I just had my
measurements on there, was all.

Mr. BELIN. 729, is this the one that you have here?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

How far would the distance be between the east wall and the east side
of that easternmost pipe?

Mr. DAY. Two feet, seven inches.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have what the measurements were between the south
wall and that box that you tore the piece off of to make the palmprint
takeoff?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it would be 19-1/2 inches. Actually the box was
marked "18 inches." If you will note there are six boards. I thought
they were 3 inches wide. On doublechecking I found they were 3-1/4
inches wide which would make a 1-1/2 inch difference in six boards.

Mr. BELIN. And I believe you have already said that the bag was folded
over when it was found, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Now, on the picture, 734, this is the reconstruction of the
boxes in the window, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Does that represent, to the best of your recollection, the
way the boxes were at the time you first came upon the crime scene, if
you know?

Mr. DAY. It is an approximate location. I may be a little too far from
the west to what they actually were when we got there on November 22.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other information you can think of, any facts
that you can think of, whether I have asked you or not, that you feel
are in any way relevant to the area of inquiry, the assassination of
the President, the murder of Officer Tippit, or anything else?

Mr. DAY. I can't think of anything right now.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as "Commission Exhibit
744," and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. 744 is a picture of Officer M. N. McDonald, and shows
the scratch on the side of his face made somewhere close to 2
p.m., November 22, 1963, by Detective J. M. Craft--correction, I
believe he is a patrolman, Patrolman J. M. Craft, who is assigned
to identification, to the identification bureau, and did the actual
snapping of the shutter.

Mr. BELIN. Was this picture taken under your supervision?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked "Commission
Exhibit 745" and ask you to state if you know what this is.

Mr. DAY. 745 is a photograph of Don Ray Ables, Dallas Police Department
jail clerk, who was on duty, and placed in the showup November--I don't
know whether it was the 23d or 22d, one of those 2 days, along with Lee
Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department showup room.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know about how tall Don Ray Ables is, if you know?

Mr. DAY. He is about 5'6", or 7", but I would have to get his accurate
measurements to get it. In other words, he is not a large man.

Mr. McCLOY. There were more than he in the showup with Oswald, which
Oswald was in, that is, he wasn't the only one in the showup besides
Oswald?

Mr. DAY. I don't think so, but I don't know, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. You weren't present at the showup?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. At this time we would offer and introduce into evidence
Exhibits 736 through 745.

Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.

(The items marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 736 through 745 for
identification were received in evidence.)

Mr. BELIN. Any other questions that you have, Mr. McCloy?

Mr. McCLOY. On the crime scene, that is, on the sixth floor, did you
notice any chicken bones or chicken remnants of a chicken sandwich or
lunch or the whereabouts, if you did see them?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle
brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack
and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away
that laid around there.

In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25,
they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there.

Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being
with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the
bottle. I checked that.

Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you go on the fifth floor and make any investigation on
the fifth floor?

Mr. DAY. I was there but I didn't have any photographs taken or do much
investigating there.

My work was mostly confined to the sixth, second and the first floors.

Mr. McCLOY. I noticed that in the picture you took of the sixth floor
window, the picture that had the hulls on the floor, there seemed to be
a break in the floor between--against the wall where the wood did not
reach the brick of the wall. Was that hole, so far as you recall, all
the way through from the sixth floor to the fifth floor?

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I checked that. A hull could not go down through
there. You could see the bottom of it. There was no hull in there.

Mr. McCLOY. I'm not saying there was any hull in there. I was wondering
whether that aperture, whatever it was, not related to the hulls,
whether that went all the way through to the fifth floor.

Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't think so. I think it was tight there and
nothing----

Mr. McCLOY. The colored man testified he could see air from the fifth
floor to the sixth floor.

Mr. DAY. I may be wrong, but I did make a search in that area for the
hulls and determined none could be in there. As far as from the bottom
looking up, I couldn't say.

Mr. McCLOY. I don't think I can think of anything else to ask you,
anything else I would like to ask you, Lieutenant Day.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, we want to thank you for your splendid
cooperation here. We appreciate your coming up and staying over and
staying late tonight, and we know it has taken time on your part.

Mr. DAY. I hope I have helped you and not confused you.

Mr. McCLOY. You indicated one thing, Lieutenant, that you didn't have
quite the proper equipment here tonight to make the comparisons that
you might want to make.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did I hear that you were going to stay over and go to the
FBI laboratory in the morning?

Mr. DAY. Well, they are trying to make reservations to leave tonight
if they can get them. I do not know whether they can. On that print
it would take me some work to do that before I could eliminate all
possibility of it not being his print. I feel it is his from what I
have seen of it, but before I can take the witness stand and say that
is his, I would want to do some more work on it. What it would take, I
don't know. I understand that it was identified. What process they used
I don't know.

Mr. McCLOY. By someone else, by some other agency?

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you restate again for the record what you can
positively identify in terms of fingerprints or palmprints and
Oswald's----

Mr. DAY. The palmprint on the box he apparently sat on I can definitely
say it is his without being in fear of any error. The other, I think it
is his, but I couldn't say definitely on a witness stand.

Mr. McCLOY. By the other, you mean the other palmprint?

Mr. DAY. The palmprint and that tracer print aside the trigger housing
or the magazine housing.

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 9:15 p.m. the President's Commission recessed.)



_Thursday, April 23, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT, ROBERT INMAN BOUCK, ROBERT CARSWELL,
AND WINSTON G. LAWSON

The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m. on April 23, 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 Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Samuel A.
Stern, assistant counsel; Howard P. Willens, assistant counsel; Charles
Murray, observer; and Dean Robert G. Storey, special counsel to the
attorney general of Texas.


TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT

Mr. McCLOY. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give in this case,
this hearing, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do.

Mr. McCLOY. You know why we are here? It is to ascertain all the facts
and circumstances which seem to be relevant to the assassination of the
President and the death of his alleged assassin, and there are certain
identifications which I believe you can be helpful to us with, and with
that I will just ask you to respond to the questions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, can you state your full name, please?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.

(At this point, the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here
in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include
photographic work as well as written documents?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly give us your qualifications as an
expert in photography, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have been in photographic work since about 1937.
I started working with the FBI in 1940. Three years prior to this I had
worked as a newspaper photographer in Hastings, Nebr., and on entering
the FBI I worked in the photographic section of the FBI for about 8
years before I became a special agent. I became an agent in 1951, spent
a year in Detroit as a field investigator, and then was returned to the
laboratory and assigned as a document examiner. I was also assigned
cases involving photographic examinations, because of my extensive
experience in photography.

I have a B.C.S. degree from Southeastern University here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you estimate the number of photographic examinations
you have made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would be just an estimate. I would estimate
approximately 100, between 100 and 300. I couldn't come any closer than
that.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court on the subject?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness testify as an expert in
the area of photography?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes; I think he is qualified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you two small photographs
which have been already marked "Commission Exhibit 133," and I ask you
whether you are familiar with these photographs?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, these photographs appear to show
Lee Harvey Oswald in two different poses, and they were found by police
officers, following his apprehension, at one of the premises at which
he resided.

Mr. Chairman, I would like your permission to mark these photographs
"A" and "B" for easy identification; they have already been marked
"Commission Exhibit 133."

Again for the record, there are two poses represented in these
photographs. In one the rifle is held--a rifle is held--in front of the
body, and in one it is held somewhat above the torso. I am marking the
rifle--that photograph in which the weapon is held in front of the
body--as A, and the photograph in which the weapon is held somewhat
above the body as B.

Mr. McCLOY. When you say above the body, you mean above and to the
right side of the body as Oswald faces the viewer?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you prepared reproductions of Exhibit 133A to show
the weapon pictured therein in further detail?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us those reproductions? Did you prepare
these yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did. They were prepared by rephotographing
Commission Exhibit 133A, to preparing a negative from which I made a
variety of prints of different densities to bring out the detail of the
rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "of different densities," could you explain
that in lay terms?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; to try to get greater variation between the light
and dark areas of the photograph, or to bring out or enhance the
contrast so that the detail is more apparent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like these photographs admitted as
Commission Exhibit 746.

Mr. McCLOY. You want to put them all into one exhibit?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; and I will subnumber them A, B, C, D, E.

Mr. McCLOY. Have you identified these sufficiently?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I have.

Mr. McCLOY. I wonder whether you have?

Mr. EISENBERG. The witness has identified these as subphotographs of
133A. There are five photographs, is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. McCLOY. Different dimensions?

Mr. EISENBERG. Two photographs being what size?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Two 11 by 14 inches, and three 8 by 10 inches.

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

Mr. McCLOY. Very well, they will be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 746 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Let the record show I have marked these "Exhibits 746 A,
B, C, D, E", the two larger photographs being marked "A" and "B," and
three smaller photographs being marked "C," "D," and "E."

Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you a rifle, Commission Exhibit 139,
which for the record I will state is the rifle which was used in the
assassination, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of this weapon, Mr.
Shaneyfelt, showing it in approximately the same manner as it is shown
in Commission Exhibit 133A, but without it being held by anyone?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare this photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I prepared it myself.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8- by 10-inch photograph, is it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 747?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 747, and
received into evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a simulated photograph showing this
weapon, Commission Exhibit 139, held in approximately the same pose as
it appears to be held in Commission Exhibit 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8- by 10-inch photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you prepared yourself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I prepared the photograph myself, having the rifle
held in approximately the same position as in Exhibit 133A, and I
attempted to duplicate the lighting of the photograph, Exhibit 133A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 748, and
was received into evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Where was this photograph prepared, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was prepared in the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this inside or outside?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Outside.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the roof?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the roof of the Justice Building.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is
blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I blanked out the head because it was one of the
employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head
since it was not pertinent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your
reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A
through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your
simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748--have you formed an opinion concerning
whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same
or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph,
Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit
133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph
of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be
determined whether it was or was not the same.

I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were
the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific
peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the
exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.

I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very
faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive
identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right
side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front
of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, looking at this Commission Exhibit 139,
the weapon, I see that the stock is curved downward, about 8 inches--at
a point approximately 8 inches--from the butt of the weapon, and that
it then recurves upward at an angle of approximately 10° to the plane
of the forepart of the butt--is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will hand you Commission Exhibits 746 A through
E, and I will ask you to select from those exhibits the photograph
which best brings out the various details of the weapon.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that the contour of the stock is best shown
in Commission Exhibit 746E.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you take----

Mr. McCLOY. Is that better shown than in the larger pictures?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe it is; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a marking pencil, Mr. Shaneyfelt, and
circle the point at which the curve and recurve appear to show, and
mark that circle with an A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You circled a point which is marked predominantly by a
highlight, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, without tampering with the original, 133A, I wonder
whether you could show to the Commissioners the highlight as it appears
on the original photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the highlight is right at that point there, the
bright spot at that point.

Mr. McCLOY. I think I might say for the record, I don't believe you
identified the place where these photographs were purported to be sited.

As I understand it these are from the Neely residence?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; I think they were located in the Paine garage.
The Neely residence----

Mr. McCLOY. The photographs were located in the Paine garage. I am
talking about the site of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; I think we will show that with independent
testimony.

Mr. McCLOY. In the garden of the Neely residence.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I will hand you Exhibits 747 and
748, which are the pictures of the rifle and the simulated picture
approximating 133A, and I will ask you to again mark with a circle
designated A the curve and recurve of the stock of 139.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you compare the manner in which the curve and
recurve marked "A" appears on these photographs with the manner in
which it appears on 746, the photograph you have--746E, the photograph
you circled earlier?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At a point approximately 6 to 8 inches from the
base of the stock, where the stock curves downward, there is a nob
formed, and on that nob there is a strong highlight which appears in
photograph 746E, and in the simulated photograph, and the photograph of
the rifle. The actual stock curves slightly around that highlight, and
then recurves back up toward the bolt, and this is visible in Exhibit
746E, and in the simulated photographs 748 and 747.

Mr. EISENBERG. So again in 747 and 748 the recurve appears primarily as
a highlight; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. That is the most outstanding point.

Mr. EISENBERG. I also observe, Mr. Shaneyfelt, the telescopic sight on
Exhibit 139, the weapon. Referring again to 746E, your reproduction,
which shows somewhat greater detail because of the contrast, could you
circle the telescopic sight appearing in that picture, and mark it "B"?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right here.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could again show to the
Commissioners the telescopic sight on the original 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Along that area, just at the base of the hand.
It runs right across from this area to the base of the hand below the
rifle and above the bolt.

Mr. McCLOY. It is quite apparent, isn't it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is quite apparent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, again referring to 746E, could you
circle the end of the weapon, the end of the barrel of the weapon, and
mark it "C"?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, towards the upper right of the point you have
marked as the end of the weapon there is a little mark of some
type--right near the point which you have marked "C."

Is that mark part of the end of the weapon?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I interpret that mark as a shadow on the building,
a slight shadow on the building.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to make that clear, could you draw an arrow within
your circle pointing to the end of the weapon?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a negative which, for
the record, appears to be a negative of 133B, which is the photograph
showing the weapon held slightly above and to the right, and I ask you
if you are familiar with this negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you examined this negative to
determine whether the picture 133B is in fact a print made directly or
indirectly from the negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I have examined it for that purpose
and determined that Exhibit 133B is a print from this negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this negative introduced into evidence as
Exhibit 749?

Mr. McCLOY. Have you any other identification as to this negative as to
where it was found?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record only, nothing that this witness can