Mr.Cunningham. Yes—No. 20 is the sideplate.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is in the diagram.
Mr.Cunningham. No. 42 in the diagram is the trigger. There is a sear arrangement on the trigger, attached to the trigger. If you cock it, the sear arrangement will go up into a notch on the hammer right there, and hold it back—right in here.
Mr.Eisenberg. That isnumber——
Mr.Cunningham. You see, this is the sear.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, could you use numbers?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. No. 39 is the sear, and the sear is attached to the trigger, which is No. 42 in the diagram.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, we are referring to the first page of the exhibit.
Mr.Cunningham. When the trigger is pulled on this particular weapon, or if the hammer is drawn back, there is a notch on the hammer which is engaged by the sear. When the hammer is back you have to pull the trigger to disengage the sear mechanism from the hammer. When you pull back and it is in the notch, that is known as single-action firing.
Also, No. 30 in the diagram is known as the rebound slide or block, and this rebound slide is positioned right behind the trigger on an internal part of the weapon. When the trigger is pulled, the recoil slide runs in a horizontal direction. As you can see by the larger drawing right here—it is a small camming action. It comes up, and is being pushed back.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is in the middle of the second page of the exhibit.
Mr.Cunningham. Now, do you see the rounded portion of the hammer right here, right in front of the notch?
Mr.Eisenberg. That isNo.——
Mr.Cunningham. Number—on No. 42, the hammer, on the bottom, right next to the notch that the sear engages, is a rounded portion. That is—in actuality, this rebound slide acts as an internal safety, so the hammer cannot go forward unless the trigger is pulled or it is cocked, because it is in the way. It cannot go all the way forward, due to the fact that—right there you can see it very plainly in the schematic numbered drawing on page 2.
Mr.Eisenberg. The number you are pointing to is what?
Mr.Cunningham. It is on the trigger,number——
Mr.Eisenberg. Forty-two?
Mr.Cunningham. Not trigger—the hammer, No. 34.
By the way, on the prior 42 I meant 34. I got the wrong number. I was referring to the right piece, but the wrong number.
But you can see this little—it is like a curved portion. It prevents the hammer from going any further forward. The firing pin will not come out of the hole in the breech face.
Now, as soon as you pull the hammer back, the rebound slide, No. 30, is out of the way.
Also, when you pull the weapon through double action, that slide pushes back, and your sear doesn't even touch the groove in the hammer, but it just keeps on going right on through. In other words, you are pulling the trigger strictly against the mainspring all the way. When it is on the notch, it is being held, and the only pressure needed, is to take off the sear.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, to focus this line of questioning, Officer McDonald, who has reported that he was in a struggle with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22d, while Oswald was in possession of this revolver, has stated that—I am reading now from an affidavit, from a letter from Officer McDonald to Mr. J. E. Curry, chief of police of the Dallas Police Force, dated December 3, 1963.
He states in this letter that as he came in contact with Oswald, "I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip, I heard the snap of the hammer, and the pistol crossed over my left cheek. I marked the pistol and six rounds at central station. The primer of one round was dented on misfire at the time of the struggle with the suspect."
Now, in light of your examination of this weapon, and your discussion, could you comment on this statement?
Mr.Cunningham. I personally have fired this weapon numerous times, as well as Special Agents Robert Frazier and Charles Killion. At no time did we ever attempt to fire this weapon that it misfired. It operated excellently and every time we have tried to fire it, it has fired.
It is very possible when he says that he reached across, and he grabbed it, that he locked the cylinder, which I think any trained police officer would do. You want to stop this cylinder from rotating. As soon as you do that, you have actually stopped the hammer falling on a live round, because if the hammer is allowed to go forward again, and it hasn't gotten into the cocked position, the rebound slide, as I was stating before, would block the firing pin from striking the primer of the cartridge.
Mr.Eisenberg. As I understand it, the cylinder is so interconnected with the trigger, that the trigger cannot be pulled all the way back when the cylinder has been firmly grasped?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. And if the hammer has not been pulled all the way back, the rebound slide will not allow the firing pin to strike the cartridge?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Officer McDonald's statement that the primer of one round was dented on misfire: as far as you can tell, could this statement be confirmed?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir; we found nothing to indicate that this weapon's firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, if the firing pin had struck the primer, it could only have been after the trigger was pulled all the way back, under the discussion you have just given us, is that correct?
Mr.Cunningham. Or after cocking.
Mr.Eisenberg. Or after it had been cocked and pulled?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; if it is in the cocked position, grabbing the cylinder will do you no good; due to the fact that in the very operation of cocking this weapon, the cylinder is rotated, and it is ready to be fired.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, in either event, the hammer would have traveled almost to the outermost extremity to which it can go. That is, the hammer would have traveled back all the way, whether it was cocked or fired in a double-action manner. If that had happened, what would the likelihood be that upon returning to the cartridge case, it would not fire the cartridge case—that upon returning to the cartridge, the cartridge would not be fired?
Mr.Cunningham. You mean actually the hammer had gone all the way through its cycle?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr.Cunningham. I can only say that from my examination internally, as well as having fired this weapon—I found no reason why you would get a misfire with this weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, if a man had put his hand between the hammer and the point at which the hammer enters, with the firing pin, into the breech face, would that stop the weapon from firing?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes and no. It is very possible that you can do it. And it hurts, by the way, because the mainspring in this one—you can see the indentation in my thumb—is a very strong mainspring. It would be possible. You could put something in there.
Now, the question is when you pull that object out, would there be enough distance and enough force to set off the primer?
That is quite a moot point, because you could grab the hammer and recock it.
Mr.Eisenberg. Apart from that question, would the man's finger or whatever object he stuck in there be firmly fixed for a second or two, between the hammer and the breech face?
Mr.Cunningham. It could be.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would he feel the impact?
Mr.Cunningham. He would definitely feel the impact—if he had a piece of tissue of his hand in between. Now, if a piece of material, of course, went between it which I don't know how it could happen—if you were struggling over the gun, and he said he grabbed the gun—I don't know how he could have anything except a portion of his hand, and I am sure he would feel it if the trigger was pulled.
Mr.Eisenberg. Finally, if he had just grasped the cylinder, and Oswald had pulled back on the trigger, could you demonstrate the sound which might have been heard?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; you can hold it, and you get a snapping sound—if the gun is grabbed away forcefully, and he would be really grabbing hard. So there could have been an attempt to shoot and a snap would be heard. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. The only thing which is unlikely is that the primer would be dented on the misfire?
Mr.Cunningham. You would not get any denting if the cylinder was held and the gun was jerked forcibly out of Oswald's hands. You would hear the snap, but you would get no mark on the primer whatsoever.
The same thing he could hear if he jerked it out of his hands and he accidentally, somehow, hit the hammer—you would still get a noise, a snapping sound. But the firing pin would not come in contact with the primer of the cartridge.
RepresentativeFord. Because of the discussion we had a few minutes ago?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
RepresentativeFord. Using the diagram that was inserted as Exhibit 593.
Mr.Eisenberg. One final question. Officer McDonald says in this letter, "I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol."
Now, would that grip in itself in any way interfere with the action of the pistol—the revolver?
Mr.Cunningham. I don't know what he means by that.
Mr.Eisenberg. If he means what he says, that is, if he got a secure grip on thebutt——
Mr.Cunningham. If he got a secure grip on the butt, that would take him away.
Mr.Eisenberg. Take him away from what?
Mr.Cunningham. That would take him away from the cylinder. If you are fighting over a weapon, the first thing is to get it off of you and then get hold of the cylinder. And then you can get both hands on the gun to jerk it away. That is what I would do.
As I say, it is the way we are taught. You want to get the gun off of you first, so you are not in direct line, and then go in and attempt to get it away from the person.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, suppose the gun was pulled away from Oswald as Oswald had his grip on the trigger, so that he could not get the trigger through the complete cycle. Would there be a snapping noise made?
Mr.Cunningham. Definitely. If you locked the cylinder and jerked it away, you would get a snapping noise.
Mr.Eisenberg. Suppose you did not lock the cylinder, but for some reason or other the full trigger cycle was not gone through?
Mr.Cunningham. Then you would also get it. It would be difficult, but you could get it.
Mr.Eisenberg. How hard do you have to pull on that trigger in order to fire the weapon?
Mr.Cunningham. For double action—that is, without cocking, it is approximately 11 to 12 pounds, which is normal for this type of weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, I handed you earlier four cartridge cases in a plastic envelope marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, also marked C47-C50. Are you familiar with these cartridge cases?
Mr.Cunningham. I am. I have previously looked at them.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr.Cunningham. They do. Right on the side of each one, right there.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you receive these cartridge cases?
Mr.Cunningham. These cartridge cases were received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
Mr.Eisenberg. For the record, I would like to state that these cartridge cases were found in the immediate proximity of the site at which Officer Tippit was killed. They were found on the ground near the street where Officer Tippit was killed on November 22.
RepresentativeFord. These are the ones that were found in the street near the automobile?
Mr.Eisenberg. Well, either in the street or in a lawn in front of a private residence, or semiapartment house.
RepresentativeFord. I see. In other words, they were possibly some of those that were on the lawn in the front of 400?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes, sir; again, for the record only, since this witness is unable to testify as to where they were picked up. The mechanism of this revolver is such that the shells are not ejected until the user decides to eject them—unlike a bolt-action rifle where the cartridge must be ejected where you shoot from.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these four cartridge cases introduced into evidence as 594.
RepresentativeFord. They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 594, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe the make of these cartridge cases?
Mr.Cunningham. Two of these cartridge cases are Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge cases. The other two cartridge cases are Western .38 Special cartridge cases.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, you examined earlier six bullets which I told you had been—six cartridges which I told you had been taken from the chamber of the revolver which we have been looking at.
Those cartridges were divided into three Remington-Peters and three Western, were they not?
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that—or 50-50. So that the division is the same, the division of the cartridge cases is the same, as between Remington-Peters and Western, as the division of the cartridges found—which I told you were found in the chamber?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr.Cunningham. I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr.Cunningham. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge cases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you perform this examination, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. On November 30, 1963.
Mr.Eisenberg. And how did you make the examination?
Mr.Cunningham. I first marked these cartridge cases upon receiving them. There were four. I would like to state, first of all that Special Agents Frazier and Killion also independently examined these four cartridge cases, and made the same comparisons that I am going to state. I am telling you what I found—although they independently arrived at the same conclusion.
The cartridge cases were first marked and examined for the presence of any individual characteristic marks on these cartridge cases whereby it would be possible to identify them as having been fired in a weapon. I then test-fired Commission Exhibit 143, using similar ammunition, and microscopically compared the four cartridge case—one at a time—that is Commission Exhibit 594—with the tests obtained from the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.
Mr.Eisenberg. I hand you here two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases?
Mr.Cunningham. I am.
Mr.Eisenberg. And can you describe these cartridge cases to us?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. One is a Western .38 Special cartridge case. The other is a Winchester .38 Special cartridge case.
Mr.Eisenberg. And how did you get possession of these cartridge cases?
Mr.Cunningham. These were test-fired in Commission Exhibit No. 143, by myself.
Mr.Eisenberg. So these are the test cartridges you were referring to?
Mr.Cunningham. That was a portion of them; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as Commission Exhibit 595?
RepresentativeFord. They will be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 595, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Cunningham. I also would like to state that we were test firing Remington-Peters, also.
Mr.Eisenberg. How many test cartridges were fired, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. To begin with, three. And we have since fired the weapon many times.
RepresentativeBoggs. How many cartridges were fired by Oswald?
Mr.Eisenberg. We are going to get into that. This is a difficult question which you are going to have to make a decision on. So I would rather develop that slowly.
I notice that one of the cartridge cases in Exhibit 595 is split on the side, Mr. Cunningham.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why is that?
Mr.Cunningham. That is due to the oversized chambers of this revolver. As I previously testified, the weapon was originally chambered for the .38 S&W, which is a wider cartridge than .38 Special. And when a .38 Special is fired in this particular weapon, the case form fits to the shape of each chamber. And in one of those cartridges, the metal just let go. Normally it does not; however this one particular case split slightly.
RepresentativeFord. Does that have any impact on the rest of the operation?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I test-fired the weapon originally, and I didn't even know it had split until I tried to eject it.
Mr.Eisenberg. You mentioned before, by the way, that there had been no misfires with this weapon. Approximately how many times was the weapon fired altogether?
Mr.Cunningham. I would have no way of knowing exactly, but I imagine we are approaching close to a hundred times by now.
Mr.Eisenberg. And no misfires?
Mr.Cunningham. And no misfires.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cunningham, did you take photographs of the cartridge cases which you have just identified as having been fired from 143, and the cartridge cases which are Commission Exhibit No. 595?
Mr.Cunningham. I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you make your identification on the basis of the photographs or on the basis of your examination under the microscope?
Mr.Cunningham. My conclusions were arrived at strictly on the basis of my examinations. These photographs in no way entered into the identification and are strictly for demonstrative purposes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you show us these photographs, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Let's take them one at a time, and let's introduce them as exhibits, one at a time. I have here—you have given me five photographs. Did you take each of these photographs?
Mr.Cunningham. As a matter of fact; I did. I personally took these.
Mr.Eisenberg. And these are photographs of what?
Mr.Cunningham. They are photographs of the individual characteristic marks on the base and in the firing-pin impression on test cartridge cases obtained from Oswald's revolver, and also the marks on the base and in the firing-pin impression on the cartridge cases, Commission Exhibit No. 594.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted, if you would, as 596, 597, 598, 599, and 600.
RepresentativeFord. They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 596 through 600, and received in evidence.)
RepresentativeFord. Will the witness explain to the Commission what they mean?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; he will. Did you also make a photograph of the breech face of the weapon, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. I did. I didn't take this photograph. I was present when it was taken. I have compared the negative with the actual breech face of Commission Exhibit 143, and I found it to be a true and accurate reproduction.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you show us that photograph? May I have that admitted as 601, Mr. Chairman?
RepresentativeFord. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 601, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you show us the area of the revolver which corresponds to the area shown in the photograph, Exhibit 601?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. The cylinder was first removed to facilitate the photograph. That is very easily done by removing the forward sideplate screw, which is just above the trigger, which allows the crane to slide right out, and the cylinder removed.
The photograph was taken from the right side, looking in toward the firing-pin hole.
RepresentativeBoggs. Just the way you are holding the revolver now?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; just the way I am holding it now.
RepresentativeBoggs. With the cylinder removed?
Mr.Cunningham. With the cylinder removed.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, there is a cylindrical-shaped object in the center of that picture, Mr. Cunningham. Could you describe what that is—right in the center of the picture?
Mr.Cunningham. That is known by two different names. It is known as a hammer-nose bushing, or a recoil block. It is—Smith and Wesson presses this particular block in. It forms the hole through which the firing pin comes out of the breech face.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is, the firing pin strikes the center of the cartridge, or the primer, as it is called?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Which causes the cartridge to fire. Now, what is the magnification of the photograph of the breech face?
Mr.Cunningham. Of the breech face, it is approximately 17 times.
Mr.Eisenberg. There are a number of markings or lines on this breech face. Are these the microscopic characteristics which reproduce on the cartridge cases?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. And are the microscopic characteristics of this breech face individual to this weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr.Cunningham. They are.
Mr.Eisenberg. This is your method of determining that a given cartridge case has been fired from a given weapon?
Mr.Cunningham. The breech face marks, as well as the individual imperfections in the firing pin.
RepresentativeBoggs. Let me ask a very elementary question, the answer to which I used to know years ago, but I have forgotten. Just exactly what does the firing pin do? What happens after that strikes?
Mr.Cunningham. Well, it is easier to start with the cartridge itself. The components of a cartridge are a bullet, a cartridge case, a primer in the base of the cartridge case, and powder.
Now, the primer is made out of a very soft metal that can be dented. These primers at manufacture are filled with, basically, an explosive. For instance, Remington-Peters cartridges have PETN, which is one of Du Pont's explosives. RDX is used as one of the components of Western cartridge cases, as well as lead styphnate, lead azides, and other explosive materials.
When the firing pin strikes, there is a small explosion. Fire is givenoff——
RepresentativeBoggs. How does that bring about the explosion?
Mr.Cunningham. It is sensitive to detonation by a sharp blow.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is, the primer is sensitive?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; it is an explosive. To differentiate from the powder, which is not explosive. Powder burns.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, I have taken Commission Exhibit No. 591, which consists of an unfired cartridge, and there is a round circle in the middle of the base of that cartridge. Is that the primer?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. That is actually a separate entity that has been pressed into a hole in the base of the cartridge case.
Mr.Eisenberg. And that is more sensitive to shock than the powder in the cartridge case itself?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. Powder is relatively insensitive. You don't set off powder by a blow.
Mr.Eisenberg. But the primer is quite sensitive?
Mr.Cunningham. That is normally. I am talking about a normal blow. The primer is very sensitive. I just named a few of the components, but there are many other compounds in priming mixtures, which are considered secret by each company. But I know that they are explosive mixtures. And the actual striking of the firing pin—with enough force—causes a small detonation to occur. The fire given off, goes through holes in the base, and into where the powder is, and starts the powder burning. It is the gases that are given off when powderburns, which actually cause the bullet to move forward—the pressure builds up behind it, and the bullet goes forward.
RepresentativeBoggs. That is a very good explanation. Thank you.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, I wonder whether you could review the pictures with us, and discuss some of the markings which you found in those pictures that led you to decide that the cartridge cases shown therein have been fired in the revolver we have been discussing.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. The first photograph is a photograph of the breech-face marks, the individual characteristic marks remaining on test cartridge cases obtained from the revolver, and on the C-50 cartridge case that was recovered from the scene. C-50 is on the left. C-15 is on the right. And the hairline, the magnified hairline down the center separates the two cartridge cases.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, is the invariable procedure to put the test cartridge on the right and the suspect cartridge on the left? Or at least is that your standard procedure?
Mr.Cunningham. I usually put the suspect on the left.
Mr.Eisenberg. Well, in the photographs at any rate, in all the photographs we are going to see, the test cartridge is on the right, and the suspect cartridge is on the left?
Mr.Cunningham. Usually.
Mr.Eisenberg. And what is the magnification of this photograph?
Mr.Cunningham. It is approximately 91 times.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you go on, please?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. On the left you will see the stamping, "SP", which is in the cartridge case itself. And over here next to the hairline you will see the individual characteristic marks. And you will see similar marks continuing on the other side of the hairline.
On the C-15, the revolver side, you will see a dark portion running vertically down through. That is the space that the Congressman was asking about—how it fits the primer. That is the small space at the top where the primer fits into the base of the cartridge. And over here to the right of that dark mark you will see a lighter colored object with more individual characteristic marks, that is actually the primer, the individual characteristic marks on the primer of the test cartridge case.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, as I understand it, in effect this picture can be viewed as a composite cartridge? That is, the picture on the left begins where the picture on the right ends, in terms of position on the cartridge case?
Mr.Cunningham. In essence; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the point of the picture is to show that when you make this composite, the lines on each case show up as if there were no composite at all, but as if they were simply one case, because they are so close together in microscopic markings?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; in proximity. And they are brought together.
RepresentativeBoggs. And so similar?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
RepresentativeBoggs. What is the magnification again?
Mr.Cunningham. That is approximately 91 times.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are there any dissimilarities on the two—on the test and the suspect cartridge cases, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; there are always dissimilarities. However, the similarities so outweigh the dissimilarities that it is an identification. If there are no dissimilarities, I would be suspicious that it would be faked—using the same photograph and just cut and put together.
There are always dissimilarities.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you explain why there are always dissimilarities when the two cartridge cases are fired in the very same weapon?
Mr.Cunningham. The metal is different; one cartridge case is slightly harder than another; for some reason the cartridge case wasn't driven back, upon firing, into the breech face exactly the same way. In other words, these marks are reproducing, but you don't get exactly the same hit. It would not be possible to get exactly the same hit time after time with different cartridge cases.
RepresentativeFord. What ratio of similarities and dissimilarities do you have to have?
Mr.Cunningham. There is no ratio. Based upon the examiner's training and experience, he comes to the conclusion that a particular cartridge case or bullet has been fired from a particular weapon. As in this photograph, you can see the dissimilarity is very slight. These are excellent marks.
RepresentativeFord. There was never any doubt in your mind, then?
Mr.Cunningham. None whatsoever.
Mr.Eisenberg. You say these are particularly strong marks?
Mr.Cunningham. These are very, very, good marks.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, these marks are on the brass, so to speak, of the cartridge case, rather than in the primer?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; that is correct. Actually, it is brass, it is nickelplated brass.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that unusual, to be able to pick up such strong marks in the brass as opposed to the primer of the cartridge case?
Mr.Cunningham. It is not really unusual; no. It depends upon the particular weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you also examine the microscopic markings on the primer?
Mr.Cunningham. I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you found what?
Mr.Cunningham. I could identify the weapon on the basis of the imperfections, individual characteristic marks, in the firing-pin impression.
Mr.Eisenberg. The firing-pin impression. And what about the area of the primer around the firing-pin impression?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. In other words, each of these three areas—the brass, the primer, and the firing-pin impression—carries individually characteristic microscopic marks which would be the basis of identification?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, you cannot make a flat statement.
Mr.Eisenberg. No; in this case.
Mr.Cunningham. In this particular case, I knew at the time I was examining it, all of the firing-pin impressions were excellent, and some portions of the breech-face marks were. But you cannot say they will mark in exactly the same place, due to the fact that these cases will mark in different areas, they are different cartridges, they have been fired at a different time. You will get good areas, and then in another area your marks will not be sufficient. In other words, it is just the way the cartridge case was driven back at the time of the explosion in the primer, and the bullet is fired.
They can hit slightly different, hit deeper on one side, be lighter on the other. When a primer is set in a little bit deeper, it will not pick up these marks on the primer part, whereas the firing-pin impression can be excellent—one portion of the case will be excellent. But each one is a different examination. And many times they will mark in different places.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you show us the next photograph?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. This is Commission document No. 597. This is a photograph, photomicrograph, rather, of the breech face marks on two cartridge cases. The one on the left is C-49, which is our number C-49, and the one on the right of the hairline is a test cartridge case from this revolver.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is the magnification?
Mr.Cunningham. This one was approximately 120 times.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is the magnification equal on both sides?
Mr.Cunningham. It is.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that true of all the pictures you are showing us today?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. The negative is taken at exactly the same time. You are photographing through a single eyepiece, with a focusable hairline down the middle, whatever is on both stages of your comparison microscope.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you turn that picture around again?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. These marking are also on the brass, or outside of the primer?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. And again it is a sort of a composite photograph?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, these markings seem a little less distinct than the others.
Mr.Cunningham. It is in a different area. On this particular case, the marks are excellent. You can see down in here some nice fine marks, and then the heavier marks coming across there. They are good marks.
RepresentativeFord. Could you point out, as you look at the photograph, what you consider good similarities, which would help you in the identification?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. Now, this is not the only point of similarity. These strictly demonstrate the type of marks. There are many more marks on these cartridge cases, all over the base of the cartridge cases, as well as in the firing-pin impressions. But Mr. Eisenberg asked that we have a photograph to demonstrate the type of marks on each particular cartridge case.
RepresentativeFord. This is only illustrative, then?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct. My identification was not based on this picture. It was based on my complete microscopic examination and comparison of test cartridge cases from the revolver with this particular cartridge case.
RepresentativeFord. Could you show me the similarities?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. You see, you have your large—it is slightly out of focus up towards thisend——
Mr.Eisenberg. Excuse me, as you demonstrate this, could you mark with circles and with a number what you are talking about, so when the record is looked at it is clear what you are talking about?
Mr.Cunningham. All right—up here, near the top, you will find a very deep ridge, which I will mark "1." As you are coming down, you will find another real deep ridge, which I will mark "2."
When you consider this is 120 times, this is actually quite close together, except it has been magnified—you have a set of marks resembling "railroad tracks," which I will mark "3."
You will find over here—you go down to your next step. There are similarities in between there. The next big set of "railroad tracks" I will mark "4."
Then you move down, and you will find another similarity, four nice marks down near the bottom. This whole area is similar. You are going out of focus, but you can see these "railroad tracks." They are running along very nicely, and that is being marked "No. 5."
The next photograph is a photograph—on the left of thehairline——
Mr.Eisenberg. What Commission exhibit is that?
Mr.Cunningham. No. 598.
On the left of the hairline is our number C-47, the cartridge case. On the right is a test from the C-15 revolver, which is Commission Exhibit 143. These also are breech-face marks in the base of the cartridge cases.
On the right you can see the space between the primer and the base of the cartridge case, and also the individual characteristic marks in the primer.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is the magnification?
Mr.Cunningham. This is approximately 123½ times.
Mr.Eisenberg. Congressman Ford, would you care for a discussion of this?
RepresentativeFord. No. The one previously gave the basis.
Mr.Cunningham. Actually, this seems to be a slightly larger area. You have again the same "railroad tracks," all up and down, going across the two cartridge cases.
RepresentativeFord. To the layman that seems evenmore——
Mr.Cunningham. Demonstrative, yes. I don't know if you saw the photographs of the cartridge cases in the rifle, the assassination rifle. Those marks are just as distinctive as the more demonstrative marks in this particular breech face. But to a trained examiner, they stand out. They are harder to see than those on these particular photographs. And even in these photographs, the photograph you were asking me, they were not quite as vivid as they are on this photograph.
But there, again, it goes back to what I told you—each cartridge case will strike the breech face in a slightly different way, and you don't get complete similarity.
Mr.Eisenberg. To illustrate your point, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you Commission Exhibit 565, which is a photograph, which was explained yesterday, of the cartridge case fired in the rifle, and a test cartridge.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, this demonstrates it very well.
This is the very rough surface on the bolt of the assassination rifle.
Mr.Eisenberg. The bolt face?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; the bolt face, and it is just as distinctive as these striae on my photographs of the breech-face marks of the revolver.
Mr.Eisenberg. By "striae" you mean lines?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; just lines. But it is more difficult to see, due to the character of these marks—even though one type of mark is just as characteristic as the other type.
Mr.Eisenberg. As I understand your testimony, to the trained observer the photograph shown—the cartridges shown in the photographs on 565 can be as easily identified with each other as the cartridges shown on, let's say, 598?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. But to the layman it is easier to see the similarities on 598, with its striae, than 565 with its grosser imperfections?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; due to the type of marks on each of the cartridge cases, one is easier for the layman to see.
The next photograph is Commission document No. 599. On the left of the hairline is our number C-48, the cartridge case. On the right is the test cartridge case from Oswald's revolver.
Now, here you asked about what happens—somebody asked what happens on the other side. Here you have the other side. In this particular cartridgecase——
Mr.Eisenberg. That is the other half of the cartridge case?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. In other words, you are seeing the primer, the space between the primer and the brass on the cartridge case itself—on the questioned cartridge case this time—and the base of the cartridge case of the test is on the right. It looks like it is one. It is just the opposite side of the cartridge case from the other photographs.
In other words, you take the photograph of the most demonstrative marks—which look real good, naturally. The examination is of all the marks. That is the big difference. And this time you will see—it is very demonstrative—on each side of the hairline, a great deal of similarity between these marks.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the magnification here?
Mr.Cunningham. It is approximately 96 times.
Mr.Rhyne. Why do you vary the magnification?
Mr.Cunningham. The magnification of every photograph you take, sir, depends on the length of the bellows of the camera. The microscope will have a set magnification. But each time that you focus the length of the bellows can change, which will increase or decrease the magnification. Also with some photographs you mask off areas which are out of focus. You certainly would not want to print a whole negative where you have distortion. You bring into focus one small portion of the surface of that bullet.
If, say, one surface of the bullet is slightly flattened and the other surface is rounded—the rounded surface will be going out of focus much faster than the flattened side, and it would be very confusing. That is the type of thing. You mask differently.
Then when you have the negatives enlarged, you can enlarge one negative more than you do the other. So it can be based either on the length of the bellows, or on the amount you have enlarged it.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that all the photographs?
Mr.Cunningham. No, there is one more.
This photograph is a photograph of the firing-pin impression of the C-49 cartridge case, and the firing-pin impression on the test from Oswald's revolver, and this is Commission document 600.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the magnification?
Mr.Cunningham. 120 times, approximately.
Now, here you have very distinctive marks, but it is much more difficult for a layman to pick them out. That is the reason I have circled these marks andnumbered them, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, on each side of the hairline. On the left is C-49, and on the right is the cartridge case obtained from C-143.
You have this very large, very distinctive imperfection.
Mr.Eisenberg. You are pointing to circle number 1?
Mr.Cunningham. In number 1. Also, in number 2, it looks like a little set of railroad tracks, and this one with the same shape coming down through. You can see this little piece and this little piece. Over here you have a real small "railroad track."
Mr.Eisenberg. That is number 3?
Mr.Cunningham. That is number 3. And it looks like a little hump or bump, and that is very distinctive.
There is a slight overlapping here, but you can see it is sort of aVshape—in number 4, very distinctive. Down here you have aZline with a line through it, number 6. I only brought those out to show six of the similarities. If you go through you can pick out places in the firing-pin impressions, that are similar, by yourself.
Mr.Eisenberg. On the top of each of these photos, C-49 and C-15, there is a large comma-shaped indentation, or comma-shaped mark. What is that caused by, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. That is caused by a very large imperfection—a very distinctive imperfection in the firing pin itself. And here it is.
Here I am looking at Commission document 601, the breech face and firing pin. If you will look at the firing pin in this photograph, you will see over on this side, this very large imperfection. It is like a facet—it is a flattened side. It shows up in the photograph of the firing pin.
It is indented—since it is missing from the firing pin, it will show as a flattened area in the firing-pin impression. In other words, what is concave on the firing pin itself, will be convex in the firing-pin impression.
Mr.Eisenberg. If there are no further questions on the cartridge cases, I will move on to the bullets.
RepresentativeFord. Mr. Boggs?
RepresentativeBoggs. Just one question. What you are saying is that there is no doubt about the fact that the cartridges that you examined came from this revolver?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
RepresentativeBoggs. And, of course, there is no question about the fact that this was Mr. Oswald's revolver. Is that so?
Mr.Eisenberg. That will be proved, I hope, before the end of the hearings. This witness cannot himself testify.
RepresentativeBoggs. I understand that. I am asking you.
Mr.Eisenberg. There is no question, I don't think, about that. That will be the subject of testimony.
RepresentativeBoggs. I know—we are not following the exact rules of evidence around here.
Mr.Eisenberg. We will connect it up.
RepresentativeBoggs. In that connection—how many bullets were recovered?
Mr.Eisenberg. Four were recovered from the body of the officer. But as you will see from the testimony which we will get into right now, that doesn't mean four shots were fired, because there is a slight problem here. I would rather have the witness develop it.
RepresentativeBoggs. You are being very mysterious now, but it is all right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four bullets in plastic cases marked C-251, C-252, Q-13, and C-253, which have also certain other markings on them, and I ask you if you are familiar with these bullets.
Mr.Cunningham. I am.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are your marks on these bullets?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, they are.
Mr.Eisenberg. For the record, I would like to state these four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.
When did you receive these bullets, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. The Q-13 bullet was delivered to the Laboratory the firsttime on the morning of November 23d, and it was delivered to the Laboratory by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas office of the FBI.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the remaining bullets?
Mr.Cunningham. By the way, it was returned to Dallas, and then it was returned to the Laboratory, delivered again by Special Agent Vincent Drain, of the Dallas office, also, Special Agent Warren De Brueys. They delivered our Q-13 a second time on November 27th.
RepresentativeFord. When you say "our," what do you mean by "our"?
Mr.Cunningham. In other words, to facilitate reporting in the Laboratory, we usually give these items a Q or a K number. A Q number is a questioned item, like a bullet from a body, and a known is a gun, the K is a known, like a weapon.
That is for reporting purposes. But since this case began, we have so much evidence, and we have received so much evidence, it was considered practical to reassign a C number by us—like Mr. Eisenberg said, they are C-253, C-262, and C-251. They also have a Q number. Q-13 is C-13. That is the reason why I said "our" Q-13.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you examine Q-13, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. November 23d, the first time. That was when I made my examination. It was returned on the other date. But it was examined on 11-23.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Q-13 has in it a brass colored object, as well as a bullet—that is, the box containing Q-13, your Q-13.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes. That was identified as the button—the button—from the coat of Officer Tippit. The bullet struck that button and when the bullet was removed from the body, the button was also removed.
RepresentativeBoggs. Went right in?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. I have no first-hand knowledge. But that is what it was identified as.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like these four bullets admitted as 602, 603, 604, and 605.
RepresentativeFord. They will be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 602 through 605, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you receive what are now marked 603, 604, and 605, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr.Cunningham. They were received in the FBI Laboratory on March 16th of this year, and they were submitted to the Laboratory by the Dallas office of the FBI.
Mr.Eisenberg. When were they examined?
Mr.Cunningham. They were examined on March 17, 1964.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you explain the great time difference between the receipt and examination of the first bullet and the receipt and examination of the last three bullets?
Mr.Cunningham. At your request, you asked us to postpone the examination of these three bullets in order to facilitate other examinations you wished more expedited than the examinations of these bullets.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now you are explaining the time between the receipt and the examination?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, can you explain why these threebullets——
Mr.Cunningham. Oh, between the first submission and the second?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; between the submission of the first bullet, and the submission to you of the second three bullets.
Mr.Cunningham. Well, it is my understanding the first bullet was turned over to the FBI office in Dallas by the Dallas Police Department. They reportedly said this was the only bullet that was recovered, or that they had. Later at the request of this Commission, we went back to the Dallas Police Department and found in their files that they actually had three other bullets.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, did you examine these four bullets to determine whether they had been fired in the revolver, Exhibit No. 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr.Cunningham. I am sorry.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you examine the four bullets which have just been marked into evidence to determine whether those four bullets had been fired in the revolver, No. 143?
Mr.Cunningham. I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And can you give us your results, your conclusions?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit 602, which is our Q-13 bullet, I found to be a .38 Special, copper-coated lead bullet of Western-Winchester manufacture which had been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist. I also found the other threebullets——
Mr.Eisenberg.603——
Mr.Cunningham. 603, 604, and 605, Commission Exhibits, which are C-253, C-252, and C-251, respectively. I found that 251 andC-253——
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you give us the Commission numbers?
Mr.Cunningham. Commission Exhibits 605, 603, they, too, were .38 Special copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, which had been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist.
The grooves in the barrel ran in a right-hand direction, a right twist.
Mr.Eisenberg. That accounts for three bullets.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
And Commission Exhibit 604, which is C-252, is a .38 Special Remington-Peters lead bullet, which has been fired from a barrel having five lands and grooves, right twist.
Mr.Eisenberg. Winchester-Western, you say?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir; that isRemington——
Mr.Eisenberg. Let's go over that.
We have603——
Mr.Cunningham. 602, 603, and 605 are your copper-coated lead bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture.
Mr.Eisenberg. And 604?
Mr.Cunningham. And 604 is a Remington-Peters lead bullet.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr.Cunningham. No; I was not.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you explain why?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired—these bullets themselves—had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
RepresentativeFord. When you say this weapon, will you identify what you mean by "this weapon"?
Mr.Cunningham. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.
Mr.Eisenberg. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that thegun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled for the .38 Special?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?
Mr.Cunningham. I don't know if wobble is the correct word. But as the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably getting an erratic passage, so the marks won't reproduce.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is it possible to say that the bullets were not fired from this weapon, No. 143?
Mr.Cunningham. No, it is not; since the rifling characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143—this revolver—are the same as those present on the four bullets.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
RepresentativeBoggs. How would you account for that?
Mr.Cunningham. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.
RepresentativeBoggs. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
Mr.Cunningham. It is not possible.
RepresentativeBoggs. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in thatgun——
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
RepresentativeBoggs. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
RepresentativeBoggs. And you cannot—having the cartridge case and the bullet—you cannot match them up?
Mr.Cunningham. No, you cannot.
RepresentativeBoggs. There is no way to do it?
Mr.Cunningham. No; other than what I have said. In other words, you can tell manufacture. But there is no way of—that I know of—of connecting or identifying a particular bullet having been loaded into a particular cartridge case.
RepresentativeBoggs. But there is no doubt about the fact that the four cartridge cases came from firing in that weapon?