chapter II

, had no special design or equipment which would have permitted the Secret Service agent riding in the driver’s compartment to move into the passenger section without hindrance or delay. Had the vehicle been so designed it is possible that an agent riding in the front seat could have reached the President in time to protect him from the second and fatal shot to hit the President. However, such access to the President was interfered with both by the metal bar some 15 inches above the back of the front seat and by the passengers in the jump seats. In contrast, the Vice Presidential vehicle, although not specially designed for that purpose, had no passenger in a jump seat between Agent Youngblood and Vice President Johnson to interfere with Agent Youngblood’s ability to take a protective position in the passenger compartment before the third shot was fired.[C8-208]

The assassination suggests that it would have been of prime importance in the protection of the President if the Presidential car permitted immediate access to the President by a Secret Service agent at the first sign of danger. At that time the agents on the running boards of the followup car were expected to perform such a function. However, these agents could not reach the President’s car when it was traveling at an appreciable rate of speed. Even if the car is traveling more slowly, the delay involved in reaching the President may be crucial. It is clear that at the time of the shots in Dallas, Agent Clinton J. Hill leaped to the President’s rescue as quickly as humanly possible. Even so, analysis of the motion picture films taken by amateur photographer Zapruder reveals that Hill first placed his hand on the Presidential car at frame 343, 30 frames and therefore approximately 1.6 seconds after the President was shot in the head.[C8-209] About 3.7 seconds after the President received this wound, Hill had both feet on the car and was climbing aboard to assist President and Mrs. Kennedy.[C8-210]

_Planning for motorcade contingencies._--In response to inquiry by the Commission regarding the instructions to agents in a motorcade of emergency procedures to be taken in a contingency such as that which actually occurred, the Secret Service responded:

The Secret Service has consistently followed two general principles in emergencies involving the President. All agents are so instructed. The first duty of the agents in the motorcade is to attempt to cover the President as closely as possible and practicable and to shield him by attempting to place themselves between the President and any source of danger. Secondly, agents are instructed to remove the President as quickly as possible from known or impending danger. Agents are instructed that it is not their responsibility to investigate or evaluate a present danger, but to consider any untoward circumstances as serious and to afford the President maximum protection at all times. No responsibility rests upon those agents near the President for the identification or arrest of any assassin or an attacker. Their primary responsibility is to stay with and protect the President.

Beyond these two principles the Secret Service believes a detailed contingency or emergency plan is not feasible because the variations possible preclude effective planning. A number of steps are taken, however, to permit appropriate steps to be taken in an emergency. For instance, the lead car always is manned by Secret Service agents familiar with the area and with local law enforcement officials; the radio net in use in motorcades is elaborate and permits a number of different means of communication with various local points. A doctor is in the motorcade.[C8-211]

This basic approach to the problem of planning for emergencies is sound. Any effort to prepare detailed contingency plans might well have the undesirable effect of inhibiting quick and imaginative responses. If the advance preparation is thorough, and the protective devices and techniques employed are sound, those in command should be able to direct the response appropriate to the emergency.

The Commission finds that the Secret Service agents in the motorcade who were immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired. Their actions demonstrate that the President and the Nation can expect courage and devotion to duty from the agents of the Secret Service.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission’s review of the provisions for Presidential protection at the time of President Kennedy’s trip to Dallas demonstrates the need for substantial improvements. Since the assassination, the Secret Service and the Department of the Treasury have properly taken the initiative in reexamining major aspects of Presidential protection. Many changes have already been made and others are contemplated, some of them in response to the Commission’s questions and informal suggestions.

Assassination a Federal Crime

There was no Federal criminal jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy. Had there been reason to believe that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, Federal jurisdiction could have been asserted; it has long been a Federal crime to conspire to injure any Federal officer, on account of, or while he is engaged in, the lawful discharge of the duties of his office.[C8-212] Murder of the President has never been covered by Federal law, however, so that once it became reasonably clear that the killing was the act of a single person, the State of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction.

It is anomalous that Congress has legislated in other ways touching upon the safety of the Chief Executive or other Federal officers, without making an attack on the President a crime. Threatening harm to the President is a Federal offense,[C8-213] as is advocacy of the overthrow of the Government by the assassination of any of its officers.[C8-214] The murder of Federal judges, U.S. attorneys and marshals, and a number of other specifically designated Federal law enforcement officers is a Federal crime.[C8-215] Equally anomalous are statutory provisions which specifically authorize the Secret Service to protect the President, without authorizing it to arrest anyone who harms him. The same provisions authorize the Service to arrest without warrant persons committing certain offenses, including counterfeiting and certain frauds involving Federal checks or securities.[C8-216] The Commission agrees with the Secret Service[C8-217] that it should be authorized to make arrests without warrant for all offenses within its jurisdiction, as are FBI agents and Federal marshals.[C8-218]

There have been a number of efforts to make assassination a Federal crime, particularly after the assassination of President McKinley and the attempt on the life of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt.[C8-219] In 1902 bills passed both Houses of Congress but failed of enactment when the Senate refused to accept the conference report.[C8-220] A number of bills were introduced immediately following the assassination of President Kennedy.[C8-221]

The Commission recommends to the Congress that it adopt legislation which would:

Punish the murder or manslaughter of, attempt or conspiracy to murder, kidnaping of and assault upon

the President, Vice President, or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of President, the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect,

whether or not the act is committed while the victim is in the performance of his official duties or on account of such performance.

Such a statute would cover the President and Vice President or, in the absence of a Vice President, the person next in order of succession. During the period between election and inauguration, the President-elect and Vice-President-elect would also be covered. Restricting the coverage in this way would avoid unnecessary controversy over the inclusion or exclusion of other officials who are in the order of succession or who hold important governmental posts. In addition, the restriction would probably eliminate a need for the requirement which has been urged as necessary for the exercise of Federal power, that the hostile act occur while the victim is engaged in or because of the performance of official duties.[C8-222] The governmental consequences of assassination of one of the specified officials give the United States ample power to act for its own protection.[C8-223] The activities of the victim at the time an assassination occurs and the motive for the assassination bear no relationship to the injury to the United States which follows from the act. This point was ably made in the 1902 debate by Senator George F. Hoar, the sponsor of the Senate bill:

* * * what this bill means to punish is the crime of interruption of the Government of the United States and the destruction of its security by striking down the life of the person who is actually in the exercise of the executive power, or of such persons as have been constitutionally and lawfully provided to succeed thereto in case of a vacancy. It is important to this country that the interruption shall not take place for an hour * * *[C8-224]

Enactment of this statute would mean that the investigation of any of the acts covered and of the possibility of a further attempt would be conducted by Federal law enforcement officials, in particular, the FBI with the assistance of the Secret Service.[C8-225] At present, Federal agencies participate only upon the sufferance of the local authorities. While the police work of the Dallas authorities in the early identification and apprehension of Oswald was both efficient and prompt, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who strongly supports such legislation, testified that the absence of clear Federal jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy led to embarrassment and confusion in the subsequent investigation by Federal and local authorities.[C8-226] In addition, the proposed legislation will insure that any suspects who are arrested will be Federal prisoners, subject to Federal protection from vigilante justice and other threats.[C8-227]

Committee of Cabinet Officers

As our Government has become more complex, agencies other than the Secret Service have become involved in phases of the overall problem of protecting our national leaders. The FBI is the major domestic investigating agency of the United States, while the CIA has the primary responsibility for collecting intelligence overseas to supplement information acquired by the Department of State. The Secret Service must rely in large part upon the investigating capacity and experience of these and other agencies for much of its information regarding possible dangers to the President. The Commission believes that it is necessary to improve the cooperation among these agencies and to emphasize that the task of Presidential protection is one of broad national concern.

The Commission suggests that consideration might be given to assigning to a Cabinet-level committee or the National Security Council (which is responsible for advising the President respecting the coordination of departmental policies relating to the national security)[C8-228] the responsibility to review and oversee the protective activities of the Secret Service and the other Federal agencies that assist in safeguarding the President. The Committee should include the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, and, if the Council is used, arrangements should be made for the attendance of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General at any meetings which are concerned with Presidential protection.[C8-229] The Council already includes, in addition to the President and Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense and has a competent staff.

The foremost assignment of the Committee would be to insure that the maximum resources of the Federal Government are fully engaged in the job of protecting the President, by defining responsibilities clearly and overseeing their execution. Major needs of personnel or other resources might be met more easily on its recommendation than they have been in the past.

The Committee would be able to provide guidance in defining the general nature of domestic and foreign dangers to Presidential security. As improvements are recommended for the advance detection of potential threats to the President, it could act as a final review board. The expert assistance and resources which it could draw upon would be

## particularly desirable in this complex and sensitive area.

This arrangement would provide a continuing high-level contact for agencies that may wish to consult respecting particular protective measures. For various reasons the Secret Service has functioned largely as an informal part of the White House staff, with the result that it has been unable, as a practical matter, to exercise sufficient influence over the security precautions which surround Presidential

## activities. A Cabinet-level committee which is actively concerned with

these problems would be able to discuss these matters more effectively with the President.

Responsibilities for Presidential Protection

The assignment of the responsibility of protecting the President to an agency of the Department of the Treasury was largely an historical accident.[C8-230] The Secret Service was organized as a division of the Department of the Treasury in 1865, to deal with counterfeiting. In 1894, while investigating a plot to assassinate President Cleveland, the Service assigned a small protective detail of agents to the White House. Secret Service men accompanied the President and his family to their vacation home in Massachusetts and special details protected him in Washington, on trips, and at special functions. These informal and part-time arrangements led to more systematic protection in 1902, after the assassination of President McKinley; the Secret Service, then the only Federal investigative agency, assumed full-time responsibility for the safety of the President. Since that time, the Secret Service has had and exercised responsibility for the physical protection of the President and also for the preventive investigation of potential threats against the President.

Although the Secret Service has had the primary responsibility for the protection of the President, the FBI, which was established within the Department of Justice in 1908, has had in recent years an increasingly important role to play. In the appropriations of the FBI there has recurred annually an item for the “protection of the person of the President of the United States,” which first appeared in the appropriation of the Department of Justice in 1910 under the heading “Miscellaneous Objects.”[C8-231] Although the FBI is not charged with the physical protection of the President, it does have an assignment, as do other Government agencies, in the field of preventive investigation in regard to the President’s security. As discussed above, the Bureau has attempted to meet its responsibilities in this field by spelling out in its Handbook the procedures which its agents are to follow in connection with information received “indicating the possibility of an attempt against the person or safety of the President” or other protected persons.

With two Federal agencies operating in the same general field of preventive investigation, questions inevitably arise as to the scope of each agency’s authority and responsibility. As the testimony of J. Edgar Hoover and other Bureau officials revealed, the FBI did not believe that its directive required the Bureau to notify the Secret Service of the substantial information about Lee Harvey Oswald which the FBI had accumulated before the President reached Dallas. On the other hand, the Secret Service had no knowledge whatever of Oswald, his background, or his employment at the Book Depository, and Robert I. Bouck, who was in charge of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service, believed that the accumulation of the facts known to the FBI should have constituted a sufficient basis to warn the Secret Service of the Oswald risk.

The Commission believes that both the FBI and the Secret Service have too narrowly construed their respective responsibilities. The Commission has the impression that too much emphasis is placed by both on the investigation of specific threats by individuals and not enough on dangers from other sources. In addition, the Commission has concluded that the Secret Service particularly tends to be the passive recipient of information regarding such threats and that its Protective Research Section is not adequately staffed or equipped to conduct the wider investigative work that is required today for the security of the President.

During the period the Commission was giving thought to this situation, the Commission received a number of proposals designed to improve current arrangements for protecting the President. These proposals included suggestions to locate exclusive responsibility for all phases of the work in one or another Government agency, to clarify the division of authority between the agencies involved, and to retain the existing system but expand both the scope and the operations of the existing agencies, particularly those of the Secret Service and the FBI.

It has been pointed out that the FBI, as our chief investigative agency, is properly manned and equipped to carry on extensive information gathering functions within the United States. It was also suggested that it would take a substantial period of time for the Secret Service to build up the experience and skills necessary to meet the problem. Consequently the suggestion has been made, on the one hand, that all preventive investigative functions relating to the security of the President should be transferred to the FBI, leaving with the Secret Service only the responsibility for the physical protection of the President, that is, the guarding function alone.

On the other hand, it is urged that all features of the protection of the President and his family should be committed to an elite and independent corps. It is also contended that the agents should be intimately associated with the life of the Presidential family in all its ramifications and alert to every danger that might befall it, and ready at any instant to hazard great danger to themselves in the performance of their tremendous responsibility. It is suggested that an organization shorn of its power to investigate all the possibilities of danger to the President and becoming merely the recipient of information gathered by others would become limited solely to acts of physical alertness and personal courage incident to its responsibilities. So circumscribed, it could not maintain the esprit de corps or the necessary alertness for this unique and challenging responsibility.

While in accordance with its mandate this Commission has necessarily examined into the functioning of the various Federal agencies concerned with the tragic trip of President Kennedy to Dallas and while it has arrived at certain conclusions in respect thereto, it seems clear that it was not within the Commission’s responsibility to make specific recommendations as to the long-range organization of the President’s protection, except as conclusions flowing directly from its examination of the President’s assassination can be drawn. The Commission was not asked to apply itself as did the Hoover Commission in 1949, for example, to a determination of the optimum organization of the President’s protection. It would have been necessary for the Commission to take considerable testimony, much of it extraneous to the facts of the assassination of President Kennedy, to put it in a position to reach final conclusions in this respect. There are always dangers of divided responsibility, duplication, and confusion of authority where more than one agency is operating in the same field; but on the other hand the protection of the President is in a real sense a Government-wide responsibility which must necessarily be assumed by the Department of State, the FBI, the CIA, and the military intelligence agencies as well as the Secret Service. Moreover, a number of imponderable questions have to be weighed if any change in the intimate association now established between the Secret Service and the President and his family is contemplated.

These considerations have induced the Commission to believe that the determination of whether or not there should be a relocation of responsibilities and functions should be left to the Executive and the Congress, perhaps upon recommendations based on further studies by the Cabinet-level committee recommended above or the National Security Council.

Pending any such determination, however, this Commission is convinced of the necessity of better coordination and direction of the

## activities of all existing agencies of Government which are in a

position to, and do, furnish information and services related to the security of the President. The Commission feels the Secret Service and the FBI, as well as the State Department and the CIA when the President travels abroad, could improve their existing capacities and procedures so as to lessen the chances of assassination. Without, therefore, coming to final conclusions respecting the long-range organization of the President’s security, the Commission believes that the facts of the assassination of President Kennedy point to certain measures which, while assuming no radical relocation of responsibilities, can and should be recommended by this Commission in the interest of the more efficient protection of the President. These recommendations are reviewed below.

General Supervision of the Secret Service

The intimacy of the Secret Service’s relationship to the White House and the dissimilarity of its protective functions to most activities of the Department of the Treasury have made it difficult for the Treasury to maintain close and continuing supervision. The Commission believes that the recommended Cabinet-level committee will help to correct many of the major deficiencies of supervision disclosed by the Commission’s investigation. Other measures should be taken as well to improve the overall operation of the Secret Service.

Daily supervision of the operations of the Secret Service within the Department of the Treasury should be improved. The Chief of the Service now reports to the Secretary of the Treasury through an Assistant Secretary whose duties also include the direct supervision of the Bureau of the Mint and the Department’s Employment Policy Program, and who also represents the Secretary of the Treasury on various committees and groups.[C8-232] The incumbent has no technical qualifications in the area of Presidential protection.[C8-233] The Commission recommends that the Secretary of the Treasury appoint a special assistant with the responsibility of supervising the Service. This special assistant should be required to have sufficient stature and experience in law enforcement, intelligence, or allied fields to be able to provide effective continuing supervision, and to keep the Secretary fully informed regarding all significant developments relating to Presidential protection.

This report has already pointed out several respects in which the Commission believes that the Secret Service has operated with insufficient planning or control. Actions by the Service since the assassination indicate its awareness of the necessity for substantial improvement in its administration. A formal and thorough description of the responsibilities of the advance agent is now in preparation by the Service.[C8-234] Work is going forward toward the preparation of formal understandings of the respective roles of the Secret Service and other agencies with which it collaborates or from which it derives assistance and support. The Commission urges that the Service continue this effort to overhaul and define its procedures. While manuals and memoranda are no guarantee of effective operations, no sizable organization can achieve efficiency without the careful analysis and demarcation of responsibility that is reflected in definite and comprehensive operating procedures.

The Commission also recommends that the Secret Service consciously set about the task of inculcating and maintaining the highest standard of excellence and esprit for all of its personnel. This involves tight and unswerving discipline as well as the promotion of an outstanding degree of dedication and loyalty to duty. The Commission emphasizes that it finds no causal connection between the assassination and the breach of regulations which occurred on the night of November 21 at Fort Worth. Nevertheless, such a breach, in which so many agents participated, is not consistent with the standards which the responsibilities of the Secret Service require it to meet.

Preventive Intelligence

In attempting to identify those individuals who might prove a danger to the President, the Secret Service has largely been the passive recipient of threatening communications to the President and reports from other agencies which independently evaluate their information for potential sources of danger. This was the consequence of the Service’s lack of an adequate investigative staff, its inability to process large amounts of data, and its failure to provide specific descriptions of the kind of information it sought.[C8-235]

The Secret Service has embarked upon a complete overhaul of its research activities.[C8-236] The staff of the Protective Research Section (PRS) has been augmented, and a Secret Service inspector has been put in charge of this operation. With the assistance of the President’s Office of Science and Technology, and of the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense, it has obtained the services of outside consultants, such as the Rand Corp., International Business Machines Corp., and a panel of psychiatric and psychological experts. It has received assistance also from data processing experts at the CIA and from a specialist in psychiatric prognostication at Walter Reed Hospital.[C8-237] As a result of these studies, the planning document submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Bureau of the Budget on August 31, 1964, makes several significant recommendations in this field.[C8-238] Based on the Commission’s investigation, the following minimum goals for improvements are indicated:

_Broader and more selective criteria._--Since the assassination, both the Secret Service and the FBI have recognized that the PRS files can no longer be limited largely to persons communicating actual threats to the President. On December 26, 1963, the FBI circulated additional instructions to all its agents, specifying criteria for information to be furnished to the Secret Service in addition to that covered by the former standard, which was the possibility of an attempt against the person or safety of the President. The new instructions require FBI agents to report immediately information concerning:

Subversives, ultrarightists, racists and fascists (a) possessing emotional instability or irrational behavior, (b) who have made threats of bodily harm against officials or employees of Federal, state or local government or officials of a foreign government, (c) who express or have expressed strong or violent anti-U.S. sentiments and who have been involved in bombing or bomb-making or whose past conduct indicates tendencies toward violence, and (d) whose prior acts or statements depict propensity for violence and hatred against organized government.[C8-239]

Alan H. Belmont, Assistant to the Director of the FBI, testified that this revision was initiated by the FBI itself.[C8-240] The volume of references to the Secret Service has increased substantially since the new instructions went into effect; more than 5,000 names were referred to the Secret Service in the first 4 months of 1964.[C8-241] According to Chief Rowley, by mid-June 1964, the Secret Service had received from the FBI some 9,000 reports on members of the Communist Party.[C8-242] The FBI now transmits information on all defectors,[C8-243] a category which would, of course, have included Oswald.

Both Director Hoover and Belmont expressed to the Commission the great concern of the FBI, which is shared by the Secret Service, that referrals to the Secret Service under the new criteria might, if not properly handled, result in some degree of interference with the personal liberty of those involved.[C8-244] They emphasized the necessity that the information now being furnished be handled with judgment and care. The Commission shares this concern. The problem is aggravated by the necessity that the Service obtain the assistance of local law enforcement officials in evaluating the information which it receives and in taking preventive steps.

In June 1964, the Secret Service sent to a number of Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies guidelines for an experimental program to develop more detailed criteria.[C8-245] The suggestions of Federal agencies for revision of these guidelines were solicited. The new tentative criteria are useful in making clear that the interest of the Secret Service goes beyond information on individuals or groups threatening to cause harm or embarrassment to the President.[C8-246] Information is requested also concerning individuals or groups who have demonstrated an interest in the President or “other high government officials in the nature of a complaint coupled with an expressed or implied determination to use a means, other than legal or peaceful, to satisfy any grievance, real or imagined.”[C8-247] Under these criteria, whether the case should be referred to the Secret Service depends on the existence of a previous history of mental instability, propensity toward violent action, or some similar characteristic, coupled with some evaluation of the capability of the individual or group to further the intention to satisfy a grievance by unlawful means.[C8-248]

While these tentative criteria are a step in the right direction, they seem unduly restrictive in continuing to require some manifestation of animus against a Government official. It is questionable whether such criteria would have resulted in the referral of Oswald to the Secret Service. Chief Rowley believed that they would, because of Oswald’s demonstrated hostility toward the Secretary of the Navy in his letter of January 30, 1962.[C8-249]

I shall employ all means to right this gross mistake or injustice to a boni-fied U.S. citizen and ex-service man. The U.S. government has no charges or complaints against me. I ask you to look into this case and take the necessary steps to repair the damage done to me and my family.[C8-250]

Even with the advantage of hindsight, this letter does not appear to express or imply Oswald’s “determination to use a means, other than legal or peaceful, to satisfy [his] grievance” within the meaning of the new criteria.[C8-251]

It is apparent that a good deal of further consideration and experimentation will be required before adequate criteria can be framed. The Commission recognizes that no set of meaningful criteria will yield the names of all potential assassins. Charles J. Guiteau, Leon F. Czolgosz, John Schrank, and Guiseppe Zangara--four assassins or would-be assassins--were all men who acted alone in their criminal acts against our leaders.[C8-252] None had a serious record of prior violence. Each of them was a failure in his work and in his relations with others, a victim of delusions and fancies which led to the conviction that society and its leaders had combined to thwart him. It will require every available resource of our Government to devise a practical system which has any reasonable possibility of revealing such malcontents.

_Liaison with other agencies regarding intelligence._--The Secret Service’s liaison with the agencies that supply information to it has been too casual. Since the assassination, the Service has recognized that these relationships must be far more formal, and each agency given clear understanding of the assistance which the Secret Service expects.[C8-253]

Once the Secret Service has formulated its new standards for collection of information, it should enter into written agreements with each Federal agency and the leading State and local agencies that might be a source of such information. Such agreements should describe in detail the information which is sought, the manner in which it will be provided to the Secret Service, and the respective responsibilities for any further investigation that may be required.

This is especially necessary with regard to the FBI and CIA, which carry the major responsibility for supplying information about potential threats, particularly those arising from organized groups, within their special jurisdiction. Since these agencies are already obliged constantly to evaluate the activities of such groups, they should be responsible for advising the Secret Service if information develops indicating the existence of an assassination plot and for reporting such events as a change in leadership or dogma which indicate that the group may present a danger to the President. Detailed formal agreements embodying these arrangements should be worked out between the Secret Service and both of these agencies.

It should be made clear that the Secret Service will in no way seek to duplicate the intelligence and investigative capabilities of the agencies now operating in this field but will continue to use the data developed by these agencies to carry out its special duties. Once experience has been gained in implementing such agreements with the Federal and leading State and local agencies, the Secret Service, through its field offices, should negotiate similar arrangements with such other State and local law enforcement agencies as may provide meaningful assistance. Much useful information will come to the attention of local law enforcement agencies in the regular course of their activities, and this source should not be neglected by undue concentration on relationships with other Federal agencies. Finally, these agreements with Federal and local authorities will be of little value unless a system is established for the frequent formal review of

## activities thereunder.

In this regard the Commission notes with approval several recent measures taken and proposed by the Secret Service to improve its liaison arrangements. In his testimony Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon informed the Commission that an interagency committee has been established to develop more effective criteria. According to Secretary Dillon, the Committee will include representatives of the President’s Office of Science and Technology, Department of Defense, CIA, FBI, and the Secret Service.[C8-254] In addition, the Department of the Treasury has requested five additional agents for its Protective Research Section to serve as liaison officers with law enforcement and intelligence agencies.[C8-255] On the basis of the Department’s review during the past several months, Secretary Dillon testified that the use of such liaison officers is the only effective way to insure that adequate liaison is maintained.[C8-256] As a beginning step to improve liaison with local law enforcement officials, the Secret Service on August 26, 1964, directed its field representatives to send a form request for intelligence information to all local, county, and State law enforcement agencies in their districts.[C8-257] Each of these efforts appears sound, and the Commission recommends that these and the other measures suggested by the Commission be pursued vigorously by the Secret Service.

_Automatic data processing._--Unless the Secret Service is able to deal rapidly and accurately with a growing body of data, the increased information supplied by other agencies will be wasted. PRS must develop the capacity to classify its subjects on a more sophisticated basis than the present geographic breakdown. Its present manual filing system is obsolete; it makes no use of the recent developments in automatic data processing which are widely used in the business world and in other Government offices.

The Secret Service and the Department of the Treasury now recognize this critical need. In the planning document currently under review by the Bureau of the Budget, the Department recommends that it be permitted to hire five qualified persons “to plan and develop a workable and efficient automated file and retrieval system.”[C8-258] Also the Department requests the sum of $100,000 to conduct a detailed feasibility study; this money would be used to compensate consultants, to lease standard equipment or to purchase specially designed pilot equipment.[C8-259] On the basis of such a feasibility study, the Department hopes to design a practical system which will fully meet the needs of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service.

The Commission recommends that prompt and favorable consideration be given to this request. The Commission further recommends that the Secret Service coordinate its planning as closely as possible with all of the Federal agencies from which it receives information. The Secret Service should not and does not plan to develop its own intelligence gathering facilities to duplicate the existing facilities of other Federal agencies. In planning its data processing techniques, the Secret Service should attempt to develop a system compatible with those of the agencies from which most of its data will come.[E]

[E] In evaluating data processing techniques of the Secret Service, the Commission had occasion to become informed, to a limited extent, about the data processing techniques of other Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Commission was struck by the apparent lack of effort, on an interagency basis, to develop coordinated and mutually compatible systems, even where such coordination would not seem inconsistent with the particular purposes of the agency involved. The Commission recognizes that this is a controversial area and that many strongly held views are advanced in resistance to any suggestion that an effort be made to impose any degree of coordination. This matter is obviously beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, but it seems to warrant further study before each agency becomes irrevocably committed to separate action. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the President consider ordering an inquiry into the possibility that coordination might be achieved to a greater extent than seems now to be contemplated, without interference with the primary mission of each agency involved.

_Protective Research participation in advance arrangements._--Since the assassination, Secret Service procedures have been changed to require that a member of PRS accompany each advance survey team to establish liaison with local intelligence gathering agencies and to provide for the immediate evaluation of information received from them.[C8-260] This PRS agent will also be responsible for establishing an informal local liaison committee to make certain that all protective intelligence activities are coordinated. Based on its experience during this period, the Secret Service now recommends that additional personnel be made available to PRS so that these arrangements can be made permanent without adversely affecting the operations of the Service’s field offices.[C8-261] The Commission regards this as a most useful innovation and urges that the practice be continued.

Liaison With Local Law Enforcement Agencies

Advice by the Secret Service to local police in metropolitan areas relating to the assistance expected in connection with a Presidential visit has hitherto been handled on an informal basis.[C8-262] The Service should consider preparing formal explanations of the cooperation anticipated during a Presidential visit to a city, in formats that can be communicated to each level of local authorities. Thus, the local chief of police could be given a master plan, prepared for the occasion, of all protective measures to be taken during the visit; each patrolman might be given a prepared booklet of instructions explaining what is expected of him.

The Secret Service has expressed concern that written instructions might come into the hands of local newspapers, to the prejudice of the precautions described.[C8-263] However, the instructions must be communicated to the local police in any event and can be leaked to the press whether or not they are in writing. More importantly, the lack of carefully prepared and carefully transmitted instructions for typical visits to cities can lead to lapses in protection, such as the confusion in Dallas about whether members of the public were permitted on overpasses.[C8-264] Such instructions will not fit all circumstances, of course, and should not be relied upon to the detriment of the imaginative application of judgment in special cases.

Inspection of Buildings

Since the assassination of President Kennedy, the Secret Service has been experimenting with new techniques in the inspection of buildings along a motorcade route.[C8-265] According to Secretary Dillon, the studies indicate that there is some utility in attempting to designate certain buildings as involving a higher risk than others.[C8-266] The Commission strongly encourages these efforts to improve protection along a motorcade route. The Secret Service should utilize the personnel of other Federal law enforcement offices in the locality to assure adequate manpower for this task, as it is now doing.[C8-267] Lack of adequate resources is an unacceptable excuse for failing to improve advance precautions in this crucial area of Presidential protection.

Secret Service Personnel and Facilities

Testimony and other evidence before the Commission suggest that the Secret Service is trying to accomplish its job with too few people and without adequate modern equipment. Although Chief Rowley does not complain about the pay scale for Secret Service agents, salaries are below those of the FBI and leading municipal police forces.[C8-268] The assistant to the Director of the FBI testified that the caseload of each FBI agent averaged 20-25, and he felt that this was high.[C8-269] Chief Rowley testified that the present workload of each Secret Service agent averages 110.1 cases.[C8-270] While these statistics relate to the activities of Secret Service agents stationed in field offices and not the White House detail, field agents supplement those on the detail, particularly when the President is traveling. Although the Commission does not know whether the cases involved are entirely comparable, these figures suggest that the agents of the Secret Service are substantially overworked.

In its budget request for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1964, the Secret Service sought funds for 25 new positions, primarily in field offices.[C8-271] This increase has been approved by the Congress.[C8-272] Chief Rowley explained that this would not provide enough additional manpower to take all the measures which he considers required. However, the 1964-65 budget request was submitted in November 1963 and requests for additional personnel were not made because of the studies then being conducted.[C8-273]

The Secret Service has now presented its recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget.[C8-274] The plan proposed by the Service would take approximately 20 months to implement and require expenditures of approximately $3 million during that period. The plan provides for an additional 205 agents for the Secret Service. Seventeen of this number are proposed for the Protective Research Section; 145 are proposed for the field offices to handle the increased volume of security investigations and be available to protect the President or Vice President when they travel; 18 agents are proposed for a rotating pool which will go through an intensive training cycle and also be available to supplement the White House detail in case of unexpected need; and 25 additional agents are recommended to provide the Vice President full protection.

The Commission urges that the Bureau of the Budget review these recommendations with the Secret Service and authorize a request for the necessary supplemental appropriation, as soon as it can be justified. The Congress has often stressed that it will support any reasonable request for funds for the protection of the President.[C8-275]

Manpower and Technical Assistance From Other Agencies

Before the assassination the Secret Service infrequently requested other Federal law enforcement agencies to provide personnel to assist in its protection functions.[C8-276] Since the assassination, the Service has experimented with the use of agents borrowed for short periods from such agencies. It has used other Treasury law enforcement agents on special experiments in building and route surveys in places to which the President frequently travels.[C8-277] It has also used other Federal law enforcement agents during Presidential visits to cities in which such agents are stationed. Thus, in the 4 months following the assassination, the FBI, on 16 separate occasions, supplied a total of 139 agents to assist in protection work during a Presidential visit,[C8-278] which represents a departure from its prior practice.[C8-279] From February 11 through June 30, 1964, the Service had the advantage of 9,500 hours of work by other enforcement agencies.[C8-280]

The FBI has indicated that it is willing to continue to make such assistance available, even though it agrees with the Secret Service that it is preferable for the Service to have enough agents to handle all protective demands.[C8-281] The Commission endorses these efforts to supplement the Service’s own personnel by obtaining, for short periods of time, the assistance of trained Federal law enforcement officers. In view of the ever-increasing mobility of American Presidents, it seems unlikely that the Service could or should increase its own staff to a size which would permit it to provide adequate protective manpower for all situations. The Commission recommends that the agencies involved determine how much periodic assistance they can provide, and that each such agency and the Secret Service enter into a formal agreement defining such arrangements. It may eventually be desirable to codify the practice in an Executive order. The Secret Service will be better able to plan its own long-range personnel requirements if it knows with reasonable certainty the amount of assistance that it can expect from other agencies.

The occasional use of personnel from other Federal agencies to assist in protecting the President has a further advantage. It symbolizes the reality that the job of protecting the President has not been and cannot be exclusively the responsibility of the Secret Service. The Secret Service in the past has sometimes guarded its right to be acknowledged as the sole protector of the Chief Executive. This no longer appears to be the case.[C8-282] Protecting the President is a difficult and complex task which requires full use of the best resources of many parts of our Government. Recognition that the responsibility must be shared increases the likelihood that it will be met.

Much of the Secret Service work requires the development and use of highly sophisticated equipment, some of which must be specially designed to fit unique requirements. Even before the assassination, and to a far greater extent thereafter, the Secret Service has been receiving full cooperation in scientific research and technological development from many Government agencies including the Department of Defense and the President’s Office of Science and Technology.[C8-283]

Even if the manpower and technological resources of the Secret Service are adequately augmented, it will continue to rely in many respects upon the greater resources of the Office of Science and Technology and other agencies. The Commission recommends that the present arrangements with the Office of Science and Technology and the other Federal agencies that have been so helpful to the Secret Service be placed on a permanent and formal basis. The exchange of letters dated August 31, 1964, between Secretary Dillon and Donald F. Hornig, Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, is a useful effort in the right direction.[C8-284] The Service should negotiate a memorandum of understanding with each agency that has been assisting it and from which it can expect to need help in the future. The essential terms of such memoranda might well be embodied in an Executive order.

CONCLUSION

This Commission can recommend no procedures for the future protection of our Presidents which will guarantee security. The demands on the President in the execution of his responsibilities in today’s world are so varied and complex and the traditions of the office in a democracy such as ours are so deepseated as to preclude absolute security.

The Commission has, however, from its examination of the facts of President Kennedy’s assassination made certain recommendations which it believes would, if adopted, materially improve upon the procedures in effect at the time of President Kennedy’s assassination and result in a substantial lessening of the danger.

As has been pointed out, the Commission has not resolved all the proposals which could be made. The Commission nevertheless is confident that, with the active cooperation of the responsible agencies and with the understanding of the people of the United States in their demands upon their President, the recommendations we have here suggested would greatly advance the security of the office without any impairment of our fundamental liberties.

APPENDIX I

IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 30, 1963

Office of the White House Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NO.11130

APPOINTING A COMMISSION TO REPORT UPON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I hereby appoint 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. The Commission shall consist of--

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chairman;

Senator Richard B. Russell;

Senator John Sherman Cooper;

Congressman Hale Boggs;

Congressman Gerald R. Ford;

The Honorable Allen W. Dulles;

The Honorable John J. McCloy.

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by federal or state authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.

Necessary expenses of the Commission may be paid from the “Emergency Fund for the President”.

All Executive departments and agencies are directed to furnish the Commission with such facilities, services and cooperation as it may request from time to time.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 29, 1963.

[Illustration: APPENDIX I]

APPENDIX II

IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 29, 1963

Office of the White House Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE

The President today announced that he is appointing a Special Commission to study and report upon all facts and circumstances relating to the assassination of the late President, John F. Kennedy, and the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination.

The President stated that the Majority and Minority Leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives have been consulted with respect to the proposed Special Commission.

The members of the Special Commission are:

Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman Senator Richard Russell (Georgia) Senator John Sherman Cooper (Kentucky) Representative Hale Boggs (Louisiana) Representative Gerald Ford (Michigan) Hon. Allen W. Dulles of Washington Hon. John J. McCloy of New York

The President stated that the Special Commission is to be instructed to evaluate all available information concerning the subject of the inquiry. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to an earlier directive of the President, is making complete investigation of the facts. An inquiry is also scheduled by a Texas Court of Inquiry convened by the Attorney General of Texas under Texas law.

The Special Commission will have before it all evidence uncovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and all information available to any agency of the Federal Government. The Attorney General of Texas has also offered his cooperation. All Federal agencies and offices are being directed to furnish services and cooperation to the Special Commission. The Commission will also be empowered to conduct any further investigation that it deems desirable.

The President is instructing the Special Commission to satisfy itself that the truth is known as far as it can be discovered, and to report its findings and conclusions to him, to the American people, and to the world.

[Illustration: APPENDIX II]

APPENDIX III

Public Law 88-202 88th Congress, S. J. Res. 137 December 13, 1963

Joint Resolution

Authorizing the Commission established to report upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence.

[Sidenote: Commission investigating assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Subpena power. 28 F.R. 12789.]

_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That (a) for the purpose of this joint resolution, the term “Commission” means the Commission appointed by the President by Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963.

(b) The Commission, or any member of the Commission when so authorized by the Commission, shall have power to issue subpenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation by the Commission. The Commission, or any member of the Commission or any agent or agency designated by the Commission for such purpose, may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such evidence may be required from any place within the United States at any designated place of hearing.

(c) In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person under subsection (b), any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the Commission shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Commission, its member, agent, or agency, there to produce evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.

[Sidenote: Manner of service.]

[Sidenote: 77 STAT. 362.]

[Sidenote: 77 STAT. 363.]

(d) Process and papers of the Commission, its members, agent, or agency, may be served either upon the witness in person or by registered mail or by telegraph or by leaving a copy thereof at the residence or principal office or place of business of the person required to be served. The verified return by the individual so serving the same, setting forth the manner of such service, shall be proof of the same, and the return post office receipt or telegraph receipt therefor when registered and mailed or telegraphed as aforesaid shall be proof of service of the same. Witnesses summoned before the Commission, its members, agent, or agency, shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose depositions are taken and the persons taking the same shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States.

[Sidenote: Privilege against self-incrimination.]

[Sidenote: 77 STAT. 363.]

(e) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, records, correspondence, documents, or other in obedience to a subpena, on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture: but no individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture (except demotion or removal from office) for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.

[Sidenote: Place of service.]

(f) All process of any court to which application may be made under this Act may be served in the judicial district wherein the person required to be served resides or may be found.

Approved December 13, 1963.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 109 (1963): Dec. 9: Passed Senate. Dec. 10: Considered and passed House.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

APPENDIX IV

Biographical Information and Acknowledgments

MEMBERS OF COMMISSION

The Honorable Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Los Angeles, Calif., on March 19, 1891. He graduated from the University of California with B.L. and J.D. degrees, and was admitted to the California bar in 1914. Chief Justice Warren was attorney general of California from 1939 to 1943. From 1943 to 1953 he was Governor of California and in September 1953 was appointed by President Eisenhower to be the Chief Justice of the United States.

The Honorable Richard B. Russell was born in Winder, Ga., on November 2, 1897. He received his B.L. degree from the University of Georgia in 1918 and his LL.B. from Mercer University in 1957. Senator Russell commenced the practice of law in Winder, Ga., in 1918, became county attorney for Barrow County, Ga., and was a member of the Georgia House of Representatives from 1921 to 1931. He was Governor of Georgia from 1931 to 1933, was elected to the U.S. Senate in January 1933 to fill a vacancy, and has been Senator from Georgia continuously since that date.

The Honorable John Sherman Cooper was born in Somerset, Ky., on August 23, 1901. He attended Centre College, Kentucky, received his A.B. degree from Yale College in 1923, and attended Harvard Law School from 1923 to 1925. Senator Cooper has been a member of the House of Representatives of the Kentucky General Assembly, a county judge and circuit judge in Kentucky, and is now a member of the U.S. Senate, where he has served, though not continuously, for 12 years. He was a delegate to the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, an advisor to the Secretary of State in 1950 at meetings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Ambassador to India and Nepal in 1955-56. He served in the 3d U.S. Army in World War II in Europe, and after the war headed the reorganization of the German judicial system in Bavaria.

The Honorable Hale Boggs was born in Long Beach, Miss., on February 15, 1914. He graduated from Tulane University with a B.A. degree in 1935 and received his LL.B. in 1937. He was admitted to the Louisiana bar in 1937 and practiced law in New Orleans. Representative Boggs was elected to the 77th Congress of the United States and in World War II was an officer of the U.S. Naval Reserve and of the Maritime Service. He has been a Member of Congress since 1946 when he was elected to represent the Second District, State of Louisiana, in the 80th Congress, and he is currently the majority whip for the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives.

The Honorable Gerald R. Ford was born in Omaha, Nebr., on July 14, 1913. He graduated from the University of Michigan with a B.A. degree in 1935 and from Yale University Law School with an LL.B. degree in 1941. Representative Ford was admitted to the Michigan bar in 1941. He was first elected to Congress in 1948 and has been reelected to each succeeding Congress. He served 47 months in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Representative Ford was elected in January 1963 the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

The Honorable Allen W. Dulles was born in Watertown, N.Y., on April 7, 1893. He received his B.A. degree from Princeton in 1914, his M.A. in 1916, his LL.B. from George Washington University in 1926, and LL.D. degrees. Mr. Dulles entered the diplomatic service of the United States in 1916 and resigned in 1926 to take up law practice in New York City. In 1953 Mr. Dulles was appointed Director of Central Intelligence and served in that capacity until 1961.

The Honorable John J. McCloy was born in Philadelphia, Pa., on March 31, 1895. He received an A.B. degree, cum laude, from Amherst College in 1916; LL.B. from Harvard, and LL.D. from Amherst College. He was admitted to the New York bar in 1921 and is now a member of the firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. He was Assistant Secretary of War from April 1941 to November 1945. Mr. McCloy was President of the World Bank from 1947 to 1949 and U.S. Military Governor and High Commissioner for Germany from 1949 to 1952. He has been coordinator of U.S. disarmament

## activities since 1961.

GENERAL COUNSEL

J. Lee Rankin was born in Hartington, Nebr., on July 8, 1907. He received his A.B. degree from the University of Nebraska in 1928 and his LL.B. in 1930 from the University of Nebraska Law School. He was admitted to the Nebraska bar in 1930 and practiced law in Lincoln, Nebr., until January 1953 when he was appointed by President Eisenhower to be the assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. In August 1956 President Eisenhower appointed Mr. Rankin to be the Solicitor General of the United States. Since January 1961 Mr. Rankin has been in private practice in New York City. He accepted the appointment as General Counsel for the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy on December 8, 1963.

ASSISTANT COUNSEL

Francis W. H. Adams was born in Mount Vernon, N.Y., on June 26, 1904. He graduated from Williams College with an A.B. degree, and received his LL.B. degree from Fordham Law School in 1928. Mr. Adams has acted as chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General, and as an arbitrator for the War Labor Board. In 1954 and 1955 he served as police commissioner of New York City. Mr. Adams is a member of the New York and Washington law firm of Satterlee, Warfield & Stephens.

Joseph A. Ball was born in Stuart, Iowa, on December 16, 1902. He received his B.A. degree from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebr., and his LL.B. degree from the University of Southern California in 1927. Mr. Ball teaches criminal law and procedure at the University of Southern California. He is a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Ball is a member of the firm of Ball, Hunt & Hart, Long Beach and Santa Ana, Calif.

David W. Belin was born in Washington, D.C., on June 20, 1928. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan, where he earned three degrees with high distinction: A.B. (1951), M. Bus. Adm. (1953), and J.D. (1954). At the University of Michigan he was associate editor of the Michigan Law Review. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the Order of the Coif. He is a member of the law firm of Herrick, Langdon, Sandblom & Belin, Des Moines, Iowa.

William T. Coleman, Jr., was born in Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa., on July 7, 1920. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1941 with an A.B. degree, summa cum laude, received his LL.B. in 1946, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School and served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. From 1947 to 1948 he served as law clerk to Judge Herbert F. Goodrich, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and during the 1948-49 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, as law clerk to Justice Felix Frankfurter. Mr. Coleman has served as a special counsel for the city of Philadelphia and has been a consultant with the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency since January 1963. He is a member of the law firm of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Dilks, Philadelphia, Pa.

Melvin A. Eisenberg was born in New York City on December 3, 1934. He was graduated from Columbia College, A.B., summa cum laude, in 1956, and from Harvard Law School, LL.B., summa cum laude, in 1959. Mr. Eisenberg is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is associated with the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler in New York City.

Burt W. Griffin was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on August 19, 1932. He received his B.A. degree, cum laude, from Amherst College in 1954, and LL.B. from Yale University Law School in 1959. He was note and comment editor of the Yale Law Journal. During 1959-60 Mr. Griffin served as law clerk to Judge George T. Washington of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. From 1960 to 1962 Mr. Griffin was an assistant U.S. attorney for the northern district of Ohio, and since 1962 he has been associated with the firm of MacDonald, Hopkins & Hardy, Cleveland, Ohio.

Leon D. Hubert, Jr., was born in New Orleans, La., July 1, 1911. He received his A.B. degree from Tulane University in 1932, and LL.B. from Tulane in 1934. He was associate editor of the Tulane Law Review, and a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the Order of the Coif. Mr. Hubert was assistant U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Louisiana, 1934-46, and a professor of law at Tulane University, 1942-60. He has worked with the Louisiana State Law Institute on the revision of statutes and on the codes of civil and criminal procedure. Mr. Hubert is a member of the law firm of Hubert, Baldwin & Zibilich, New Orleans, La.

Albert E. Jenner, Jr., was born in Chicago, Ill., on June 20, 1907. He received his law degree from the University of Illinois in 1930. He is a member of the Order of the Coif. In 1956 and 1957 Mr. Jenner served as a special assistant attorney general of Illinois in the investigation of fraud in the office of the auditor of public accounts of the State of Illinois. Mr. Jenner is a Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and vice chairman of the Joint Committee for the Effective Administration of Justice. He is a former professor of law at the Northwestern University School of Law. Mr. Jenner is a member of the law firm of Raymond, Mayer, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill.

Wesley J. Liebeler was born in Langdon, N. Dak., on May 9, 1931. He received his B.A. degree from Macalester College, St. Paul, Minn., in 1953 and graduated, cum laude, from the University of Chicago Law School in 1957. He was a managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review and is a member of the Order of the Coif. Mr. Liebeler is associated with the law firm of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, New York City.

Norman Redlich was born in New York City on November 12, 1925. He received his B.A. degree, magna cum laude, from Williams College in 1947, his LL.B., cum laude, from Yale Law School in 1950, and LL.M. (Taxation) in 1955 from the New York University School of Law. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the Order of the Coif, and was executive editor of the Yale Law Journal. Mr. Redlich is Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, and is editor in chief of the Tax Law Review, New York University.

W. David Slawson was born in Grand Rapids, Mich., on June 2, 1931. He received his A.B. degree, summa cum laude, from Amherst College in 1953, and M.A. from Princeton University in 1954. Mr. Slawson received his LL.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard University in 1959. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was a note editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Slawson is a member of the law firm of Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Denver, Colo.

Arlen Specter was born in Wichita, Kans., on February 12, 1930. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1951, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and received his LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1956. He was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Mr. Specter was an associate of the law firm of Dechert, Price & Rhoads in Philadelphia from 1956 to 1959, and from 1959 to 1964 he was an assistant in the Philadelphia district attorney’s office. Mr. Specter is a member of the firm of Specter & Katz, Philadelphia, Pa.

Samuel A. Stern was born in Philadelphia, Pa., on January 21, 1929. He graduated with honors from the University of Pennsylvania with an A.B. in 1949. In 1952 he received his LL.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School, and was developments editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Stern served as law clerk to Chief Judge Calvert Magruder, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, during 1954-55 and was law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren during 1955-56. He is a member of the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C.

Howard P. Willens was born in Oak Park, Ill., on May 27, 1931. He received his B.A. degree, with high distinction, from the University of Michigan in 1953 and his LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1956. Mr. Willens is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. He was associated with the law firm of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Washington, D.C., until 1961, when he was appointed Second Assistant in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

STAFF MEMBERS

Philip Barson was born in Philadelphia, Pa., on May 2, 1912. He received his Bachelor of Science of Commerce, from Temple University, Philadelphia, in 1934. Mr. Barson has been employed by the Internal Revenue Service, Intelligence Division, Philadelphia, since September 1948, first as a special agent and since 1961 has been group supervisor. Mr. Barson is a certified public accountant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Edward A. Conroy was born in Albany, N.Y., on March 20, 1920. He attended Brooklyn Polytechnical Institute and Benjamin Franklin University, Washington, D.C. Mr. Conroy joined the Internal Revenue Service as a revenue officer in 1946. After acting as executive assistant to the assistant regional inspector, Boston, Mass., Mr. Conroy became senior inspector in the Planning and Programing Branch of the Internal Security Division, Inspection, of the Internal Revenue Service. He currently occupies that position.

John Hart Ely was born in New York City on December 3, 1938. He graduated, summa cum laude, from Princeton University in 1960, and from Yale Law School, magna cum laude, in 1963. He was note and comment editor of the Yale Law Journal. He is a member of the Phi Beta Kappa and the Order of the Coif. During the 1964-65 term. Mr. Ely will serve as law clerk to Chief Justice Warren.

Alfred Goldberg was born in Baltimore, Md., on December 23, 1918. He received his A.B. degree from Western Maryland College in 1938, and his Ph. D. from the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. After 4 years’ service with the U.S. Army, Dr. Goldberg became historian with the U.S. Air Force Historical Division and later Chief of the Current History Branch. In 1962-63 he was a visiting American fellow, King’s College, University of London, and since his return has been senior historian, U.S. Air Force Historical Division. Dr. Goldberg is the author or editor of several publications on historical subjects and is a contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Book.

Murray J. Laulicht was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., on May 12, 1940. He received his B.A. in 1961 from Yeshiva College, and received his LL.B. degree, summa cum laude, from Columbia University School of Law in 1964. He was notes and comments editor of the Columbia Law Review. During 1964-65 Mr. Laulicht will clerk for Senior Judge Harold R. Medina of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Arthur K. Marmor was born in New York City on December 5, 1915. He received a B.S.S. degree from the College of the City of New York in 1937 and an A.M. degree from Columbia University in 1940. He served in the U.S. Army in World War II. Mr. Marmor has been historian for the Departments of Interior, Army, and Air Force, and Chief, Editorial Services Branch, Department of State. He has also taught for the American University and the University of Maryland. Mr. Marmor has contributed to numerous Government publications and has been in charge of the editing of historical and legal volumes. At present he is a historian for the Department of the Air Force.

Richard M. Mosk was born in Los Angeles, Calif., on May 18, 1939. He graduated from Stanford University, with great distinction, in 1960 and from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 1963. Mr. Mosk is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. During the 1964-65 term of the California Supreme Court Mr. Mosk will clerk for Justice Mathew Tobriner.

John J. O’Brien was born in Somerville, Mass., on September 11, 1919. Mr. O’Brien received his B.B.A. degree in law and business, cum laude, from Northeastern University, Boston, Mass. He received his M.A. degree in the field of governmental administration from George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and in 1941 joined the Bureau of Internal Revenue. After service in the U.S. Coast Guard, Mr. O’Brien resumed his work as an Internal Revenue Service investigator, and is currently the Assistant Chief of the Inspection Services Investigations Branch, in the National Office of Internal Revenue.

Stuart R. Pollak was born in San Pedro, Calif., on August 24, 1937. He received his B.A. degree from Stanford University, with great distinction, in 1959, and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. Pollak obtained his LL.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1962, where he was book review and legislation editor of the Harvard Law Review. During the 1963-64 term Mr. Pollak was law clerk to Justices Stanley Reed and Harold Burton. Mr. Pollak is a staff assistant in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Alfredda Scobey was born in Kankakee, Ill. She received her A.B. degree from American University, Washington, D.C., in 1933, studied law at John Marshall Law School, Atlanta, Ga., and was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1945. Miss Scobey did graduate study at the National University of Mexico, at Duke University, and at Emory University, Atlanta. She practiced law from 1945 to 1949 in Atlanta and since 1949 has been a law assistant in the Court of Appeals, Georgia.

Charles N. Shaffer, Jr., was born in New York City on June 8, 1932. He attended Fordham College in 1951 and received his LL.B. from the Fordham University School of Law in 1957. From 1958 to 1959 Mr. Shaffer was associated with the law firm of Chadburn, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff, New York City. He was assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York from 1959 to 1961, when he was appointed Special Trial Attorney in the Criminal and Tax Divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Lloyd L. Weinreb was born in New York City on October 9, 1936. He received B.A. degrees from Dartmouth College, summa cum laude, in 1957, and from the University of Oxford in 1959. He received his LL.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1962. He was case editor of the Harvard Law Review. During the 1963-64 term. Mr. Weinreb was law clerk to Justice John M. Harlan. Mr. Weinreb is a staff assistant in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments

During the taking of testimony in various parts of the United States, The Commission was greatly assisted by the offices of numerous U.S. attorneys of the Department of Justice. The Commission would like to acknowledge its gratitude for this assistance and thank in particular Harold Barefoot Sanders, Jr., U.S. attorney for the northern district of Texas, and his conscientious assistant, Martha Joe Stroud.

In addition the Commission wishes to thank the following lawyers, secretaries, and clerks for their unstinting efforts on behalf of the Commission:

Sheila Adams Stephen R. Barnett Thomas D. Barr Miriam A. Bottum Stephen G. Breyer Patrick O. Burns Charlene Chardwell Anne M. Clark Jonathan M. Clark George C. Cochran Betty Jean Compton Francine Davis Viola C. Davis Paul Dodyk Charlee Dianne Duke Julia T. Eide Josephine M. Farrar William T. Finley, Jr. Dennis M. Flannery James C. Gaither Stephen R. Goldstein Patricia E. Gormley Jeanne C. Hauer Beverly A. Heckman Sadie M. Hennigan Lela B. Hewlett Elaine Johnson Vivian Johnson Pearl G. Kamber Sharon Kegarise Adele W. Lippard David T. Luhm Ella M. McCall Louise S. McKenzie Michael W. Maupin Jean H. Millard Seresa Mintor Maurice Moore Mary L. Norton Vaughnie Perry Jane W. Peter Edward R. Pierpoint James H. Pipkin, Jr. S. Paul Posner Douglas Prather Monroe Price Lucille Ann Robinson Suzanne Rolston Mary Ann Rowcotsky Carolyn A. Schweinsberg Ruth D. Shirley Ray Shurtleff Helen Tarko Jane M. Vida Jay Vogelson Anne V. Welsh Margaret C. Yager

APPENDIX V

List of Witnesses

The following is a list of the 552 witnesses whose testimony has been presented to the Commission. Witnesses who appeared before members of the Commission have a “C” following their names; those questioned during depositions by members of the Commission’s legal staff are indicated by a “D”; and those who supplied affidavits and statements are similarly identified with “A” and “S”. The brief descriptions of the witnesses pertain either to the time of their testimony or to the time of the events concerning which they testified.

_Witness_ _Description_ _Testimony_

Ables, Don R.^{D} Jail Clerk, Dallas Vol. VII, p. 239. Police Department.

Abt, John J.^{D} New York City attorney. Vol. X, p. 116.

Adamcik, John P.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 202. Department.

Adams, R. L.^{AD} Placement interviewer, Vol. X, p. 136. Texas Employment Vol. XI, p. 480. Commission.

Adams, Victoria Employee, Texas School Vol. VI, p. 386. Elizabeth^{D} Book Depository (TSBD).

Akin, Gene Coleman^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 63. Hospital.

Alba, Adrian Thomas^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald in New Orleans. Vol. X, p. 219.

Allen, Mrs. J. U.^{A} Secretary, Chamberlin-Hunt Academy. Vol. XI, p. 472.

Altgens, James W.^{D} Witness at assassination scene. Vol. VII, p. 515.

Anderson, Eugene D.^{D} Marine Corps markmanship expert. Vol. XI, p. 301.

Andrews, Dean Adams, New Orleans attorney. Vol. XI, p. 325. Jr.^{D}

Applin, George Witness of Oswald Vol. VII, p. 85. Jefferson, Jr.^{D} arrest.

Arce, Danny G.^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 363.

Archer, Don Ray^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 395. Department.

Armstrong, Andrew, Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIII, p. 302. Jr.^{D} Ruby.

Arnett, Charles Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 128. Oliver^{D} Department.

Aycox, James Thomas^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 203. Ruby.

Baker, Marrion L.^{AC} Member, Dallas Police Vol. III, p. 242. Department. Vol. VII, p. 592.

Baker, Mrs. (Rachley) Employee, TSBD. Vol. VII, p. 507. Donald.^{D}

Baker, T. L.^{C} Member, Dallas Police Vol. IV, p. 248. Department.

Ballen, Samuel B.^{D} Acquaintance of the Oswalds in Texas. Vol. IX, p. 45.

Barbe, Emmett Charles, Employee, William B. Jr.^{A} Reily Co. Vol. XI, p. 473.

Bargas, Tommy^{D} Superintendent, Leslie Welding Co. Vol. X, p. 160.

Barnes, W. E.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 270. Department.

Barnett, W. E.^{D} do. Vol. VII, p. 539.

Barnhorst, Colin^{D} Desk Clerk, YMCA, in Vol. X, p. 284. Dallas.

Bashour, Fouad A.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 61. Hospital.

Batchelor, Charles^{D} Assistant Chief, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 1. Police Department. Vol. XV, p. 114.

Bates, Pauline Public stenographer, Vol. VIII, p. 330. Virginia^{D} Fort Worth.

Baxter, Charles Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 39. Rufus^{D} Hospital.

Beaty, Buford Lee^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 158. Department.

Beavers, William Psychiatrist, Dallas. Vol. XIV, p. 570. Robert^{D}

Beers, Ira J. “Jack”, Newspaper photographer, Vol. XIII, p. 102. Jr.^{D} Dallas.

Bellocchio, Frank^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIV, p. 466. Ruby.

Belmont, Alan H.^{C} Assistant to the Vol. V, p. 1. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Benavides, Domingo^{D} Witness in the vicinity Vol. VI, p. 444. of the Tippit crime scene.

Benton, Nelson^{D} Television reporter, Vol. XV, p. 456. CBS.

Bieberdorf, Fred A.^{D} First aid attendant, Vol. XIII, p. 83. Dallas Health Department.

Biggio, William S.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XIV, p. 48. Department.

Blalock, Vance^{D} Observed Oswald in New Vol. X, p. 81. Orleans.

Bledsoe, Mary E.^{D} Oswald’s former Vol. VI, p. 400. landlady in Dallas.

Bogard, Albert Guy^{D} Automobile salesman, Vol. X, p. 352. Dallas.

Bookhout, James W.^{D} Agent, FBI. Vol. VII, p. 308.

Boone, Eugene^{C} Deputy Sheriff, Dallas Vol. III, p. 291. County.

Boswell, J. Doctor, Bethesda Naval Vol. II, p. 376. Thornton^{C} Hospital.

Botelho, James Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 315. Anthony^{A} in Marine Corps.

Bouck, Robert Inman^{C} Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. IV, p. 294. Service.

Boudreaux, Anne^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 35. during his youth.

Bouhe, George A.^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. VIII, p. 355. Oswalds in Texas.

Bowers, Lee E., Jr.^{D} Employee, Union Vol. VI, p. 284. Terminal Co.

Bowron, Diana Nurse, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 134. Hamilton^{D} Hospital.

Boyd, Elmer L.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 119. Department.

Branch, John Henry^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 473. Ruby.

Brennan, Howard Witness at Vol. III, pp. 140, Leslie^{AC} assassination scene. 184, 211. Vol. XI, p. 206.

Brewer, E. D.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 302. Department.

Brewer, Johnny Witness of Oswald Vol. VII, p. 1. Calvin^{D} arrest.

Brian, V. J.^{C} Member, Dallas Police Vol. V, p. 47. Department.

Bringuier, Carlos^{D} Cuban attorney, now a Vol. X, p. 32. resident of New Orleans.

Brock, Alvin R.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 171. Department.

Brock, Mary^{A} Witness in the vicinity Vol. VII, p. 593. of the Tippit crime scene.

Brock, Robert^{A} do. Vol. VII, p. 593.

Brooks, Donald E.^{D} Employment counselor, Vol. X, p. 143. Texas Employment Commission.

Brown, C. W.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 246. Department.

Brown, Earle V.^{D} do. Vol. VI, p. 321.

Brown, Peter Counsel for Community Vol. XI, p. 470. Megargee^{A} Service Society, New York.

Burcham, John W.^{A} Chief of Unemployment Vol. XI, p. 473. Insurance, Texas Employment Commission.

Burns, Doris^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 397.

Burroughs, Warren Employee, Texas Theatre. Vol. VII, p. 14. H.^{D}

Cabell, Earle^{D} Mayor of Dallas. Vol. VII, p. 476.

Cabell, Mrs. Earle^{D} Wife of Mayor Cabell. Vol. VII, p. 485.

Cadigan, James C.^{CD} Questioned document Vol. IV, p. 80. expert, FBI. Vol. VII, p. 418.

Call, Richard Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 322. Dennis^{A} in the Marine Corps.

Callaway, Ted^{C} Witness in the vicinity Vol. III, p. 351. of the Tippit crime scene.

Camarata, Donald Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 316. Peter^{A} in the Marine Corps.

Carlin, Bruce Ray^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIII, p. 201. Ruby. Vol. XV, p. 641.

Carlin, Karen do. Vol. XIII, p. 205. Bennett^{D} Vol. XIV, p. 656.

Carr, Waggoner^{C} Attorney general of Vol. V, p. 258. State of Texas.

Carrico, Charles Doctor, Parkland Vol. III, p. 357. James^{CD} Hospital. Vol. VI, p. 1.

Carro, John^{D} Probation officer, New Vol. VIII, p. 202. York City, 1952-54.

Carroll, Bob K.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 17. Department

Carswell, Robert^{C} Special assistant Vol. IV, p. 299. to Secretary of the Vol. V, p. 486. Treasury.

Carter, Clifton C.^{A} Assistant to President Vol. VII, p. 474. Johnson.

Cason, Frances^{D} Telephone clerk, Dallas Vol. XIII, p. 89. Police Department.

Cason, Jack Charles^{A} President, TSBD. Vol. VII, p. 379.

Caster, Warren^{D} Assistant manager, Vol. VII, p. 386. Southwestern Publishing Co., TSBD.

Chayes, Abram^{C} Legal Adviser, Vol. V, pp. 307, Department of State. 327.

Cheek, Bertha^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIII, p. 382. Ruby.

Church, George B., Passenger with Oswald Vol. XI, p. 115. Jr.^{A} on SS _Marion Lykes_.

Church, Mrs. George do. Vol. XI, p. 116. B., Jr.^{A}

Clardy, Barnard S.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 403. Department.

Clark, Max E.^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. VIII, p. 343. Oswalds in Texas.

Clark, Richard L.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 235. Department.

Clark, William Kemp^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 18. Hospital.

Clements, Manning Agent, FBI. Vol. VII, p. 318. C.^{D}

Cole, Alwyn^{CD} Questioned document Vol. IV, p. 358. examiner, Treasury Vol. XV, p. 703. Department.

Combest, B. H.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 176. Department.

Connally, John Bowden, Governor of Texas. Vol. IV, p. 129. Jr.^{C}

Connally, Mrs. John Wife of the Governor of Vol. IV, p. 146. Bowden, Jr.^{C} Texas.

Connor, Peter Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 317. Francis^{A} in the Marine Corps.

Conway, Hiram P.^{D} Fort Worth neighbor of Vol. VIII, p. 84. the Oswalds in Oswald’s youth.

Corporon, John^{A} Official of New Orleans Vol. XI, p. 471. radio station.

Couch, Malcolm O.^{D} TV news cameraman, Vol. VI, p. 153. Dallas.

Coulter, Harris^{C} State Department Vol. V, p. 408. interpreter.

Cox, Roland A.^{D} Reserve force, Dallas Vol. XV, p. 153. Police Department.

Crafard, Curtis Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIII, p. 402. LaVerne^{D} Ruby. Vol. XIV, p. 1.

Craig, Roger D.^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 260. assassination scene.

Crawford, James N.^{D} do. Vol. VI, p. 171.

Creel, Robert J.^{A} Employee, Louisiana Vol. XI, p. 477. Department of Labor, New Orleans.

Crowe, William D., Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 96. Jr. (a.k.a. Bill Ruby. DeMar).^{D}

Crowley, James D.^{A} Specialist in Vol. XI, p. 482. intelligence matters, Department of State.

Croy, Kenneth Reserve force, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 186. Hudson^{D} Police Department.

Crull, Elgin E.^{D} City Manager of Dallas. Vol. XV, p. 138.

Cunningham, Firearms identification Vol. II, p. 251. Cortlandt^{AC} expert, FBI. Vol. III, p. 451. Vol. VII, p. 591.

Cunningham, Helen Employment Counselor, Vol. X, p. 117. P.^{AD} Texas Employment Vol. XI, p. 477. Commission.

Curry, Jesse Chief, Dallas Police Vol. IV, p. 150. Edward^{ACD} Department. Vol. XII, p. 25. Vol. XV, p. 124, 641.

Curtis, Don Teel^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 57. Hospital.

Cutchshaw, Wilbur Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 206. Jay^{D} Department.

Daniels, John L.^{D} Employee, Dallas Vol. XIII, p. 296. parking lot.

Daniels, Napoleon Former member, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 225. J.^{D} Police Department.

Davis, Barbara Witness in the vicinity Vol. III, p. 342. Jeanette^{C} of the Tippit crime scene.

Davis, Floyd Guy^{D} Operator, Sports Drome Vol. X, p. 356. Rifle Range.

Davis, Virginia (Mrs. Witness in the vicinity Vol. VI, p. 454. Charles).^{D} of the Tippit crime scene.

Davis, Virgina Wife of Floyd Guy Davis. Vol. X, p. 363. Louise^{D}

Day, J.C.^{AC} Lieutenant, Dallas Vol. IV, p. 249. Police Department. Vol. VII, p. 401.

Dean, Patrick Member, Dallas Police Vol. V, p. 254. Trevor^{CD} Department. Vol. XII, p. 415.

Decker, J. E. Sheriff, Dallas County. Vol. XII, p. 42. (Bill)^{D}

Delgado, Nelson^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 228. in Marine Corps.

DeMar, William (see Crowe, William D., Jr.).

De Mohrenschildt, Acquaintance of the Vol. IX, p. 166. George S.^{D} Oswalds in Texas.

De Mohrenschildt, do. Vol. IX, p. 285. Jeanne^{D}

Dhority, C. N.^{AD} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, pp. 149, Department. 380.

Dietrich, Edward C.^{D} Guard, Armored Motor Vol. XV, p. 269. Service.

Dillard, Tom C.^{D} Photographer-Journalist, Vol. VI, p. 162. Dallas.

Dillon, C. Douglas^{C} Secretary of the Vol. V, p. 573. Treasury.

Dobbs, Farrell^{AD} International Vol. X, p. 109. Secretary, Socialist Vol. XI, p. 208. Workers Party.

Donabedian, George^{D} Captain, U.S. Navy. Vol. VIII, p. 311.

Donovan, John E.^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 289. in the Marine Corps.

Dougherty, Jack Employee, TSBD Vol. VI, p. 373. Edwin^{D}

Dowe, Kenneth Lawry^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 430. Ruby.

Dulany, Richard B.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 113. Hospital.

Duncan, William Glenn, Employee, radio Vol. XV, p. 482. Jr.^{D} station, Dallas.

Dymitruk, Lydia^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. IX, p. 60. Oswalds in Texas.

Dziemian, Arthur J.^{C} Wound ballistics Vol. V, p. 90. expert, U.S. Army.

Eberhardt, A. M.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Department. Vol. XIII, p. 181.

Edwards, Robert Employee, Dallas City Edwin^{D} Courthouse. Vol. VI, p. 200.

Euins, Amos Lee^{C} Witness at Vol. II, p. 201. assassination scene.

Evans, Julian^{D} Husband of Myrtle Evans. Vol. VIII, p. 66.

Evans, Myrtle^{D} Acquaintance of Vol. VIII, p. 45. Marguerite Oswald in Oswald’s youth.

Evans, Sidney, Jr.^{D} Resident of Ruby’s Vol. XIII, p. 195. apartment house.

Fain, John W.^{C} Agent, FBI. Vol. IV, p. 403.

Fehrenbach, George Resident of Ashland, Vol. XV, p. 289. William^{D} Oreg.

Feldsott, Louis^{A} President, Crescent Vol. XI, p. 205. Firearms, Inc.

Fenley, Robert Gene^{D} Reporter, Dallas. Vol. XI, p. 314.

Finck, Pierre A.^{C} Doctor, Bethesda Naval Vol. II, p. 377. Hospital.

Fischer, Ronald B.^{D} Auditor, City of Dallas Vol. VI, p. 191.

Fleming, Harold J.^{D} Employee, Armored Motor Vol. XV, p. 159. Service, Inc.

Folsom, Allison G., Lt. Col., U.S. Marine Vol. VIII, p. 303. Jr.^{D} Corps

Ford, Declan P.^{C} Husband of Katherine N. Vol. II, p. 322. Ford and acquaintance of the Oswalds in Texas.

Ford, Katherine N.^{C} Acquaintance of the Vol. II, p. 295. Oswalds in Texas.

Foster, J. W.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 248. Department.

Frazier, Buell Employee, TSBD and Vol. II, p. 210. Wesley^{CD} neighbor of the Paines Vol. VII, p. 531. in Irving, Tex.

Frazier, Robert A.^{AC} Firearms Identification Vol. III, p. 390. Expert, FBI. Vol. V, p. 58. Vol. VII, p. 590.

Frazier, W. B.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 52. Department.

Fritz, John Will^{ACD} do. Vol. IV, p. 202. Vol. VII, p. 403. Vol. XV, p. 145.

Fuqua, Harold R.^{D} Parking attendant in Vol. XIII, p. 141. basement of city hall.

Gallagher, John F.^{D} Agent, FBI. Vol. XV, p. 746.

Gangl, Theodore Employee, Padgett Vol. XI, p. 478. Frank^{A} Printing Corp.

Garner, Jesse J.^{A} Neighbor of the Oswalds Vol. X, p. 276. in New Orleans.

Garner, Mrs. Jesse^{D} Landlady of Oswald in Vol. X, p. 264. New Orleans.

Gauthier, Leo J.^{C} Inspector, FBI. Vol. V, p. 135.

George, M. Waldo^{A} Landlord of Oswalds in Vol. XI, p. 155. Dallas.

Geraci, Philip, III^{D} Resident of New Orleans Vol. X, p. 74. who met Oswald.

Gibson, Mrs. Donald^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. XI, p. 123. Oswalds in Texas.

Gibson, John^{D} Witness to Oswald Vol. VII, p. 70. arrest.

Giesecke, Adolph H., Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 72. Jr.^{D} Hospital.

Givens, Charles Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 345. Douglas^{D}

Glover, Everett D.^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. X, p. 1. Oswalds in Texas.

Goin, Donald Edward^{D} Armored car operator. Vol. XV, p. 168.

Goldstein, David^{A} Owner, Dave’s House of Vol. VII, p. 594. Guns.

Goodson, Clyde Member, Dallas Police Vol. XV, p. 596. Franklin^{D} Department.

Graef, John G.^{D} Oswald’s supervisor, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Vol. X, p. 174. Dallas.

Graf, Allen D.^{A} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 317. in Marine Corps.

Grant, Eva^{D} Sister of Jack Ruby Vol. XIV, p. 429. Vol. XV, p. 321.

Graves, Gene^{A} Secretary, Leslie Vol. XI, p. 479. Welding Co.

Graves, L. C.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 251. Department. Vol. XIII, p. 1.

Gravitis, Dorothy^{D} Acquaintance of Mrs. Vol. IX, p. 131. Paine in Dallas.

Gray, Virginia^{A} Employee, Duke Vol. XI, p. 209. University Library.

Greener, Charles W.^{D} Proprietor, Irving Vol. XI, p. 245. Sports Shop.

Greer, William Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. II, p. 112. Robert^{C} Service.

Gregory, Charles Doctor, Parkland Vol. IV, p. 117. F.^{CD} Hospital. Vol. VI, p. 95.

Gregory, Paul Son of Peter Vol. IX, p. 141. Roderick^{D} Paul Gregory and acquaintance of the Oswalds in Texas.

Gregory, Peter Paul^{C} Acquaintance of the Vol. II, p. 337. Oswalds in Texas.

Guinyard, Sam^{D} Witness in the vicinity Vol. VII, p. 395. of Tippit crime scene.

Hall, C. Ray^{D} Agent, FBI. Vol. XV, p. 62.

Hall, Elena A.^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. VIII, p. 391. Oswalds in Texas.

Hall, John Raymond^{D} Husband of Elena A. Vol. VIII, p. 406. Hall and acquaintance of the Oswalds.

Hall, Marvin E. Employee, Armored Motor Vol. XV, p. 174. “Bert”^{D} Service, Dallas.

Hallmark, Garnett Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 488. Claud^{D} Ruby.

Hamblen, C. A.^{D} Employee, Western Union Vol. XI, p. 311. Telegraph Co.

Hankal, Robert L.^{D} Director, television Vol. XIII, p. 112. station, Dallas.

Hansen, Timothy M., Member, Dallas Police Vol. XV, p. 438. Jr.^{D} Department.

Hardin, Michael^{D} City ambulance driver. Vol. XIII, p. 94.

Hargis, Bobby W.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 293. Department.

Harkness, D. V.^{D} do. Vol. VI, p. 308.

Harrison, William do. Vol. XII, p. 234. J.^{D}

Hartogs, Renatus^{D} Psychiatrist, New York Vol. VIII, p. 214. City.

Hawkins, Ray^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 91. Department.

Haygood, Clyde A.^{D} do. Vol. VI, p. 296.

Heindel, John Rene^{A} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 318. in Marine Corps.

Helmick, Wanda Yvonne Employee of Ralph Paul, Vol. XV, p. 396. or Wanda Sweat.^{D} an acquaintance of Jack Ruby.

Helms, Richard M.^{CA} Deputy Director Vol. V, p. 120. for Plans, Central Vol. XI, p. 469. Intelligence Agency.

Henchliffe, Margaret Nurse, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 139. M.^{D} Hospital.

Henslee, Gerald D.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 325. Department.

Herndon, Bell P.^{D} Polygraph operator, FBI. Vol. XIV, p. 579.

Hicks, J. B.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 286. Department.

Hill, Clinton J.^{C} Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. II, p. 132. Service

Hill, Gerald Lynn^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 43. Department.

Hill, Jean Lollis^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 205. assassination scene.

Hine, Geneva L.^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 393.

Hodge, Alfred Owner, Buckhorn Trading Vol. XV, p. 494. Douglas^{D} Post.

Holland, S. M.^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 239. assassination scene.

Holly, Harold B., Reserve force, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 261. Jr.^{D} Police Department.

Holmes, Harry D.^{D} U.S. Post Office Vol. VII, p. 289, inspector. 525.

Hoover, J. Edgar^{C} Director, FBI. Vol. V, p. 97.

Hosty, James, P., Agent, FBI. Vol. IV, p. 440. Jr.^{C}

Howlett, John Joe^{AD} Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. VII, p. 592. Service. Vol. IX, p. 425.

Hudson, Emmett J.^{D} Witness at Vol. VII, p. 558. assassination scene.

Huffaker, Robert S., Newsman, Dallas. Vol. XIII, p. 116. Jr.^{D}

Hulen, Richard Employee of Dallas YMCA. Vol. X, p. 277. Leroy^{D}

Hulse, C. E.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XIII, p. 99. Department.

Humes, James. J.^{C} Doctor, Bethesda Naval Vol. II, p. 347. Hospital.

Hunley, Bobb^{A} Employee, Louisiana Vol. XI, p. 476. Department of Labor, New Orleans.

Hunt, Jackie H.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 76. Hospital.

Hunter, Gertrude^{D} Witness concerning Vol. XI, pp. 253, alleged encounter with 275. Oswald.

Hutchison, Leonard Owner of grocery store Vol. X, p. 327. Edwin^{D} in Irving.

Hutson, Thomas Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 26. Alexander^{D} Department.

Isaacs, Martin^{D} Employee, Special Vol. VIII, p. 324. Services Welfare Center, New York.

Jackson, Robert News photographer, Vol. II, p. 155. Hill^{C} Dallas.

Jackson, Theodore^{D} Attendant at Dallas Vol. XIII, p. 299. parking lot.

James, Virginia H.^{D} International Relations Vol. XI, p. 180. Officer, Office of Soviet Affairs, State Department.

Jarman, James, Jr.^{C} Employee, TSBD. Vol. III, p. 198.

Jenkins, Marion T.^{C} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 45. Hospita.

Jenkins, Ronald Lee^{D} News editor, radio Vol. XV, p. 600. station, Dallas.

Jimison, R. J.^{D} Orderly, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 125. Hospital.

Johnson, Arnold Director of Information Vol. X, p.95. Samuel^{D} and Lecture Bureau, Communist Party, U.S.A.

Johnson, Arthur Owner of roominghouse Vol. X, p. 301. Carl^{D} in Dallas where Oswald resided.

Johnson, Mrs. Arthur Wife of A. C. Johnson. Vol. X, p. 292. Carl^{D}

Johnson, Joseph Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 218. Weldon, Jr.^{D} Ruby.

Johnson, Lyndon B.^{S} President of the United Vol. V, p. 561. States.

Johnson, Mrs. Lyndon Wife of the President Vol. V, p. 564. B.^{S} of the United States.

Johnson, Marvin^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 100. Department.

Johnson, Priscilla Newspaper reporter who Vol. XI, p. 442. Mary Post^{D} interviewed Oswald in Russia.

Johnson, Speedy^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 607. Ruby.

Johnston, David L.^{D} Justice of the peace, Vol. XV, p. 503. Dallas.

Jones, O. A.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 58. Department.

Jones, Ronald C.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 51. Hospital.

Kaiser, Frankie^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 341.

Kaminsky, Eileen^{D} Jack Ruby’s sister. Vol. XV, p. 275.

Kantor, Seth^{D} Reporter. Vol. XV, p. 71.

Kaufman, Stanley M.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 513. Ruby.

Kellerman, Roy H.^{C} Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. II, p. 61. Service.

Kelley, Thomas J.^{AC} Inspector, U.S. Secret Vol. V, pp. 129, Service. 175. Vol. VII, pp. 403, 590.

Kelly, Edward^{D} Porter, Dallas City Vol. XIII, p. 146. Hall.

Kennedy, Mrs. John Widow of President John Vol. V, p. 178. F.^{C} Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Killion, Charles L.^{A} Firearms identification Vol. VII, p. 591. expert, FBI.

King, Glen D.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. XV, p. 51. Department.

Klause, Robert G.^{C} Printer of handbill Vol. V, p. 535. attacking President Kennedy.

Kleinlerer, Acquaintance of the Vol. XI, p. 118. Alexander^{A} Oswalds in Texas.

Kleinman, Abraham^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 383. Ruby.

Kline, William^{A} Agent, U.S. Customs. Vol. XV, p. 640.

Knight, Frances G.^{C} Director, Passport Vol. V, p. 371. Office, Department of State. Knight, Russell (see Moore).

Kramer, Monica^{A} Tourist in Minsk in Vol. XI, p. 212. 1961.

Kravitz, Herbert B.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 231. Ruby.

Kriss, Harry M.^{D} Reserve force, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 266. Police Department.

Krystinik, Raymond Fellow employee of Vol. IX, p. 461. Franklin.^{D} Michael R. Paine in Texas.

Lane, Doyle E.^{D} Clerk, Western Union Vol. XII, p. 221. Telegraph Co.

Lane, Mark R.^{C} Attorney, New York City. Vol. II, p. 32. Vol. IV, p. 546.

Latona, Sebastian Fingerprint expert, FBI. Vol. IV, p. 1. F.^{C}

Lawrence, Perdue W.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 577. Department.

Lawson, Winston G. Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. IV, p. 317. (accompanied by Fred Service. B. Smith).^{C}

Leavelle, James R.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 260. Department. Vol. VIII, p. 14.

LeBlanc, Charles Maintenance man, Vol. X, p. 213. Joseph^{D} William B. Reily Co.

Lee, Ivan D.^{A} Agent, FBI. Vol. XI, p. 481.

Lee, Vincent T.^{DA} Official, Fair Play for Vol. X, p. 86. Cuba Committee. Vol. XI, p. 208.

Lehrer, James^{D} Reporter, Dallas. Vol. XI, p. 464.

Leslie, Helen^{D} Member of Vol. IX, p. 160. Russian-speaking community in Dallas.

Lewis, Aubrey Lee^{D} Employee, Western Union Vol. IX, p. 318. Telegraph Co.

Lewis, Erwin Donald^{A} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 323. in Marine Corps.

Lewis, L. J.^{A} Witness in the vicinity Vol. XV, p. 703. of the Tippit crime scene.

Light, Frederick W., Wound ballistics Vol. V, p. 94. Jr.^{C} expert, U.S. Army.

Litchfield, Wilbyrn Acquaintance of Ruby. Vol. XIV, p. 95. Waldon (Robert), II.^{D}

Lord, Billy Joe^{A} Passenger with Oswald Vol. XI, p. 117. on SS _Marion Lykes_.

Lovelady, Billy Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 336. Nolan^{D}

Lowery, Roy Lee^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 271. Department.

Lujan, Daniel Appeared in lineup with Vol. VII, p. 243. Gutierrez^{D} Oswald.

Lux, J. Philip^{A} Employee, H. L. Green Vol. XI, p. 206. Co.

McClelland, Robert Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 30. N.^{D} Hospital.

McCone, John Alex^{C} Director, Central Vol. V, p. 120. Intelligence Agency.

McCullough, John G.^{D} Reporter, Philadelphia. Vol. XV, p. 373.

McCurdy, Danny Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 529. Patrick^{D} Ruby.

McDonald, M. N.^{C} Member, Dallas Police Vol. III, p. 295. Department.

McFarland, John Passenger on bus with Vol. XI, p. 214. Bryan^{A} Oswald to Mexico City in 1963.

McFarland, Meryl^{A} do. Vol. XI, p. 214.

McKinzie, Louis^{D} Porter, Dallas City Vol. XIII, p. 147. Hall.

McMillon, Thomas Member, Dallas Police Vol. XIII, p. 37. Donald^{D} Department.

McVickar, John A.^{C} Foreign Service officer Vol. V, pp. 299, stationed at American 318. Embassy in Soviet Union in 1959-61.

McWatters, Cecil J.^{C} Busdriver, Dallas. Vol. II, p. 262.

Malley, James R.^{A} Inspector, FBI. Vol. XI, p. 468.

Mallory, Katherine^{A} Tourist in Minsk in Vol. XI, p. 210. 1961.

Mamantov, Ilya A.^{D} Member of Vol. IX, p. 102. Russian-speaking community in Dallas.

Mandella, Arthur^{C} Fingerprint expert, Vol. IV, p. 48. (accompanied by Joseph New York City Police A. Mooney). Department.

Markham, Helen Witness in the vicinity Vol. III, p. 305. Louise^{CD} of the Tippit crime Vol. VII, p. 499. scene.

Martello, Francis Lieutenant, New Orleans Vol. X, p. 51. L.^{AD} Police Department. Vol. XI, p. 471.

Martin, B. J.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 289. Department.

Martin, Frank M.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 277. Department.

Martin, James Former business manager Vol. I, p. 469. Herbert^{C} for Mrs. Lee Harvey Vol. II, p. 1. Oswald.

Maxey, Billy Joe^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 285. Department.

Mayo, Logan W.^{D} Reserve force, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 291. Police Department.

Meller, Anna N.^{D} Acquaintance of the Vol. VIII, p. 379. Oswalds in Texas.

Meyers, Lawrence V.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 620. Ruby.

Michaelis, Heinz W.^{D} Manager, Seaport Vol. VII, p. 372. Traders, Inc.

Miller, Austin L.^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 223. assassination scene.

Miller, Dave L.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 450. Ruby.

Miller, Louis D.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 297. Department.

Mitchell, Mary Ann^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 175. assassination scene.

Molina, Joe R.^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 368.

Montgomery, L. D.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 96. Department. Vol. XIII, p. 21.

Mooney, Luke^{C} Deputy Sheriff, Dallas Vol. III, p. 281. County.

Moore, Henry M.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 212. Department.

Moore, Russell Lee Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 251. (Knight)^{D} Ruby.

Mumford, Pamela^{D} Passenger on bus with Vol. XI, p. 215. Oswald to Mexico City in 1963.

Murphy, Joe E.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 256. Department

Murphy, Paul Edward^{A} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 319. in Marine Corps.

Murray, David do. Vol. VIII, p. 319. Christie, Jr.^{A}

Murret, Charles (Dutz) Uncle of Lee Harvey Vol. VIII, p. 180. ^{D} Oswald, New Orleans.

Murret, John Martial Cousin of Lee Harvey Vol. VIII, p. 188. (Boogie)^{D} Oswald, New Orleans.

Murret, Lillian^{AD} Sister of Marguerite Vol. VIII, p. 91. Oswald and aunt of Lee Vol. XI, p. 472. Harvey Oswald, New Orleans.

Murret, Marilyn Cousin of Lee Harvey Vol. VIII, p. 154. Dorothea^{D} Oswald, New Orleans.

Naman, Rita^{A} Tourist in Minsk in Vol. XI, p. 213. 1961.

Nelson, Doris Mae^{D} Nurse, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 143. Hospital.

Newman, William J.^{D} Reserve force, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 314. Police Department.

Newnam, John^{D} Advertising department Vol. XV, p. 534. employee, Dallas newspaper.

Nichols, Alice Reaves Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIV, p. 110. ^{D} Ruby.

Nichols, H. Louis^{D} Former president, Vol. VII, p. 325. Dallas bar association.

Nicol, Joseph D.^{C} Firearms identification Vol. III, p. 496. expert, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, Illinois Department of Public Safety.

Norman, Harold^{C} Employee, TSBD. Vol. III, p. 186.

Norton, Robert L.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 546. Ruby.

O’Brien, Lawrence Assistant to President Vol. VII, p. 457. F.^{D} Kennedy.

Odio, Sylvia^{D} Former citizen of Cuba Vol. XI, p. 367. now residing in Dallas.

O’Donnell, Kenneth^{D} Assistant to President Vol. VII, p. 440. Kennedy.

Odum, Bardwell D.^{A} Agent, FBI. Vol. XI, p. 468.

Ofstein, Dennis Employee, Vol. X, p. 194. Hyman^{D} Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Dallas.

Olds, Gregory Lee^{D} President, Dallas Vol. VII, p. 322. Chapter, American Civil Liberties Union.

Oliver, Revilo P.^{D} Member of the council Vol. XV, p. 709. of the John Birch Society.

Olivier, Alfred G.^{C} Wound ballistics Vol. V, p. 74. expert, U.S. Army.

Olsen, Harry N.^{D} Former member, Dallas Vol. XIV, p. 624. Police Department.

Olsen, Kay Helen^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIV, p. 640. Ruby.

Osborne, Mack^{A} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 321. in Marine Corps.

O’Sullivan, Frederick Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 27. S.^{D} at Beauregard Junior High School, New Orleans.

Oswald, Marguerite^{C} Mother of Lee Harvey Vol. I, p. 126. Oswald.

Oswald, Marina^{CD} Widow of Lee Harvey Vol. I, p. 1. Oswald. Vol. V, pp. 387, 410, 588. Vol. XI, p. 275.

Oswald, Robert Edward Brother of Lee Harvey Vol. I, p. 264. Lee^{C} Oswald.

Owens, Calvin Bud^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 78. Department.

Paine, Michael R.^{CD} Acquaintance of the Vol. II, p. 384. Oswalds in Texas. Vol. IX, p. 434. Vol. XI, p. 398.

Paine, Ruth Hyde^{ACD} Wife of Michael R. Vol. II, p. 430. Paine and acquaintance Vol. III, p. 1. of the Oswalds in Texas. Vol. IX, p. 331. Vol. XI, pp. 153, 389.

Palmer, Thomas Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 206. Stewart^{D} Ruby.

Pappas, Icarus M.^{D} Reporter, radio Vol. XV, p. 360. station, New York City.

Patterson, B. M.^{A} Witness in the vicinity Vol. XV, p. 744. of the Tippit crime scene.

Patterson, Bobby G.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 334. Department.

Patterson, Robert Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIV, p. 126. Carl^{D} Ruby.

Paul, Ralph^{D} do. Vol. XIV, p. 134. Vol. XV, p. 664.

Pena, Orest^{D} Owner, Habana Bar, New Vol. XI, p. 346. Orleans.

Pena, Ruperto^{D} Brother of Orest Pena. Vol. XI, p. 364.

Perry, Malcolm O.^{CD} Doctor, Parkland Vol. III, p. 366. Hospital. Vol. VI, p. 7.

Perry, W. E.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 232. Department.

Peterman, Viola^{D} Neighbor of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 38. family in New Orleans.

Peters, Paul C.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 68. Hospital.

Peterson, Joseph Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIV, p. 615. Alexander^{D} Ruby.

Phenix, George R.^{D} Television cameraman Vol. XIII, p. 123. and reporter, Dallas.

Pic, Edward John, First husband of Vol. VIII, p. 196. Jr.^{AD} Marguerite Oswald. Vol. XI, p. 82.

Pic, John Edward^{D} Half brother of Lee Vol. XI, p. 1. Harvey Oswald.

Pierce, Edward E.^{D} Employee, Dallas City Vol. XIII, p. 156. Hall.

Pierce, Rio S.^{D} Lieutenant, Dallas Vol. VII, p. 76. Police Department. Vol. XII, p. 337.

Pinkston, Nat A.^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 334.

Piper, Eddie^{D} do. Vol. VI, p. 382. Vol. VII, p. 388.

Pitts, Elnora^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIII, p. 228. Ruby.

Pizzo, Frank^{D} Assistant manager of Vol. X, p. 340. auto agency, Dallas.

Poe, J. M.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 66. Department.

Postal, Julia^{D} Cashier, Texas Theatre. Vol. VII, p. 8.

Potts, Walter E.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 195. Department.

Powell, Nancy M. Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 404. (a.k.a. Tammie Ruby. True).^{D}

Powers, Daniel Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 266. Patrick^{D} in Marine Corps.

Powers, David F.^{A} Assistant to President Vol. VII, p. 472. Kennedy.

Price, Charles Jack^{D} Administrator, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 148. Hospital.

Price, Malcolm H., Patron, Sports Drome Vol. X, p. 369. Jr.^{D} Rifle Range.

Priddy, Hal Jr.^{D} Relief dispatcher, Vol. XIII, p. 239. O’Neil Funeral Home in Dallas.

Pryor, Roy A.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 554. Ruby.

Pugh, Oran^{A} Agent, U.S. Customs. Vol. XV, p. 640.

Pullman, Edward J.^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 222. Ruby.

Putnam, James A.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 74. Department. Vol. XII, p. 341.

Quigley, John L.^{C} Agent, FBI. Vol. IV, p. 431.

Rachal, John R.^{A} Employee, Louisiana Vol. XI, p. 474. Department of Labor, New Orleans.

Rackley, George W., Employee, Coordinated Vol. VI, p. 273. Sr.^{D} RR. Co.

Raigorodsky, Paul Member of Vol. IX, p. 1. M.^{D} Russian-speaking community in Dallas.

Randle, Linnie Mae^{C} Buell Wesley Frazier’s Vol. II, p. 245. sister and neighbor of Ruth Paine.

Ray, Natalie (Mrs. Acquaintance of the Vol. IX, p. 27. Thomas M.).^{D} Oswalds in Texas.

Ray, Thomas M.^{D} Husband of Natalie Ray Vol. IX, p. 38. and acquaintance of the Oswalds in Texas.

Ray, Valentine A. Acquaintance of the Vol. VIII, p. 415. (Mrs. Frank H.).^{D} Oswalds in Texas.

Rea, Billy A.^{D} Advertising staff, Vol. XV, p. 571. Dallas newspaper.

Reeves, Huey^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIII, p. 243. Ruby.

Reid, Mrs. Robert Employee, TSBD. Vol. III, p. 270. A.^{C}

Reilly, Frank E.^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 227. assassination scene.

Revill, Jack^{CD} Lieutenant, Dallas Vol. V, p. 33. Police Department. Vol. XII, p. 73.

Reynolds, Warren Witness in the vicinity Vol. XI, p. 434. Allen^{D} of the Tippit crime scene.

Rheinstein, Producer-director, NBC. Vol. XV, p. 354. Frederic^{D}

Rich, Nancy Perrin^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XIV, p. 330. Ruby.

Richey, Marjorie R.^{D} do. Vol. XV, p. 192.

Richey, Warren E.^{D} TV engineer, Fort Worth. Vol. XIII, p. 255.

Riggs, Alfreadia^{D} Porter, City Hall. Vol. XIII, p. 166.

Riggs, Chester Allen, Landlord of the Oswalds Vol. X, p. 229. Jr.^{A} in Fort Worth.

Ritchie, James L.^{D} Passport Officer, Vol. XI, p. 191. Department of State.

Roberts, Earlene^{AD} Housekeeper at Oswald’s Vol. VI, p. 434. roominghouse in Dallas. Vol. VII, p. 439.

Robertson, Mary Employee, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 404. Jane^{D} Department.

Robertson, Victor F., Reporter, Dallas. Vol. XV, p. 347. Jr.^{D}

Rodriguez, Evaristo^{D} Bartender at Habana Vol. XI, p. 339. Bar, New Orleans.

Rogers, Eric^{D} Neighbor of the Oswalds Vol. XI, p. 460. in New Orleans.

Romack, James E.^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 277. assassination scene.

Rose, Guy F.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 227. Department.

Ross, Henrietta M.^{D} Technician, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 123. Hospital.

Rossi, Joseph^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 235. Ruby.

Roussel, Henry J., Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 320. Jr.^{A} in Marine Corps.

Rowland, Arnold Witness at Vol. II, p. 165. Louis^{C} assassination scene.

Rowland, Barbara (Mrs. do. Vol. VI, p. 177. Arnold L.).^{D}

Rowley, James J.^{C} Chief, U.S. Secret Vol. V, p. 449. Service.

Rubenstein, Hyman^{D} Brother of Jack Ruby. Vol. XV, p. 1.

Ruby, Earl^{D} do. Vol. XIV, p. 364.

Ruby, Jack^{CD} Convicted slayer of Vol. V, p. 181. Oswald. Vol. XIV, p. 504.

Ruby, Sam^{D} Brother of Jack Ruby. Vol. XIV, p. 488.

Rusk, Dean^{C} Secretary of State. Vol. V, p. 363.

Russell, Harold^{A} Witness in the vicinity Vol. VII, p. 594. of the Tippit crime scene.

Ryder, Dial D.^{D} Employee, Irving Sports Vol. XI, p. 224. Shop.

Salyer, Kenneth E.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 80. Hospital.

Saunders, Richard Advertising staff, Vol. XV, p. 577. L.^{D} Dallas newspaper.

Sawyer, J. Herbert^{D} Inspector, Dallas Vol. VI, p. 315. Police Department.

Sawyer, Mildred^{D} Neighbor and Vol. VIII, p. 31. acquaintance of Oswald as a youth in New Orleans.

Schmidt, Hunter, City editor, Dallas. Vol. XI, p. 240. Jr.^{D}

Scibor, Mitchell J.^{D} Employee, Klein’s Vol. VII, p. 370. Sports Goods.

Scoggins, William Witness in the vicinity Vol. III, p. 322. W.^{C} of the Tippit crime scene.

Seeley, Carroll Assistant Chief, Legal Vol. XI, p. 193. Hamilton, Jr.^{D} Division, Passport Office, Department of State.

Semingsen, W.W.^{D} Employee, Western Union Vol. X, p. 405. Telegraph Co.

Senator, George^{D} Roommate of Jack Ruby. Vol. XIV, p. 164.

Servance, John Head porter, City Hall Vol. XIII, p. 175. Olridge^{D} and Municipal Building.

Shaneyfelt, Lyndal Photography expert, FBI. Vol. IV, p. 279. L.^{CD} Vol. V, p. 138, 176. Vol. VII, p. 410.

Shasteen, Clifton Owner of barbershop in Vol. X, p. 309. M.^{D} Irving, Tex.

Shaw, Robert Doctor, Parkland Vol. IV, p. 101. Roeder^{CD} Hospital. Vol. VI, p. 83.

Shelley, William H.^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 327. Vol. VII, p. 390.

Shields, Edward^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VII, p. 393.

Shires, George T.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 104. Hospital.

Siegel, Evelyn Grace Social worker, New York Vol. VIII, p. 224. Strickman^{D} City.

Simmons, Ronald^{C} Weapons evaluation Vol. III, p. 441. expert, U.S. Army Weapons System Division.

Sims, Richard M.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 158. Department.

Skelton, Royce G.^{D} Witness at Vol. VI, p. 236. assassination scene.

Slack, Garland Patron, Sports Drome Vol. X, p. 378. Glenwill^{D} Rifle Range.

Slack, Willie B.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 347. Department.

Slaughter, Malcolm Resident in Jack Ruby’s Vol. XIII, p. 261. R.^{D} apartment building.

Smart, Vernon S.^{D} Lieutenant, Dallas Vol. XIII, p. 266. Police Department.

Smith, Bennierita^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 21. at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans.

Smith, Edgar Leon, Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 565. Jr.^{D} Department.

Smith, Glenn Emmett^{D} Service Station Vol. X, p. 399. attendant in Dallas.

Smith, Hilda L.^{A} Employee, Louisiana Vol. XI, p. 474. Department of Labor, New Orleans.

Smith, Joe Marshall^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 531. Department.

Smith, John Allison^{D} TV technician, Fort Vol. XIII, p. 277. Worth.

Smith, William Witness in the vicinity Vol. VII, p. 82. Arthur^{D} of the Tippit crime scene.

Snyder, Richard Foreign Service Vol. V, p. 260. Edward^{C} officer, stationed in the Embassy in the Soviet Union 1959-61.

Solomon, James Captain, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 87. Maurice^{D} Department.

Sorrels, Forrest Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. VII, pp. 332, V.^{DA} Service. 592. Vol. XIII, p. 55.

Standifer, Roy E.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XV, p. 614. Department.

Standridge, Ruth Head nurse of operating Vol. VI, p. 115. Jeanette^{D} rooms, Parkland Hospital.

Staples, Albert F.^{A} Dentist at Baylor Vol. XI, p. 210. University College of Dentistry.

Statman, Irving^{D} Assistant District Vol. X, p. 149. Director of Dallas District, Texas Employment Commission.

Steele, Charles Hall, Resident of New Orleans Vol. X, p. 62. Jr.^{D} who assisted Oswald in distribution of handbills.

Steele, Charles Hall, Father of Charles Hall Vol. X, p. 71. Sr.^{D} Steele, Jr.

Steele, Don Francis^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 353. Department.

Stevenson, M. W.^{D} Deputy Chief, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 91. Police Department. Vol. XV, p. 133.

Stombaugh, Paul Hair and fiber expert, Vol. IV, p. 56. Morgan^{CA} FBI. Vol. XV, p. 702.

Stovall, Richard S.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 186. Department.

Stovall, Robert L.^{D} President, Vol. X, p. 167. Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Dallas, Tex.

Strong, Jesse M.^{D} Employee, Western Union Vol. XIII, p. 284. Telegraph Co.

Stuckey, William Radio program director, Vol. XI, p. 156. Kirk^{D} New Orleans.

Studebaker, Robert Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 137. Lee^{D} Department.

Surrey, Robert Alan^{C} Publisher of handbill Vol. V, p. 420. attacking President Kennedy.

Tague, James Thomas^{D} Witness at Vol. VII, p. 552. assassination scene.

Talbert, Cecil E.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 108. Department. Vol. XV, p. 182.

Tasker, Harry T.^{D} Taxicab driver in Vol. XV, p. 679. Dallas.

Taylor, Gary E.^{DA} Acquaintance of the Vol. IX, p. 73. Oswalds in Texas. Vol. XI, p. 470.

Thompson, Llewellyn Former U.S. Ambassador Vol. V, p. 567. E.^{C} to Russia.

Thornley, Kerry Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. XI, p. 82. Wendell^{D} in Marines.

Tice, Wilma May^{D} Resident of Dallas. Vol. XV, p. 388.

Tobias, Mahlon F., Manager of apartment Vol. X, p. 251. Sr.^{D} house where the Oswalds resided, Dallas.

Tobias, Mrs. Mahlon Wife of M. F. Tobias, Vol. X, p. 231. F.^{D} Sr.

Tomlinson, Darrell Senior engineer, Vol. VI, p. 128. C.^{D} Parkland Hospital.

Tormey, James J.^{D} Executive secretary, Vol. X, p. 107. Hall-Davis Defense Commission.

Truly, Roy Sansom^{ACD} Superintendent, TSBD. Vol. III, p. 212. Vol. VII, pp. 380, 591.

Turner, F. M.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 217. Department.

Turner, Jimmy^{D} TV director, Fort Worth. Vol. XIII, p. 130.

Twiford, Horace Member, Socialist Labor Vol. XI, p. 179. Elroy^{A} Party, Houston, Tex.

Twiford, Estelle^{A} Wife of Horace Elroy Vol. XI, p. 179. Twiford.

Underwood, James R.^{D} Assistant news Vol. VI, p. 167. director, TV and radio, Dallas.

Vaughn, Roy Eugene^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 357. Department.

Vinson, Philip Reporter, Fort Worth. Vol. VIII, p. 75. Eugene^{D}

Voebel, Edward^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 1. in Beauregard Junior High School, New Orleans.

Voshinin, Igor Member of Vol. VIII, p. 448. Vladimir^{D} Russian-speaking community in Dallas.

Voshinin, Mrs. Igor Acquaintance of the Vol. VIII, p. 425. Vladimir.^{D} Oswalds in Texas.

Wade, Henry^{C} District attorney, Vol. V, p. 213. Dallas County.

Waldman, William J.^{D} Vice President, Klein’s Vol. VII, p. 360. Sporting Sporting Goods, Inc.

Waldo, Thayer^{D} Reporter, Forth Worth. Vol. XV, p. 585.

Walker, C. T.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 34. Department.

Walker, Maj. Gen. Resident of Dallas and Vol. XI, p. 404. Edwin A.^{D} object of shooting in April 1963.

Walker, Ira N., Jr.^{D} Broadcast technician, Vol. XIII, p. 289. Fort Worth.

Wall, Breck (a.k.a. Acquaintance of Ruby. Vol. XIV, p. 599. Billy Ray Wilson).^{D}

Walthers, Eddy Raymond Deputy sheriff, Dallas Vol. VII, p. 544. ^{D} County.

Warner, Roger C.^{A} Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. XV, p. 619. Service.

Waterman, Bernice^{C} Adjudicator, Passport Vol. V, p. 346. Office, Department of State.

Watherwax, Arthur Printer, Dallas Vol. XV, p. 564. William^{D} newspaper.

Watson, James C.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. XII, p. 372. Department.

Weinstock, Louis^{A} General manager, the Vol. XI, p. 207. Worker.

Weissman, Bernard^{CD} Codraftsman and signer Vol. V, p. 487. of November 22, 1963, Vol. XI, p. 428. full page advertisement.

Weitzman, Seymour^{D} Deputy constable, Vol. VII, p. 105. Dallas County.

West, Troy Eugene^{D} Employee, TSBD. Vol. VI, p. 356.

Westbrook, W. R.^{D} Captain, Dallas Police Vol. VII, p. 109. Department.

Wester, Jane Nurse, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 120. Carolyn^{D} Hospital.

Whaley, William Taxicab driver in Vol. II, pp. 253, Wayne^{CD} Dallas. 292. Vol. VI, p. 428.

White, J. C.^{D} Member, Dallas Police Vol. VI, p. 253. Department.

White, Martin G.^{D} Doctor, Parkland Vol. VI, p. 82. Hospital.

Whitworth, Edith^{D} Manager, used furniture Vol. XI, p. 262. store, Irving, Tex.

Wiggins, Woodrow^{D} Lieutenant, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 388. Police Department.

Wilcox, Laurance R.^{D} District manager, Vol. X, p. 414. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Williams, Bonnie Employee, TSBD. Vol. III, p. 161. Ray^{C}

Willis, Linda Kay^{D} Daughter of Phillip L. Vol. VII, p. 498. Willis.

Willis, Phillip L.^{D} Witness at Vol. VII, p. 492. assassination scene. Wilson, Billy Ray (see Wall, Breck).

Wittmus, Ronald G.^{A} Fingerprint expert, FBI. Vol. VII, p. 590.

Wood, Homer^{D} Patron, Sports Drome Vol. X, p. 385. Rifle Range.

Wood, Sterling Son of Dr. Homer Wood. Vol. X, p. 390. Charles^{D}

Wood, Theresa^{D} Wife of Dr. Homer Wood. Vol. X, p. 398.

Worley, Gano E.^{D} Reserve Force, Dallas Vol. XII, p. 378. Police Department.

Worrell, James Witness at Vol. II, p. 190. Richard, Jr.^{C} assassination scene.

Wright, Norman Earl^{D} Acquaintance of Jack Vol. XV, p. 244. Ruby.

Wulf, William E.^{D} Acquaintance of Oswald Vol. VIII, p. 15. in his youth.

Yarborough, Ralph U.S. Senator from Texas. Vol. VII, p. 439. W.^{A}

Yeargan, Albert C., Employee, H. C. Green, Vol. XI, p. 207. Jr.^{A} Dallas.

Youngblood, Rufus Agent, U.S. Secret Vol. II, p. 144. Wayne^{C} Service.

Zahm, James A.^{D} Marine Corps expert on Vol. XI, p. 306. marksmanship.

Zapruder, Abraham^{D} Witness at Vol. VII, p. 569. assassination scene.

APPENDIX VI

Commission Procedures for the Taking of Testimony

RESOLUTION GOVERNING QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 11130, November 29, 1963, which authorizes this Commission “to prescribe its own procedures,” it is therefore

_Resolved_, That the following are hereby adopted as the rules of this Commission for the questioning of witnesses by members of the Commission staff.

I. _Sworn Depositions_

A. Individual members of the staff are hereby authorized to administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence in the form of sworn depositions on any matter under investigation by the Commission.

B. Such sworn depositions may be taken only from witnesses designated in writing for questioning in this manner by the Commission, by a member of the Commission, or by the General Counsel of the Commission.

C. A stenographic verbatim transcript shall be made of all sworn depositions. Copies of the witness’ testimony shall be available for inspection by the witness or his counsel. When approved by the Commission, said copies may be purchased by the witness or his counsel at regularly prescribed rates from the official reporter.

D. Process and papers of the Commission issued under Paragraph (d) of Joint Resolution S.J. 137, 88th Congress, 1st session, shall be returnable no less than three days from the date on which such process or papers are issued, and shall state the time, place, and general subject matter of the deposition. In lieu of such process and papers, the Commission may request the presence of witnesses and production of evidence for the purpose of sworn depositions by written notice mailed no less than three days from the date of the deposition.

E. The period of notice specified in Paragraph D may be waived by a witness.

F. A witness at a sworn deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing, who shall have the right to advise the witness of his rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States, and the state wherein the deposition shall occur, and to make brief objections to questions. At the conclusion of the witness’ testimony, counsel shall have the right to clarify the testimony of the witness by questioning the witness.

G. At the opening of any deposition a member of the Commission’s staff shall read into the record a statement setting forth the nature of the Commission’s inquiry and the purpose for which the witness has been asked to testify or produce evidence.

H. Any witness who refuses to answer a question shall state the grounds for so doing. At the conclusion of any deposition in which the witness refuses to answer a question the transcript shall be submitted to the General Counsel for review and consideration whether the witness should be called to testify before the Commission.

II. _Sworn Affidavits_

A. Members of the Commission staff are hereby authorized to obtain sworn affidavits from those witnesses who have been designated in writing by the Commission, a member of the Commission, or the general counsel of the Commission as witnesses whose testimony will be obtained in this manner.

B. A copy of the affidavit shall be provided the affiant or his counsel.

_RESOLUTION_

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 11130, November 29, 1963, which authorizes this Commission “to prescribe its own procedures,” it is therefore

_Resolved_, That the following are hereby adopted as the rules of this Commission in connection with hearings conducted for the purpose of the taking of testimony or the production of evidence.

1. One or more members of the Commission shall be present at all hearings. If more than one Commissioner is present, the Chairman of the Commission shall designate the order in which the Commissioners shall preside.

2. Any member of the Commission or any agent or agency designated by the Commission for such purpose, may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence.

3. Process and papers of the Commission issued under Paragraph (d) of Joint Resolution S.J. 137, 88th Congress, 1st session, shall be returnable no less than three days from the date on which such process or papers are issued, and shall state the time, place, and general subject matter of the hearing. In lieu of such process and papers, the Commission may request the presence of witnesses and the production of evidence by written notice mailed no less than 3 days from the date of the hearing.

4. The period of notice specified in paragraph three (3) may be waived by a witness.

5. At the opening of any hearing at which testimony is to be received a member of the Commission shall read into the record a statement setting forth the nature of the Commission’s inquiry and the purpose for which the witness has been asked to testify or produce evidence. A copy of this statement shall be given to each witness prior to his testifying.

6. A witness shall have the right to be accompanied by counsel, of his own choosing, who shall have the right to advise the witness of his rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States and to make brief objections to questions. At the conclusion of the witness’ testimony, counsel shall have the right to clarify the testimony of the witness by questioning the witness.

7. Every witness who testifies at a hearing shall have the right to make an oral statement and to file a sworn statement which shall be made part of the transcript of such hearing, but such oral or written statement shall be relevant to the subject of the hearing.

8. Rulings on objections or other procedural questions shall be made by the presiding member of the Commission.

9. A stenographic verbatim transcript shall be made of all testimony received by the Commission. Copies of such transcript shall be available for inspection or purchase by the witness or his counsel at regularly prescribed rates from the official reporter. A witness or his counsel shall be permitted to purchase or inspect only the transcript of his testimony before the Commission.

APPENDIX VII

A Brief History of Presidential Protection

In the course of the history of the United States four Presidents have been assassinated, within less than 100 years, beginning with Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Attempts were also made on the lives of two other Presidents, one President-elect, and one ex-President. Still other Presidents were the objects of plots that were never carried out. The actual attempts occurred as follows:

Andrew Jackson Jan. 30, 1835. Abraham Lincoln Apr. 14, 1865. Died Apr. 15, 1865. James A. Garfield July 2, 1881. Died Sept. 19, 1881. William McKinley Sept. 6, 1901. Died Sept. 14, 1901. Theodore Roosevelt Oct. 14, 1912. Wounded; recovered. Franklin D. Roosevelt Feb. 15, 1933. Harry S. Truman Nov. 1, 1950. John F. Kennedy Nov. 22, 1963. Died that day.

Attempts have thus been made on the lives of one of every five American Presidents. One of every nine Presidents has been killed. Since 1865, there have been attempts on the lives of one of every four Presidents and the successful assassination of one of every five. During the last three decades, three attacks were made.

It was only after William McKinley was shot that systematic and continuous protection of the President was instituted. Protection before McKinley was intermittent and spasmodic. The problem had existed from the days of the early Presidents, but no action was taken until three tragic events had occurred. In considering the effectiveness of present day protection arrangements, it is worthwhile to examine the development of Presidential protection over the years, to understand both the high degree of continuing danger and the anomalous reluctance to take the necessary precautions.

BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR

In the early days of the Republic, there was remarkably little concern about the safety of Presidents and few measures were taken to protect them. They were at times the objects of abuse and the recipients of threatening letters as more recent Presidents have been, but they did not take the threats seriously and moved about freely without protective escorts. On his inauguration day, Thomas Jefferson walked from his boarding house to the Capitol, unaccompanied by any guard, to take the oath of office. There was no police authority in Washington itself until 1805 when the mayor appointed a high constable and 40 deputy constables.[A7-1]

John Quincy Adams received many threatening letters and on one occasion was threatened in person in the White House by a court-martialed Army sergeant. In spite of this incident, the President asked for no protection and continued to indulge his fondness for solitary walks and early morning swims in the Potomac.[A7-2]

Among pre-Civil War Presidents, Andrew Jackson aroused particularly strong feelings. He received many threatening letters which, with a fine contempt, he would endorse and send to the Washington Globe for publication. On one occasion in May 1833, Jackson was assaulted by a former Navy lieutenant, Robert B. Randolph, but refused to prosecute him. This is not regarded as an attempt at assassination, since Randolph apparently did not intend serious injury.[A7-3]

Less than 2 years later, on the morning of January 10, 1835, as Jackson emerged from the east portico of the Capitol, he was accosted by a would-be assassin, Richard Lawrence, an English-born house painter. Lawrence fired his two pistols at the President, but they both misfired. Lawrence was quickly overpowered and held for trial. A jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. He was confined in jails and mental hospitals for the rest of his life.[A7-4]

The attack on Jackson did not inspire any action to provide protection for the Chief Executive. Jackson’s immediate successor, Martin Van Buren, often walked to church alone and rode horseback alone in the woods not far from the White House. In August 1842, after an intoxicated painter had thrown rocks at President John Tyler, who was walking on the grounds to the south of the White House, Congress passed an act to establish an auxiliary watch for the protection of public and private property in Washington. The force was to consist of a captain and 15 men. This act was apparently aimed more at the protection of the White House, which had been defaced on occasion, than of the President.[A7-5]

LINCOLN

Even before he took the oath of office, Abraham Lincoln was thought to be the object of plots and conspiracies to kidnap or kill him. Extremist opponents apparently contemplated desperate measures to prevent his inauguration, and there is some evidence that they plotted to attack him while he was passing through Baltimore on his way to Washington.[A7-6]

For the inauguration, the Army took precautions unprecedented up to that time and perhaps more elaborate than any precautions taken since. Soldiers occupied strategic points throughout the city, along the procession route, and at the Capitol, while armed men in plain clothes mingled with the crowds. Lincoln himself, in a carriage with President Buchanan, was surrounded on all sides by such dense masses of soldiers that he was almost completely hidden from the view of the crowds. The precautions at the Capitol during the ceremony were almost as thorough and equally successful.[A7-7]

Lincoln lived in peril during all his years in office. The volume of threatening letters remained high throughout the war, but little attention was paid to them. The few letters that were investigated yielded no results.[A7-8] He was reluctant to surround himself with guards and often rejected protection or sought to slip away from it. This has been characteristic of almost all American Presidents. They have regarded protection as a necessary affliction at best and contrary to their normal instincts for either personal privacy or freedom to meet the people. In Lincoln these instincts were especially strong, and he suffered with impatience the efforts of his friends, the police, and the military to safeguard him.[A7-9]

The protection of the President during the war varied greatly, depending on Lincoln’s susceptibility to warnings. Frequently, military units were assigned to guard the White House and to accompany the President on his travels. Lincoln’s friend, Ward H. Lamon, on becoming marshal of the District of Columbia in 1861, took personal charge of protecting the President and provided guards for the purpose, but he became so exasperated at the President’s lack of cooperation that he tendered his resignation. Lincoln did not accept it. Finally, late in the war, in November 1864, four Washington policemen were detailed to the White House to act as personal bodyguards to the President. Lincoln tolerated them reluctantly and insisted they remain as inconspicuous as possible.[A7-10]

In the closing days of the war, rumors of attempts on Lincoln’s life persisted. The well-known actor, John Wilkes Booth, a fanatical Confederate sympathizer, plotted with others for months to kidnap the President. The fall of the Confederacy apparently hardened his determination to kill Lincoln.[A7-11] Booth’s opportunity came on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, when he learned that the President would be attending a play at Ford’s Theater that night. The President’s bodyguard for the evening was Patrolman John F. Parker of the Washington Police, a man who proved himself unfit for protective duty. He was supposed to remain on guard in the corridor outside of the Presidential box during the entire performance of the play, but he soon wandered off to watch the play and then even went outside the theater to have a drink at a nearby saloon. Parker’s dereliction of duty left the President totally unprotected.[A7-12] Shortly after 10 o’clock on that evening, Booth found his way up to the Presidential box and shot the President in the head. The President’s wound was a mortal one; he died the next morning, April 15.[A7-13]

A detachment of troops captured Booth on April 26 at a farm near Bowling Green, Va.; he received a bullet wound and died a few hours later. At a trial in June, a military tribunal sentenced four of Booth’s associates to death and four others to terms of imprisonment.[A7-14]

Lincoln’s assassination revealed the total inadequacy of Presidential protection. A congressional committee conducted an extensive investigation of the assassination, but with traditional reluctance, called for no action to provide better protection for the President in the future. Nor did requests for protective measures come from the President or from Government departments. This lack of concern for the protection of the President may have derived also from the tendency of the time to regard Lincoln’s assassination as part of a unique crisis that was not likely to happen to a future Chief Executive.[A7-15]

THE NEED FOR PROTECTION FURTHER DEMONSTRATED

For a short time after the war, soldiers assigned by the War Department continued to protect the White House and its grounds. Metropolitan Washington policemen assisted on special occasions to maintain order and prevent the congregation of crowds. The permanent Metropolitan Police guard was reduced to three and assigned entirely to protection at the White House. There was no special group of trained officers to protect the person of the President. Presidents after Lincoln continued to move about in Washington virtually unattended, as their predecessors had done before the Civil War, and, as before, such protection as they got at the White House came from the doormen, who were not especially trained for guard duty.[A7-16]

This lack of personal protection for the President came again tragically to the attention of the country with the shooting of President James A. Garfield in 1881. The President’s assassin, Charles J. Guiteau, was a self-styled “lawyer, theologian, and politician” who had convinced himself that his unsolicited efforts to help elect Garfield in 1880 entitled him to appointment as a consul in Europe. Bitterly disappointed that the President ignored his repeated written requests for appointment to office and obsessed with a kind of megalomania, he resolved to kill Garfield.

At that time Guiteau was 38 years old and had an unusually checkered career behind him. He had been an itinerant and generally unsuccessful lecturer and evangelist, a lawyer, and a would-be politician. While it is true he resented Garfield’s failure to appoint him consul in Paris as a reward for his wholly illusory contribution to the Garfield campaign, and he verbally attacked Garfield for his lack of support for the so-called Stalwart wing of the Republican Party, these may not have supplied the total motivation for his crime. At his trial he testified that the “Deity” had commanded him to remove the President. There is no evidence that he confided his assassination plans to anyone or that he had any close friends or confidants. He made his attack on the President under circumstances where escape after the shooting was inconceivable. There were some hereditary mental problems in his family and Guiteau apparently believed in divine inspiration.[A7-17]

Guiteau later testified that he had had three opportunities to attack the President prior to the actual shooting. On all of these occasions, within a brief period of 3 weeks, the President was unguarded. Guiteau finally realized his intent on the morning of July 2, 1881. As Garfield was walking to a train in the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, Guiteau stepped up and shot him in the back. Garfield did not die from the effects of the wound until September 19, 1881. Although there was evidence of serious abnormality in Guiteau, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hanged. The execution took place on June 30, 1882.[A7-18]

At least one newspaper, the New York Tribune, predicted that the assault on Garfield would lead to the President becoming “the slave of his office, the prisoner of forms and restrictions,” in sharp and unwelcome contrast to the splendidly simple life he had been able to live before.

The bullet of the assassin who lurked in the Washington railway station to take the life of President Garfield shattered the simple Republican manner of life which the custom of nearly a century has prescribed for the Chief Magistrate of the United States. Our Presidents have been the first citizens of the Republic--nothing more. With a measure of power in their hands far greater than is wielded by the ruler of any limited monarchy in Europe, they have never surrounded themselves with the forms and safeguards of courts. The White House has been a business office to everybody. Its occupant has always been more accessible than the heads of great commercial establishments. When the passions of the war were at fever heat, Mr. Lincoln used to have a small guard of cavalry when he rode out to his summer residence at the Soldier’s Home; but at no other time in our history has it been thought needful for a President to have any special protection against violence when inside or outside the White House. Presidents have driven about Washington like other people and travelled over the country as unguarded and unconstrained as any private citizen.[A7-19]

The prediction of the Tribune did not come to pass. Although the Nation was shocked by this deed, its representatives took no steps to provide the President with personal protection. The President continued to move about Washington, sometimes completely alone, and to travel without special protection. There is a story that President Chester A. Arthur, Garfield’s successor, once went to a ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard on a public conveyance that he hailed in front of the White House.[A7-20]

During Grover Cleveland’s second administration (1893-97) the number of threatening letters addressed to the President increased markedly, and Mrs. Cleveland persuaded the President to increase the number of White House policemen to 27 from the 3 who had constituted the force since the Civil War. In 1894, the Secret Service began to provide protection, on an informal basis.[A7-21]

The Secret Service was organized as a division of the Department of the Treasury in 1865, to deal with counterfeiting.[A7-22] Its jurisdiction was extended to other fiscal crimes against the United States in later appropriations acts,[A7-23] but its early work in assisting in protecting the President was an unofficial, stopgap response to a need for a trained organization, with investigative capabilities, to perform this task. In 1894, while investigating a plot by a group of gamblers in Colorado to assassinate President Cleveland, the Secret Service assigned a small detail of operatives to the White House to help protect him. Secret Service men accompanied the President and his family to their vacation home in Massachusetts; special details protected the President in Washington, on trips, and at special functions.[A7-24] For a time, two agents rode in a buggy behind President Cleveland’s carriage, but this practice attracted so much attention in the opposition newspapers that it was soon discontinued at the President’s insistence.[A7-25] These initially informal and part-time arrangements eventually led to the organization of permanent systematic protection for the President and his family.

During the Spanish-American War the Secret Service stationed a detail at the White House to provide continuous protection for President McKinley. The special wartime protective measures were relaxed after the war, but Secret Service guards remained on duty at the White House at least part of the time.[A7-26]

Between 1894 and 1900, anarchists murdered the President of France, the Premier of Spain, the Empress of Austria, and the King of Italy. At the turn of the century the Secret Service thought that the strong police action taken against the anarchists in Europe was compelling them to flee and that many were coming to the United States. Concerned about the protection of the President, the Secret Service increased the number of guards and directed that a guard accompany him on all of his trips.[A7-27]

Unlike Lincoln and Garfield, President McKinley was being guarded when he was shot by Leon F. Czolgosz, an American-born 28-year-old factory worker and farmhand. On September 6, 1901, the President was holding a brief reception for the public in the Temple of Music at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo. Long lines of people passed between two rows of policemen and soldiers to reach the President and shake his hand. In the immediate vicinity of the President were four Buffalo detectives, four soldiers, and three Secret Service agents. Two of the Secret Service men were facing the President at a distance of 3 feet. One of them stated later that it was normally his custom to stand at the side of the President on such occasions, but that he had been requested not to do so at this time in order to permit McKinley’s secretary and the president of the exposition to stand on either side of McKinley. Czolgosz joined the line, concealed a pistol under a handkerchief, and when he stood in front of the President shot twice through the handkerchief. McKinley fell critically wounded.[A7-28]

Czolgosz, a self-styled anarchist, did not believe in rulers of any kind. There is evidence that the organized anarchists in the U.S.A. did not accept or trust him. He was not admitted as a member to any of the secret anarchist societies. No co-plotters were ever discovered, and there is no evidence that he had confided in anyone. A calm inquiry made by two eminent alienists about a year after Czolgosz was executed found that Czolgosz had for some time been suffering from delusions. One was that he was an anarchist; another was that it was his duty to assassinate the President.[A7-29]

The assassin said he had no grudge against the President personally but did not believe in the republican form of government or in rulers of any kind. In his written confession he included the words, “‘I don’t believe one man should have so much service and another man should have none.’” As he was strapped to the chair to be electrocuted, he said: “‘I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people--the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.’”[A7-30]

McKinley lingered on for 8 days before he died of blood poisoning early on the morning of September 14. Czolgosz, who had been captured immediately, was swiftly tried, convicted, and condemned to death. Although it seemed to some contemporaries that Czolgosz was incompetent, the defense made no effort to plead insanity. Czolgosz was executed 45 days after the President’s death. Investigations by the Buffalo police and the Secret Service revealed no accomplices and no plot of any kind.[A7-31]

DEVELOPMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION

This third assassination of a President in a little more than a generation--it was only 36 years since Lincoln had been killed--shook the nation and aroused it to a greater awareness of the uniqueness of the Presidency and the grim hazards that surrounded an incumbent of that Office. The first congressional session after the assassination of McKinley gave more attention to legislation concerning attacks on the President than had any previous Congress but did not pass any measures for the protection of the President.[A7-32] Nevertheless, in 1902 the Secret Service, which was then the only Federal general investigative agency of any consequence, assumed full-time responsibility for the safety of the President. Protection of the President now became one of its major permanent functions, and it assigned two men to its original full-time White House detail. Additional agents were provided when the President traveled or went on vacation.[A7-33]

Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first President to experience the extensive system of protection that has surrounded the President ever since, voiced an opinion of Presidential protection that was probably shared in part by most of his successors. In a letter to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge in 1906, from his summer home, he wrote:

The Secret Service men are a very small but very necessary thorn in the flesh. Of course, they would not be the least use in preventing any assault upon my life. I do not believe there is any danger of such an assault, and if there were, as Lincoln said, “though it would be safer for a President to live in a cage, it would interfere with his business.” But it is only the Secret Service men who render life endurable, as you would realize if you saw the procession of carriages that pass through the place, the procession of people on foot who try to get into the place, not to speak of the multitude of cranks and others who are stopped in the village.[A7-34]

Roosevelt, who had succeeded to the Presidency because of an assassin’s bullet, himself became the object of an assassination attempt a few years after he left office and when he was no longer under Secret Service protection. During the Presidential campaign of 1912, just as he was about to make a political speech in Milwaukee on October 14, he was shot and wounded in the breast by John N. Schrank, a 36-year-old German-born ex-tavern keeper. A folded manuscript of his long speech and the metal case for his eyeglasses in the breast pocket of Roosevelt’s coat were all that prevented the assassination.[A7-35]

Schrank had had a vision in 1901, induced possibly by McKinley’s assassination, which took on meaning for him after Roosevelt, 11 years later, started to campaign for the Presidency. In this vision the ghost of McKinley appeared to him and told him not to let a murderer (i.e., Roosevelt, who according to the vision had murdered McKinley) become President. It was then that he determined upon the assassination. At the bidding of McKinley’s ghost, he felt he had no choice but to kill Theodore Roosevelt. After his attempt on Roosevelt, Schrank was found to be insane and was committed to mental hospitals in Wisconsin for the rest of his life.[A7-36]

The establishment and extension of the Secret Service authority for protection was a prolonged process. Although the Secret Service undertook to provide full-time protection for the President beginning in 1902, it received neither funds for the purpose nor sanction from the Congress until 1906 when the Sundry Civil Expenses Act for 1907 included funds for protection of the President by the Secret Service.[A7-37] Following the election of William Howard Taft in 1908, the Secret Service began providing protection for the President-elect. This practice received statutory authorization in 1913, and in the same year, Congress authorized permanent protection of the President.[A7-38] It remained necessary to renew the authority annually in the Appropriations Acts until 1951.

As in the Civil and Spanish-American Wars, the coming of war in 1917 caused increased concern for the safety of the President. Congress enacted a law, since referred to as the threat statute, making it a crime to threaten the President by mail or in any other manner.[A7-39] In 1917 Congress also authorized protection for the President’s immediate family by the Secret Service.[A7-40]

As the scope of the Presidency expanded during the 20th century, the Secret Service found the problems of protection becoming more numerous. In 1906, for the first time in history, a President traveled outside the United States while in office. When Theodore Roosevelt visited Panama in that year, he was accompanied and protected by Secret Service men.[A7-41] In 1918-19 Woodrow Wilson broadened the precedent of Presidential foreign travel when he traveled to Europe with a Secret Service escort of 10 men to attend the Versailles Peace Conference.[A7-42]

The attempt on the life of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 further demonstrated the broad scope and complexity of the protection problems facing the Secret Service. Giuseppe Zangara was a bricklayer and stonemason with a professed hatred of capitalists and Presidents. He seemed to be obsessed with the desire to kill a President. After his arrest he confessed that he had first planned to go to Washington to kill President Herbert Hoover, but as the cold climate of the North was bad for his stomach trouble, he was loath to leave Miami, where he was staying. When he read in the paper that President-elect Roosevelt would be in Miami, he resolved to kill him.[A7-43]

On the night of February 15, 1933, at a political rally in Miami’s Bayfront Park, the President-elect sat on the top of the rear seat of his automobile with a small microphone in his hand as he made a short informal talk. Fortunately for him, however, he slid down into the seat just before Zangara could get near enough to take aim. The assassin’s arm may have been jogged just as he shot; the five rounds he directed at Roosevelt went awry. However, he mortally wounded Mayor Anton Cermak, of Chicago, and hit four other persons; the President-elect, by a miracle, escaped. Zangara, of course, never had any chance of escaping.[A7-44]

Zangara was electrocuted on March 20, 1933, only 33 days after his attempt on Roosevelt. No evidence of accomplices or conspiracy came to light, but there was some sensational newspaper speculation, wholly undocumented, that Zangara may have been hired by Chicago gangsters to kill Cermak.[A7-45]

The force provided since the Civil War by the Washington Metropolitan Police for the protection of the White House had grown to 54 men by 1922.[A7-46] In that year Congress enacted legislation creating the White House Police Force as a separate organization under the direct control of the President.[A7-47] This force was actually supervised by the President’s military aide until 1930, when Congress placed supervision under the Chief of the Secret Service.[A7-48] Although Congress transferred control and supervision of the force to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1962,[A7-49] the Secretary delegated supervision to the Chief of the Secret Service.[A7-50]

The White House detail of the Secret Service grew in size slowly from the original 2 men assigned in 1902. In 1914 it still numbered only 5, but during World War I it was increased to 10 men. Additional men were added when the President traveled. After the war the size of the detail grew until it reached 16 agents and 2 supervisors by 1939. World War II created new and greater protection problems, especially those arising from the President’s trips abroad to the Grand Strategy Conferences in such places as Casablanca, Quebec, Tehran, Cairo, and Yalta. To meet the increased demands, the White House detail was increased to 37 men early in the war.[A7-51]

The volume of mail received by the White House had always been large, but it reached huge proportions under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Presidents had always received threatening letters but never in such quantities. To deal with this growing problem, the Secret Service established in 1940 the Protective Research Section to analyze and make available to those charged with protecting the President, information from White House mail and other sources concerning people potentially capable of violence to the President. The Protective Research Section undoubtedly permitted the Secret Service to anticipate and forestall many incidents that might have been embarrassing or harmful to the President.[A7-52]

Although there was no advance warning of the attempt on Harry S. Truman’s life on November 1, 1950, the protective measures taken by the Secret Service availed, and the assassins never succeeded in firing directly at the President. The assassins--Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, Puerto Rican Nationalists living in New York--tried to force their way into Blair House, at the time the President’s residence while the White House was being repaired. Blair House was guarded by White House policemen and Secret Service agents. In the ensuing gun battle, Torresola and one White House policeman were killed, and Collazo and two White House policemen were wounded. Had the assassins succeeded in entering the front door of Blair House, they would probably have been cut down immediately by another Secret Service agent inside who kept the doorway covered with a submachine gun from his vantage point at the foot of the main stairs. In all, some 27 shots were fired in less than 3 minutes.[A7-53]

Collazo was brought to trial in 1951 and sentenced to death, but President Truman commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on July 24, 1952. Although there was a great deal of evidence linking Collazo and Torresola to the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico and its leader, Pedro Albizu Campos, the Government could not establish that the attack on the President was part of a larger Nationalist conspiracy.[A7-54]

The attack on President Truman led to the enactment in 1951 of legislation that permanently authorized the Secret Service to protect the President, his immediate family, the President-elect, and the Vice President, the last upon his request. Protection of the Vice President by the Secret Service had begun in January 1945 when Harry S. Truman occupied the office.[A7-55]

In 1962 Congress further enlarged the list of Government officers to be safeguarded, authorizing protection of the Vice President (or the officer next in order of succession to the Presidency) without requiring his request therefor; of the Vice President-elect; and of a former President, at his request, for a reasonable period after his departure from office. The Secret Service considered this “reasonable period” to be 6 months.[A7-56]

Amendments to the threat statute of 1917, passed in 1955 and 1962, made it a crime to threaten to harm the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officers next in succession to either office. The President’s immediate family was not included in the threat statute.[A7-57]

Congressional concern regarding the uses to which the President might put the Secret Service--first under Theodore Roosevelt and subsequently under Woodrow Wilson--caused Congress to place tight restrictions on the functions of the Service and the uses of its funds.[A7-58] The restrictions probably prevented the Secret Service from developing into a general investigative agency, leaving the field open for some other agency when the need arose. The other agency proved to be the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), established within the Department of Justice in 1908.[A7-59]

The FBI grew rapidly in the 1920’s, and especially in the 1930’s and after, establishing itself as the largest, best equipped, and best known of all U.S. Government investigative agencies. In the appropriations of the FBI there recurred annually an item for the “protection of the person of the President of the United States,” that had first appeared in the appropriation of the Department of Justice in 1910 under the heading “Miscellaneous Objects.”[A7-60] But there is no evidence that the Justice Department ever exercised any direct responsibility for the protection of the President. Although it had no prescribed protection functions, according to its Director, J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI did provide protection to Vice President Charles Curtis at his request, when he was serving under Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933. Over the years the FBI contribution to Presidential protection was confined chiefly to the referral to the Secret Service of the names of people who might be potentially dangerous to the President.[A7-61]

In recent years the Secret Service has remained a small and specialized bureau, restricted to very limited functions prescribed by Congress. In 1949, a task force of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Hoover Commission), recommended nonfiscal functions be removed from the Treasury Department.[A7-62] The recommendation called for transfer of the White House detail, White House Police Force, and Treasury Guard Force from the Secret Service to the Department of Justice. The final report of the Commission on the Treasury Department omitted this recommendation, leaving the protective function with the Secret Service.[A7-63] At a meeting of the Commission, ex-President Hoover, in a reference to the proposed transfer, expressed the opinion that “the President will object to having a ‘private eye’ looking after these fellows and would rather continue with the service.”[A7-64]

In 1963 the Secret Service was one of several investigative agencies in the Treasury Department. Its major functions were to combat counterfeiting and to protect the President, his family, and other designated persons.[A7-65] The Chief of the Secret Service administered its activities through four divisions: Investigation, Inspection, Administrative, and Security, and 65 field offices throughout the country, each under a special agent in charge who reported directly to Washington. The Security Division supervised the White House detail, the White House Police, and the Treasury Guard Force. During fiscal year 1963 (July 1, 1962-June 30, 1963) the Secret Service had an average strength of 513, of whom 351 were special agents. Average strength of the White House Police during the year was 179.[A7-66]

APPENDIX VIII

Medical Reports From Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex.

The president arrived in the Emergency Room at exactly 12:43 p.m. in his limousine. He was in the back seat, Gov. Conally was in the front seat of the same car, Gov. Connally was brought out first and was put in room two. President was brought out next and put in room one. Dr. Clark pronounced the President dead at 1 p.m. exactly. All of the President’s belongings except his watch were given to the Secret Service. His watch was given to Mr. C. P. Wright. He left the Emergency Room, the President, at about 2 p.m. in an O’Neal ambulance. He was put in a bronze colored plastic casket after being wrapped in a blanket and was taken out of the hospital. He was removed from the hospital. The Gov. was taken from the Emergency room to the Operating Room.

The President’s wife refused to take off her bloody gloves, clothes. She did take a towel and wipe her face. She took her wedding ring off and placed it on one of the President’s fingers.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392]

SUMMARY

The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P.M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

At this time, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Attending Surgeon, Dr. Charles Baxter, Attending Surgeon, and Dr. Ronald Jones, another Resident in General Surgery, arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Director of the Department of Anesthesia, and Doctors Giesecke and Bunt, two other Staff Anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a Bennett respirator to assist the President’s breathing. An Anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100% oxygen was administered.

A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer’s solution was begun. Blood was drawn for type and crossmatch, but unmatched type “O” RH negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone 300 mgms was added to the intravenous fluids.

Dr. Robert McClelland, Attending Surgeon, arrived to help in the President’s care. Doctors Perry, Baxter, and McClelland began a tracheostomy, as considerable quantities of blood were present from the President’s oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Paul Peters, Attending Urological Surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery, arrived. Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.

Neurological examination revealed the President’s pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. No deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.

There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. 1500 cc. of blood were estimated on the drapes and floors of the Emergency Operating Room. There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerabellar tissue were extruding from the wound.

Further examination was not possible as cardiac arrest occurred at this point. Closed chest cardiac massage was begun by Dr. Clark. A pulse palpable in both the carotid and femoral arteries was obtained. Dr. Perry relieved on the cardiac massage while a cardiotachioscope was connected. Dr. Fouad Bashour, Attending Physician, arrived as this was being connected. There was electrical silence of the President’s heart.

President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300 hours by Dr. Clark.

Kemp Clark, M.D, Director Service of Neurological Surgery

KC:ca

cc to Dean’s Office, Southwestern Medical School

cc to Medical Records, Parkland Memorial Hospital

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL

DALLAS

M. T. JENKINS. M. D. PROFESSOR AND CHAIRMAN Department of Anesthesiology

Clinical Departments of Anesthesia PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER

November 22, 1963 1630

To: Mr. C. J. Price, Administrator Parkland Memorial Hospital

From: M. T. Jenkins, M.D., Professor and Chairman Department of Anesthesiology

Subject: Statement concerning resuscitative efforts for President John F. Kennedy

Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A. H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs. On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

For better control of artificial ventilation, I exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Doctors Gene Akin and A. H. Giesecke assisted with the respiratory problems incident to changing from the orotracheal tube to a tracheostomy tube, and Doctors Hunt and Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein, and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 1245, at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Doctor Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was no electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.

These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out attention was turned to all other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage.

It is my personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, this cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause the irreversible damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1300.

Sincerely,

M. T. Jenkins, M.D.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OPERATIVE RECORD

DATE: 11-22-63 Thoracic Surg

ROOM: 220

STATUS: Pvt

NAME: John Connally

Unit # 26 36 99

AGE:

RACE: W/M

PRE-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Gunshot wound of the chest with comminuted fracture of the 5th rib

POST-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Same with laceration right middle lobe, hematoma lower lobe of lung

OPERATION: Thoractomy, removal rib fragment, debridement of wound

BEGAN: 1335

ENDED: 1520

ANESTHETIC: General

BEGAN: 1300

ANESTHESIOLOGIST: Giesecke

SURGEON: Robert Shaw. M.D

ASSISTANTS: Drs. Boland and Duke

SCRUB NURSE: King/Burkett

CIRC. NURSE: Johnson

SPONGE COUNTS: 1ST Correct

2ND Correct

DRUGS

I.V. FLUIDS AND BLOOD

111-500 cc whole blood

11-1000cc D-5-RL

COMPLICATIONS: None

CONDITION OF PATIENT: Satisfactory

CLINICAL EVALUATION: The patient was brought to the OR from the EOR. In the EOR a sucking wound of the right chest was partially controlled by an occlusive dressing supported by manual pressure. A tube had been placed through the second interspace in the mid-clavicular line connected to a waterseal bottle to evacuate the right pneumothorax and hemathorax. An IV infusion of RL solution had already been started. As soon as the patient was positioned on the OR table the anesthesia was Induced by Dr. Giesecke and an endotracheal tube was in place. As soon as it was possible to control respiration with positive pressure the occlusive dressing was taken from the right chest and the extent of the wound more carefully determined. It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to the right scapula close the the axilla yet had passed through the latysmus dorsi muscle shattered approximately ten cm of the lateral and anterior portion of the right fifth rib and emerged below the right nipple. The wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter and the wound of exit was a ragged wound approximately five cm in its greatest diameter. The skin and subcutaneous tissue over the path of the missile moved in a paradoxical manner with respiration indicating softening of the chest. The skin of the whole area was carefully cleansed with Phisohex and Iodine. The entire area including the wound of entrance and wound of exit was draped partially excluding the wound of entrance for the first part of the operation. An elliptical incision was made around the wound of exit removing the torn edges of the skin and the damaged subcutaneous tissue. The incision was then carried in a downward curve up toward the right axilla so as to not have the skin incision over the actual path of the missile ban through the chest wall. This incision was carried down through the subcutaneous tissue to expose the Serratus anterior muscle and the anterior border of the latissimus dorsi muscle. The fragmented and damaged portions of the Serratus anterior muscle were excised. Small rib fragments that were adhering to periosteal tags were carefully removed preserving as much periosteum as possible. The fourth intercostal muscle bundle and fifth intercostal muscle bundle were not appreciably damaged.

The ragged ends of the damaged fifth rib were cleaned out with the rongeur. The plura had been torn open by the secondary missiles created by the fragmented fifth rib. The wound was open widely and exposure was obtained with a self retaining retractor. The right plural cavity was then carefully inspected. Approximately 200 cc of clot and liquid blood was removed from the pleural cavity. The middle lobe had a linear rent starting at its peripheral edge going down towards itshilum separating the lobe into two segments. There was an open bronchus in the depth of this wound. Since the vascularlty and the bronchial connections to the lobe were intact it was decided to repair the lobe rather then to remove it. The repair was accomplished with a running suture of #000 chromic gut on atraumatic needle closing both plural surfaces as well as two runnin sutures approximating the tissue of the central portion of the lobe. This almost completely sealed off the air leaks which were evident in the torn portion of the lobe. The lower lobe was next examined and found to be engorged with blood and at one point a laceration of allowed the oozing of blood. This laceration had undoubtedly been caused by a rib fragment. This laceration was closed with a single suture of #3-O chromic gut on atraumatic needle. The right pleural cavity was now carefully examined and small ribs fragments were removed, the diaphram was found to be uninjured. There was no evidence of injury of the mediastinum and its contents. Hemostasis had been accomplished within the plural cavity with the repair of the middle lobe and the suturing of the laceration in the lower lobe. The upper lobe was found to be uninjured. The drains which had previously been placed in the second interspace in the midclavicular line was found to be longer than necessary so approximately ten cm of it was cut away and the remaining portion was demonstrated with two additional openings. An additional drain was placed through a stab wound in the eighth interspace in the posterior axillary line. Both these drains were then connected to a waterseal bottle. The fourth and fifth intercostal muscles were then approximated with interrupted sutures of #O chromic gut. The remaining portion of the Serratus anterior muscle was then approximated across the closure of the intercostal muscle. The laceration of the latissimus dorsi muscle on its intermost surface was then closed with several interrupted sutures of #O chromic gut. ~The subcutaneous tissue was th~ Before closing the subcutaneous tissue one million units of Penicillin and one gram of Streptomycin in 100 cc normal saline was instilled into the wound. The stab wound was then made in the most dependent portion of the wound coming out near the angle of the scapula. A large Penrose drain was drawn out through this stab wound to allow drainage of the wound of the chest wall. The subcutaneous tissue was then closed with interrupted #O chromic gut inverting the knots. Skin closed with interrupted vertical mattress sutures of black silk. Attention was next turned to the wound of entrance. It was excised with an elliptical incision. It was found that the latissimus dorsi muscle although lacerated was not badly damaged so that the opening was closed with sutures of #O chromic gut in the fascia of the muscle. Before closing this incision ~the~ palpation with the index finger the Penrose drain could be felt immediately below in the space beneath the latissimus dorsi muscle. The skin closed with interrupted vertical mattress sutures of black silk. Drainage tubes were secured with safety pens and adhesive tape and dressings applied. As soon as the operation on the chest had been concluded Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shires started the surgery that was necessary for the wounds of the right wrist and left thigh.

Dr. Robert Shaw

RS:bl

* There was also a comminuted fracture of the right radius secondary to the same missile and in addition a small flesh wound of the left thigh. The operative notes concerning the management of the right arm and left thigh will be dictated by Dr. Charles Gregory and Dr. Tom Shires.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 392--Continued]

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OPERATIVE RECORD

DATE: 11-22-63 Ortho

ROOM: 220

STATUS: Pvt.

NAME: Governor John Connally

UNIT: 26 36 99

AGE: W/M

RACE:

PRE-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Comminuted fracture of the right distal radius, open secondary to gunshot wound

POST-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Same

OPERATION: Debridement of gunshot wound of right wrist, reduction of fracture of the radius

BEGAN: 1600

ENDED: 1650

ANESTHETIC: General

BEGAN: 1300

ANESTHESIOLOGIST: Giesecke

SURGEON: Dr. Charles Gregory

ASSISTANTS: Drs. Osborne and Parker

SCRUB NURSE: Rutherford

CIRC. NURSE: Schroeder

COMPLICATIONS: None

CONDITION OF PATIENT: Fair

(handwritten: also a partial transection of the superficial radial nerve or Ext. Pol Brevis)

CLINICAL EVALUATION: While still under general anesthesia and following a thoracotomy and repair of the chest injury by Dr. Robert Shaw, the right upper extremity was thoroughly prepped in the routine fashion after shaving. he was draped in the routine fashion using stockinette, the only addition was the use of a debridement pan. The wound of entry on the dorsal aspect of the right wrist over the junction of the distal fourth of the radius and shaft was approximately two cm in length and rather oblique with the loss of tissue with some considerable contusion at the margins of it. There was a wound of exit along the volar surface of the wrist about two cm above the flexion crease of the wrist and in the midline. The wound of entrance was carefully excised and developed through the muscles and tendons from the radial side of the bone to the bone itself where the fracture was encountered. It was noted that the tendon of the abductor palmaris longus was transected, only two small fragments of bone ~was~ were removed, one approximately one cm in length and consisted of lateral cortex which lay free in the wound and had no soft tissue connections, another much smaller fragment perhaps 3 mm in length was subsequently removed. Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound and these were wherever they were identified and could be picked up were picked up and have been submitted to the Pathology department for identification and examination. Throughout the wound ~it was not~ and especially in the superficial layers and to some extent in the tendon and tendon sheaths on the radial side of the arm small fine bits of cloth consistent with fine bits of Mohair. It is our understanding that the patient was wearing a Mohair suit at the time of the injury and this accounts for the deposition of such organic material within the wound. After as careful and complete a debridement as could be carried out and with an apparent integrity of the flexor tendons and the median nerve in the volar side, and after thorough irrigation the wound of exit on the volar surface of the wrist was closed primarily with wire sutures while the wound of entrance on the radial side of the forearm was only

## partially closed being left open for the purpose of drainage should any

make spontaneous appearance.

This is because of the presence of Mohair and organic material deep into the wound which is prone to produce tissue reactions and to encourage infection and this precaution of not closing the wound was taken in correspondence with our experience in that regard.

In view of the urgency of the Governor’s original chest injury it was impossible to definitely ascertain the status of the circulation and the nerve supply to the hand and wrist on the right side. Accordingly, it was determined as best we could at the time of operation and the radial artery was found to be intact and pulsating normally. The integrity of the median nerve and the ulnar nerve is not clearly established but it is presumed to be present. Following closure of the volar wound and partial closure of the radial wound, dry sterile dressings were applied and a long arm cast was then applied with skin tape traction, rubber band variety, attached to the thumb and index finger of the right hand. ~The-righ~ An attitude of flexon was created at the right elbow, and post operatively the limbus suspended from an overhead frame using tape traction. The post operative diagnosis for the right forearm remains the same and again I suggest that you incorporate this particular dictation together with other dictations which will be given to you by the surgeons concerned with this patient.

Charles Gregory, M.D.

CG:bl

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OPERATIVE RECORD

DATE: NOV. 22, 1963

ROOM: 220

STATUS: Pvt.

NAME: Connally, John

UNIT #: 263699 A #24842

RACE: W/M

PRE-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Gunshot Wound, Right Chest, Right Wrist, Left Thigh

POST-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Same

OPERATION: Exploration and Debridement of Gunshot Wound of Left Thigh (*See below)

BEGAN: 16:00

ENDED: 16:20

ANESTHETIC: General

BEGAN: 13:00

ANESTHESIOLOGIST: Geisecke

SURGEON: Dr. Shires

ASSISTANTS: Drs. McClelland, Baxter and Patman

SCRUB NURSE: Oliver

CIRC. NURSE: Deming and Schroder

SPONGE COUNTS: 1ST Correct PS

COMPLICATIONS: *This portion of the operation is involved only with the operation on the left thigh. The chest injury has been dictated by Dr. Shaw, the orthopedic injury to the arm by Dr. Gregory.

CONDITION OF PATIENT:

CLINICAL EVALUATION: There was a 1 cm. punctate missile wound over the juncture of the middle and lower third, medial aspect, of the left thigh. X-rays of the thigh and leg revealed a bullet fragment which was imbedded in the body of the femur in the distal third. The leg was prepared with Phisohex and I.O. Prep and was draped in the usual fashion.

Following this the missile wound was excised and the bullet tract was explored. The missile wound was seen to course through the subcutaneous fat and into the vastus medialis. The necrotic fat and muscle were debrided down to the region of the femur. The direction of the missile wound was judged not to be in the course of the femoral vessel, since the wound was distal and anterior to Hunter’s canal. Following complete debridement of the wound and irrigation with saline, the wound was felt to be adequately debrided enough so that three simple through-and-through, stainless steel Aloe #28 wire sutures were used encompassing skin, subcutaneous tissue, and muscle fascia on both sides. Following this a sterile dressing was applied. The dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses in both lags were quite good. The thoracic procedure had been completed at this time, the debridement of the compound fracture in the arm was still in progress at the time this soft tissue injury repair was completed.

Tom Shires, M.D.

fa

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OPERATIVE RECORD

DATE: 11/24/63 Surg.

ROOM:

STATUS: S NAME: Oswald, Lee Harvey

EOR UNIT # 25260

AGE: 24 Yr.

RACE: W/M

PRE-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: GSW of upper abdomen and chest with massive bleeding

POST-OPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Major vascular injury in abdomen and chest

OPERATION: Exploratory laparotomy, thoracotomy, efforts to repair aorta 1’15”

BEGAN: 1142

ENDED: 1307

ANESTHETIC: General

BEGAN: 1142

ANESTHESIOLOGIST: Dr. M.T. Jenkins Dr. Gene Akin Dr. Curtis Spier

SURGEON: Dr. Tom Shires

ASSISTANTS: Dr. Perry, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Ron Jones

SCRUB NURSE: Schrader-Lunsford

CIRC. NURSE: Schrader-Bell-Burkett-Simpson

2 counted sponges missing when body closed. Square pack count correct.

DRUGS Ca chloride--3 vials Cedilanid--12 One molar lactate--6 Isuprel--24 Adrenalin 1:1000--3

I.V. FLUIDS AND BLOOD 3-1000 cc. lactated Ringer’s solution 16--500cc. whole blood 6--1000cc. 5% dextrose in lactated Ringer’s solution

CONDITION OF PATIENT: Expired at 1307

Measured blood loss--8,376 cc.

CLINICAL EVALUATION: Previous inspection had revealed an entrance wound over the left lower lateral chest cage, and an exit was identified by subcutaneous palpation of the bullet over the right lower lateral chest cage. At the time he was seen preoperatively he was without blood pressure, heart beat was heard infrequently at 130 beats per minute, And preoperatively had endotracheal tube placed and was receiving oxygen by anesthesia at the time he was moved to the operating room.

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION: Under endotracheal oxygen anesthesia, a long mid-line abdominal incision was made. Bleeders were not apparent and none were clamped or tied. Upon opening the peritoneal cavity, approximately 2 to 3 liters of blood, both liquid and in clots, were encountered. These were removed. The bullet pathway was then identified as having shattered the upper medial surface of the spleen, then entered the retroperitoneal area where there was a large retroperitoneal hematoma in the area of the pancreas. Following this, bleeding was seen to be coming from the right side, and upon inspection there was seen to be an exit to the right through the inferior vena cava, thence through the superior pole of the right kidney, the lower portion of the right lobe of the liver, and into the right lateral body wall. First the right kidney, which was bleeding, was identified, dissected free, retracted immediately, and the inferior vena cava hole was clamped with a partial occlusion clamp of the Satinsky type. Following this immobilization, packing controlled the bleeding from the right kidney. Attention was then turned to the left, as bleeding was massive from the left side. The inspection of the retroperitoneal area revealed a huge hematoma in the mid-line. The spleen was then mobilized, as was the left colon, and the retroperitoneal approach was made to the mid-line structures. The pancreas was seen to be shattered in its mid portion, bleeding was seen to be coming from the aorta. This was dissected free. Bleeding was controlled with finger pressure by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry. Upon identification of this injury, the superior mesenteric artery had been sheared off of the aorta, there was back bleeding from the superior mesenteric artery. This was cross-clamped with a small, curved DeBakey clamp. The aorta was then occluded with a straight DeBakey clamp above and a Potts clamp below. At this point all major bleeding was controlled, blood pressure was reported to be in the neighborhood of 100 systolic. Shortly thereafter, however, the pulse rate, which had been in the 80 to 90 range, was found to be 40 and a few seconds later found to be zero. No pulse was felt in the aorta at this time. Consequently the left chest was opened through an intercostal incision in approximately the fourth intercostal space. A Finochietto retractor was inserted, the heart was seen to be flabby and not beating at all. There was no hemopericardium. There was a hole in the diaphragm but no hemothorax. A left closed chest tube had been introduced in the Emergency Room prior to surgery, so that there was no significant pneumothorax on the left side. The pericardium was opened, cardiac massage was started, and a pulse was obtainable with massage. The heart was flabby, consequently calcium chloride followed by epinephrine-Xylocaine® were injected into the left ventricle without success. However, the standstill was converted to fibrillation. Following this, defibrillation was done, using 240, 360, 500, and 750 volts and finally successful defibrillation was accomplished. However, no effective heart beat could be instituted. A pacemaker was then inserted into the wall of the right ventricle and grounded on skin, and pacemaking was started. A very feeble, small, localized muscular response was obtained with the pacemaker but still no effective beat. At this time we were informed by Dr. Jenkins that there were no signs of life in that the pupils were fixed and dilated, there was no retinal blood flow, no respiratory effort, and no effective pulse could be maintained even with cardiac massage. The patient was pronounced dead at 1:07 P.M. Anesthesia consisted entirely of oxygen. No anesthetic agents as such were administered. The patient was never conscious from the time of his arrival in the Emergency Room until his death at 1:07 P.M. The subcutaneous bullet was extracted from the right side during the attempts at defibrillation, which were rotated among the surgeons. The cardiac massage and defibrillation attempts were carried out by Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Dr. Ronald Jones. Assistance was obtained from the cardiologist, Dr. Fouad Bashour.

Tom Shires, M.D.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392--Continued]

APPENDIX IX

Autopsy Report and Supplemental Report

CLINICAL RECORD AUTOPSY PROTOCOL A63-272 (JJH:ec)

DATE AND HOUR DIED 22 November 1963 1300 (CST)

DATE AND HOUR AUTOPSY PERFORMED 22 November 1963 2000 (EST)

FULL AUTOPSY X

PROSECTOR (497831) CDR J.J. HUMES, MC., USN

ASSISTANT (439878) CDR “J” THORNTON BOSWELL, MC, USN

LCOL PIERRE A. FINCK, MC, USA (04 043 322)

Ht.--72½ inches

Wt.--170 pounds

Eyes--Blue

Hair--Reddish brown

PATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES

CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound, head.

APPROVED-SIGNATURE J.J. HUMES, CDR, MC, USN

MILITARY ORGANIZATION (When required) PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES

AGE 46

SEX M

RACE Cauc.

AUTOPSY NO. A63-272

PATIENT’S IDENTIFICATION KENNEDY, JOHN F. NAVAL MEDICAL SCHOOL

CLINICAL SUMMARY: According to available information the deceased, President John F. Kennedy, was riding in an open car in a motorcade during an official visit to Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963. The President was sitting in the right rear seat with Mrs. Kennedy seated on the same seat to his left. Sitting directly in front of the President was Governor John B. Connolly of Texas and directly in front of Mrs. Kennedy sat Mrs. Connolly. The vehicle was moving at a slow rate of speed down an incline into an underpass that leads to a freeway route to the Dallas Trade Mart where the President was to deliver an address.

Three shots were heard and the President fell forward bleeding from the head. (Governor Connolly was seriously wounded by the same gunfire.) According to newspaper reports (“Washington Post” November 23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas “Times Herald” Photographer, said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building.

Shortly following the wounding of the two men the car was driven to Parkland Hospital in Dallas. In the emergency room of that hospital the President was attended by Dr. Malcolm Perry. Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on November 23, 1963 develops the following information relative to the observations made by Dr. Perry and procedures performed there prior to death.

Dr. Perry noted the massive wound of the head and a second much smaller wound of the low anterior neck in approximately the midline. A tracheostomy was performed by extending the latter wound. At this point bloody air was noted bubbling from the wound and an injury to the right lateral wall of the trachea was observed. Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat possible subcutaneous emphysema. Intravenous infusions of blood and saline were begun and oxygen was administered. Despite these measures cardiac arrest occurred and closed chest cardiac massage failed to re-establish cardiac action. The President was pronounced dead approximately thirty to forty minutes after receiving his wounds.

The remains were transported via the Presidential plane to Washington, D.C. and subsequently to the Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland for postmortem examination.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BODY: The body is that of a muscular, well-developed and well nourished adult Caucasian male measuring 72½ inches and weighing approximately 170 pounds. There is beginning rigor mortis, minimal dependent livor mortis of the dorsum, and early algor mortis. The hair is reddish brown and abundant, the eyes are blue, the right pupil measuring 8 mm. in diameter, the left 4 mm. There is edema and ecchymosis of the inner canthus region of the left eyelid measuring approximately 1.5 cm. in greatest diameter. There is edema and ecchymosis diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone. (The remainder of the scalp will be described with the skull.)

There is clotted blood on the external ears but otherwise the ears, nares, and mouth are essentially unremarkable. The teeth are in excellent repair and there is some pallor of the oral mucous membrane.

Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.

Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges. (The depth and character of these wounds will be further described below.)

Situated on the anterior chest wall in the nipple line are bilateral 2 cm. long recent transverse surgical incisions into the subcutaneous tissue. The one on the left is situated 11 cm. cephalad to the nipple and the one on the right 8 cm. cephalad to the nipple. There is no hemorrhage or ecchymosis associated with these wounds. A similar clean wound measuring 2 cm. in length is situated on the antero-lateral aspect of the left mid arm. Situated on the antero-lateral aspect of each ankle is a recent 2 cm. transverse incision into the subcutaneous tissue.

There is an old well healed 8 cm. McBurney abdominal incision. Over the lumbar spine in the midline is an old, well healed 15 cm. scar. Situated on the upper antero-lateral aspect of the right thigh is an old, well healed 8 cm. scar.

MISSILE WOUNDS: 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:

a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the right ear to a point slightly above the tragus.

b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.

c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.

d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally.

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.

Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus.

Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm. in greatest diameter.

The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared.

The brain is removed and preserved for further study following formalin fixation.

Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three fragments of skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect described above. At one angle of the largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly circular wound presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the outer aspect of the bone and is estimated to measure approximately 2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter. Roentgenograms of this fragment reveal minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin. Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm. and 3 x 1 mm. These are placed in the custody of Agents Francis X. O’Neill, Jr. and James W. Sibert, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who executed a receipt therefor (attached).

2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily probed. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region. When observed by Dr. Perry the wound measured “a few millimeters in diameter”, however it was extended as a tracheostomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy. However, there is considerable ecchymosis of the strap muscles of the right side of the neck and of the fascia about the trachea adjacent to the line of the tracheostomy wound. The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma.

INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content and the customary (Y) shaped incision is used to examine the body cavities.

THORACIC CAVITY: The bony cage is unremarkable. The thoracic organs are in their normal positions and relationships and there is no increase in free pleural fluid. The above described area of contusion in the apical portion of the right pleural cavity is noted.

LUNGS: The lungs are of essentially similar appearance the right weighing 320 Gm., the left 290 Gm. The lungs are well aerated with smooth glistening pleural surfaces and gray-pink color. A 5 cm. diameter area of purplish red discoloration and increased firmness to palpation is situated in the apical portion of the right upper lobe. This corresponds to the similar area described in the overlying parietal pleura. Incision in this region reveals recent hemorrhage into pulmonary parenchyma.

HEART: The pericardial cavity is smooth walled and contains approximately 10 cc. of straw-colored fluid. The heart is of essentially normal external contour and weighs 350 Gm. The pulmonary artery is opened in situ and no abnormalities are noted. The cardiac chambers contain moderate amounts of postmortem clotted blood. There are no gross abnormalities of the leaflets of any of the cardiac valves. The following are the circumferences of the cardiac valves: aortic 7.5 cm., pulmonic 7 cm., tricuspid 12 cm., mitral 11 cm. The myocardium is firm and reddish brown. The left ventricular myocardium averages 1.2 cm. in thickness, the right ventricular myocardium 0.4 cm. The coronary arteries are dissected and are of normal distribution and smooth walled and elastic throughout.

ABDOMINAL CAVITY: The abdominal organs are in their normal positions and relationships and there is no increase in free peritoneal fluid. The vermiform appendix is surgically absent and there are a few adhesions joining the region of the cecum to the ventral abdominal wall at the above described old abdominal incisional scar.

SKELETAL SYSTEM: Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities.

PHOTOGRAPHY: Black and white and color photographs depicting significant findings are exposed but not developed. These photographs were placed in the custody of Agent Roy H. Kellerman of the U. S. Secret Service, who executed a receipt therefore (attached).

ROENTGENOGRAMS: Roentgenograms are made of the entire body and of the separately submitted three fragments of skull bone. These are developed and were placed in the custody of Agent Roy H. Kellerman of the U. S. Secret Service, who executed a receipt therefor (attached).

SUMMARY: Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. The observations and available information do not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two wounds.

The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body.

In addition, it is our opinion that the wound of the skull produced such extensive damage to the brain as to preclude the possibility of the deceased surviving this injury.

A supplementary report will be submitted following more detailed examination of the brain and of microscopic sections. However, it is not anticipated that these examinations will materially alter the findings.

J. J. HUMES CDR, MC, USN (497831)

“J” THORNTON BOSWELL CDR, MC, USN (489878)

PIERRE A. FINCK LT COL, MC, USA (04-043-322)

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 387]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 387]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 387]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 387]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 387]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 387]

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF AUTOPSY NUMBER A63-272 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

PATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION REPORT No. A63-272

GROSS DESCRIPTION OF BRAIN: Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms. The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly. The base of the laceration is situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. There is considerable loss of cortical substance above the base of the laceration, particularly in the parietal lobe. The margins of this laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the corpus callosum extending from the genu to the tail. Exposed in this latter laceration are the interiors of the right lateral and third ventricles.

When viewed from the vertex the left cerebral hemisphere is intact. There is marked engorgement of meningeal blood vessels of the left temporal and frontal regions with considerable associated sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. The gyri and sulci over the left hemisphere are of essentially normal size and distribution. Those on the right are too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.

When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right cortex is again obvious. There is a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle just behind the optic chiasm and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. There are irregular superficial lacerations over the basilar aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes.

In the interest of preserving the specimen coronal sections are not made. The following sections are taken for microscopic examination:

a. From the margin of the laceration in the right parietal lobe.

b. From the margin of the laceration in the corpus callosum.

c. From the anterior portion of the laceration in the right frontal lobe.

d. From the contused left fronto-parietal cortex.

e. From the line of transection of the spinal cord.

f. From the right cerebellar cortex.

g. From the superficial laceration of the basilar aspect of the left temporal lobe.

During the course of this examination seven (7) black and white and six (6) color 4x5 inch negatives are exposed but not developed (the cassettes containing these negatives have been delivered by hand to Rear Admiral George W. Burkley, MC, USN, White House Physician).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION:

BRAIN: Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are examined. All sections are essentially similar and show extensive disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage. In none of the sections examined are there significant abnormalities other than those directly related to the recent trauma.

HEART: Sections show a moderate amount of sub-epicardial fat. The coronary arteries, myocardial fibers, and endocardium are unremarkable.

LUNGS: Sections through the grossly described area of contusion in the right upper lobe exhibit disruption of alveolar walls and recent hemorrhage into alveoli. Sections are otherwise essentially unremarkable.

LIVER: Sections show the normal hepatic architecture to be well preserved. The parenchymal cells exhibit markedly granular cytoplasm indicating high glycogen content which is characteristic of the “liver biopsy pattern” of sudden death.

SPLEEN: Sections show no significant abnormalities.

KIDNEYS: Sections show no significant abnormalities aside from dilatation and engorgement of blood vessels of all calibers.

SKIN WOUNDS: Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In each there is loss of continuity of the epidermis with coagulation necrosis of the tissues at the wound margins. The scalp wound exhibits several small fragments of bone at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue.

FINAL SUMMARY: This supplementary report covers in more detail the extensive degree of cerebral trauma in this case. However neither this portion of the examination nor the microscopic examinations alter the previously submitted report or add significant details to the cause of death.

J. J. HUMES CDR, MC, USN, 497831

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 391]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 391]

6 December 1963

From: Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School

To: The White House Physician

Via: Commanding Officer, National Naval Medical Center

Subj: Supplementary report of Naval Medical School autopsy No. A63-272, John F, Kennedy; forwarding of

1. All copies of the above subject final supplementary report are forwarded herewith.

J. H. STOVER, JR.

- - - - - - - - - -

6 December 1963

FIRST ENDORSEMENT

From: Commanding Officer, National Naval Medical Center To: The White House Physician

1. Forwarded.

C. B. GALLOWAY

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 391]

APPENDIX X

Expert Testimony

FIREARMS AND FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION

Three experts gave testimony concerning firearms and firearms identification: Robert A. Frazier and Cortlandt Cunningham of the FBI, and Joseph D. Nicol, superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation of the State of Illinois. Frazier has been in the field of firearms identification for 23 years, following a 1-year course of specialized training in the FBI Laboratory. Cunningham has been in the field for 5 years, having also completed the FBI course. Nicol has been in the firearms identification field since 1941, having begun his training in the Chicago police crime laboratory. Each has made many thousands of firearms identification examinations.[A10-1] Frazier testified on the rifle, the rifle cartridge cases, and the rifle bullets; Cunningham on the revolver, the revolver cartridge cases, the revolver bullets, and the paraffin test; and Nicol on all the bullets and cartridge cases and the paraffin test.[A10-2] Nicol’s conclusions were identical to those of Frazier and Cunningham, except as noted.

General Principles

A cartridge, or round of ammunition, is composed of a primer, a cartridge case, powder, and a bullet. The primer, a metal cup containing a detonable mixture, fits into the base of the cartridge case, which is loaded with the powder. The bullet, which usually consists of lead or of a lead core encased in a higher strength metal jacket, fits into the neck of the cartridge case. To fire the bullet, the cartridge is placed in the chamber of a firearm, immediately behind the firearm’s barrel. The base of the cartridge rests against a solid support called the breech face or, in the case of a bolt-operated weapon, the bolt face. When the trigger is pulled, a firing pin strikes a swift, hard blow into the primer, detonating the priming mixture. The flames from the resulting explosion ignite the powder, causing a rapid combustion whose force propels the bullet forward through the barrel.

The barrels of modern firearms are “rifled,” that is, several spiral grooves are cut into the barrel from end to end. The purpose of the rifling is to set the bullet spinning around its axis, giving it a stability in flight that it would otherwise lack. The weapons of a given make and model are alike in their rifling characteristics; that is, number of grooves, number of lands (the raised portion of the barrel between the grooves) and twist of the rifling. When a bullet is fired through a barrel, it is engraved with these rifling characteristics. For example, all S. & W. .38/200 British Service Revolvers have five grooves and five lands, which twist to the right, and bullets fired through such a revolver will have five groove and land impressions, right twist.

In addition to rifling characteristics, every weapon bears distinctive microscopic characteristics on its components, including its barrel, firing pin, and breech face. While a weapon’s rifling characteristics are common to all other weapons of its make and model (and sometimes even to weapons of a different make or model), a weapon’s microscopic characteristics are distinctive, and differ from those of every other weapon, regardless of make and model. Such markings are initially caused during manufacture, since the action of manufacturing tools differs microscopically from weapon to weapon, and since the tools change microscopically while being operated. As a weapon is used, further distinctive microscopic markings are introduced by the effects of wear, fouling, and cleaning. As Frazier testified:

Q. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?

MR. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that--the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the corners, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.

The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged in this photograph [Commission Exhibit No. 558] to show the types of marks I was referring to.

* * * * *

The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in these marks during the life of the weapon are very important in identification, because many of the machining marks can be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of marks which are peculiar to it.

* * * * *

* * * [T]he marks which are placed on any bolt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling machine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched--until you have numerous--we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.

* * * * *

* * * [A]s the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust--it is not actually a piece of metal--it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a dust--or a very fine powder or chip--that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks--that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt--unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.

Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool--which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks--and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these very fine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a--be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.

Q. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And what did you find on that examination?

A. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.

Q. There actually was none?

A. No, there was none.[A10-3]

* * * * *

Q. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr. Frazier?

A. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel from which the bullets are fired.

The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or faulty cleaning.

They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges, bullets through it.

In this particular barrel the manufacturer’s marks are caused by the drill which drills out the barrel, leaving certain marks from the drilling tool. Then portions of these marks are erased by a rifling tool which cuts the four spiral grooves in the barrel and, in turn, leaves marks themselves, and in connection with those marks of course, the drilling marks, being circular in shape, there is a tearing away of the surface of the metal, so that a microscopically rough surface is left.

Then removing part of those marks with a separate tool causes that barrel to assume an individual characteristic, a character all of its own.

In other words, at that time you could identify a bullet fired from that barrel as having been fired from the barrel to the exclusion of all other barrels, because there is no system whatever to the drilling of the barrel. The only system is in the rifling or in the cutting of the grooves, and in this case of rifle barrels, even the cutters wear down as the barrels are made, eventually of course having to be discarded or resharpened.

Q. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to determine whether their microscopic characteristics are identical?

A. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say, paired barrels, which have been manufactured on the same machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as individual microscopic characteristics are concerned. Their rifling impressions of course would be identical, but the individual marks there would be entirely different.[A10-4]

When a cartridge is fired, the microscopic characteristics of the weapon’s barrel are engraved into the bullet (along with its rifling characteristics), and the microscopic characteristics of the firing pin and breech face are engraved into the base of the cartridge case. By virtue of these microscopic markings, an expert can frequently match a bullet or cartridge case to the weapon in which it was fired. To make such an identification, the expert compares the suspect bullet or cartridge case under a comparison microscope, side by side with a test bullet or cartridge case which has been fired in the weapon, to determine whether the pattern of the markings in the test and suspect items are sufficiently similar to show that they were fired in the same weapon. This is exemplified by Frazier’s examination of Commission Exhibit No. 543, one of the cartridge cases found in the Texas School

## Book Depository Building after the assassination:

Q. Mr. Frazier, we were just beginning to discuss, before the recess, Commission Exhibit 559, which is a picture, as you described it, of Exhibit No. 543 and a test cartridge under a microscope * * *?

MR. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you discuss, by using that picture, some of the markings which you have seen under the microscope and on the basis of which you made your identification?

A. Yes, sir. In the photograph I have drawn some small circles and numbered them, those circles, correspondingly on each side of the photograph. The purpose of the circles is not to point out all the similarities, but to call attention to some of them and to help orient in locating a mark on one with a mark on the opposite side of the photograph. In general the area shown is immediately outside of the firing pin in the bolt of the 139 rifle, on the left side of the photograph, and Commission Exhibit 543 on the right side.

The circles have been drawn around the dents or irregularly shaped ridges, small bumps, and depressions on the surface of the metal in six places on each side of the photograph. It is an examination of these marks, and all of the marks on the face of the breech, microscopically which permits a conclusion to be reached. The photograph itself actually is a substitute to show only the type of marks found rather than their nature, that is, their height, their width, or their relationship to each other, which is actually a mental, visual, comparison on the two specimens themselves.

Q. Referring for a second to this mental, visual, comparison, Mr. Frazier, would a person without firearms training--firearms-identification training--be able to look under a microscope and make a determination for himself concerning whether a given cartridge case had been fired in a given weapon?

A. In that connection that person could look through the microscope. He may or may not see these individual characteristics which are present, because he does not know what to look for in the first place, and, secondly, they are of such a nature that you have to mentally sort them out in your mind going back and forth between one area and the other until you form a mental picture of them in a comparison such as this.

If it was a different type of comparison, of parallel marks or something of that nature, then he could see the marks, but in either instance, without having compared hundreds and hundreds of specimens, he would not be able to make any statement as to whether or not they were fired from the same rifle.

Q. Would you say that this is, then, a matter of expert interpretation rather than a point-for-point comparison which a layman could make?

A. I would say so; yes. I don’t think a layman would recognize some of the things on these cartridge cases and some shown in the photographs as actually being significant or not significant, because there will be things present which have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing of the cartridge case in the gun.

There may be a depression in the primer to begin with, and there are no marks registered at that point as a result of the firing. Unless these things are known to occur, someone may actually arrive at a different conclusion, because of the absence of similar marks.

Q. Now having reference to the specific exhibit before you, which is 559--

A. Yes.

Q. Are all the marks shown in both photographs identical?

A. No.

Q. And could you go into detail on a mark which is not identical to explain why you would get such a result?

A. Well, for instance, between what I have drawn here as circle 4 and circle 5, there is a slanting line from the upper left to the lower right on C-6. This line shows as a white line in the photograph.

On the other side there is a rough, very rough ridge which runs through there, having an entirely different appearance from the relatively sharp line on C-6. The significant part of that mark is the groove in between, rather than the sharp edge of the mark, because the sharp corner could be affected by the hardness of the metal or the irregular surface of the primer and the amount of pressure exerted against it, pressing it back against the face of the bolt, at the time the cartridges were fired. So that you would never expect all the marks on one cartridge case to be identical with all the marks on the other cartridge case.

In fact, you would expect many differences. But the comparison is made on the overall pattern, contour, and nature of the marks that are present.

* * * * *

Q. Again there are dissimilar marks on these two pictures [of the firing-pin depressions on the cartridge case Commission Exhibit No. 543, and a test cartridge case], Mr. Frazier?

A. Yes; there are, for the same reason, that metal does not flow the same in every instance, and it will not be impressed to the same depth and to the same amount, depending on the type of metal, the blow that is struck, and the pressures involved.

Q. Is your identification made therefore on the basis of the presence of similarities, as opposed to the absence of dissimilarities?

A. No, that is not exactly right. The identification is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces.

Dissimilarities may or may not be present, depending on whether there have been changes to the firing pin through use or wear, whether the metal flows are the same, and whether the pressures are the same or not.

So I don’t think we can say that it is an absence of dissimilarities, but rather the presence of similarities.[A10-5]

A bullet or cartridge case cannot always be identified with the weapon in which it was fired. In some cases, the bullet or cartridge case is too mutilated. In other cases, the weapon’s microscopic characteristics have changed between the time the suspect item was fired and the time the test item was fired--microscopic characteristics change drastically in a short period of time, due to wear, or over a longer period of time, due to wear, corrosion, and cleaning. Still again, the weapon may mark bullets inconsistently--for example, because the bullets are smaller than the barrel, and travel through it erratically.[A10-6]

The Rifle

The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the assassination was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight.[A10-7] Inscribed on the rifle were various markings, including the words “CAL. 6.5,” “MADE ITALY,” “TERNI,” and “ROCCA”; the numerals “1940” and “40”; the serial number C2766; the letters “R-E,” “PG,” and “TNI”; the figure of a crown; and several other barely decipherable letters and numbers.[A10-8] The rifle bore a very inexpensive Japanese four-power sight, stamped “4 x 18 COATED,” “ORDNANCE OPTICS INC.,” “HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA,” and “MADE IN JAPAN”[A10-9] and a sling consisting of two leather straps, one of which had a broad patch, which apparently had been inserted on the rifle and cut to length.[A10-10] The sling was not a standard rifle sling, but appeared to be a musical instrument strap or a sling from a carrying case or camera bag.[A10-11] A basic purpose of a rifle sling is to enable the rifleman to steady his grip, by wrapping the arm into the sling in a prescribed manner. The sling on the rifle was too short to use in the normal way, but might have served to provide some additional steadiness.[A10-12]

The rifle was identified as a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Italian military rifle, Model 91/38.[A10-13] This identification was initially made by comparing the rifle with standard reference works and by the markings inscribed on the rifle.[A10-14] The caliber was independently determined by chambering a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter cartridge in the rifle for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the rifle’s barrel which was measured with a micrometer.[A10-15] (The caliber of a weapon is the diameter of the interior of the barrel, measured between opposite lands. The caliber of American weapons is expressed in inches; thus a .30-caliber weapon has a barrel which is thirty one-hundredths or three-tenths of an inch in diameter. The caliber of continental European weapons is measured in millimeters. A 6.5-millimeter caliber weapon corresponds to an American .257-caliber weapon, that is, its barrel diameter is about one-fourth inch.)[A10-16] The identification was later confirmed by a communication from SIFAR, the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service. This communication also explained the markings on the rifle, as follows: “CAL. 6.5” refers to the rifle’s caliber; “MADE ITALY” refers to its origin, and was inscribed at the request of the American importer prior to shipment; “TERNI” means that the rifle was manufactured and tested by the Terni Army Plant of Terni, Italy; the number “C2766” is the serial number of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that serial number; the numerals “1940” and “40” refer to the year of manufacture; and the other figures, numbers, and letters are principally inspector’s, designer’s, or manufacturer’s marks.[A10-17]

The Model 91/38 rifle was one of the 1891 series of Italian military rifles, incorporating features designed by Ritter von Mannlicher and M. Carcano. The series originally consisted of 6.5-millimeter caliber rifles, but Model 38 of the series, designed shortly before World War II, was a 7.35-millimeter caliber. Early in World War II, however, the Italian Government, which encountered an ammunition supply problem, began producing many of these rifles as 6.5-millimeter caliber rifles, known as the 6.5-millimeter Model 91/38.[A10-18] The 91/38 has been imported into this country as surplus military equipment, has been advertised quite widely, and is now fairly common in this country.[A10-19]

Like most bolt-action military rifles, the 91/38 is operated by turning up the bolt handle, drawing the bolt to the rear, pushing the bolt forward, turning down the bolt handle, and pulling the trigger. Bringing the bolt forward and turning down the bolt handle compresses the spring which drives the firing pin, and locks the bolt into place. When the trigger is pulled, the cocked spring drives the firing pin forward and the cartridge is fired. The face of the bolt bears a lip, called the extractor, around a portion of its circumference. As the bolt is pushed forward, this lip grasps the rim of the cartridge. As the bolt is pulled back, the extractor brings the empty cartridge case with it, and as the cartridge case is being brought back, it strikes a projection in the ejection port called the ejector, which throws it out of the rifle. Meanwhile, a leaf spring beneath the clip has raised the next cartridge into loading position. When the bolt is brought forward, it pushes the fresh cartridge into the chamber. The trigger is pulled, the cartridge is fired, the bolt handle is brought up, the bolt is brought back, and the entire cycle starts again. As long as there is ammunition in the clip, one need only work the bolt and pull the trigger to fire the rifle.[A10-20]

The clip itself is inserted into the rifle by drawing back the bolt, and pushing the clip in from the top. The clip holds one to six cartridges.[A10-21] If six cartridges are inserted into the clip and an additional cartridge is inserted into the chamber, up to seven bullets can be fired before reloading.[A10-22] When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building it contained a clip[A10-23] which bore the letters “SMI” (the manufacturer’s markings) and the number “952” (possibly a part number or the manufacturer’s code number).[A10-24] The rifle probably was sold without a clip; however, the clip is commonly available.[A10-25]

Rifle Cartridge and Cartridge Cases

When the rifle was found, one cartridge was in the chamber.[A10-26] The cartridge was a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., at East Alton, Ill. This type of cartridge is loaded with a full metal-jacketed, military type of bullet, weighing 160-161 grains. The bullet has parallel sides and a round nose. It is just under 1.2 inches long, and just over one-fourth inch in diameter.[A10-27] Its velocity is approximately 2,165 feet per second.[A10-28] The cartridge is very dependable; in tests runs by the FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army, the C2766 rifle was fired with this Western Cartridge Co. ammunition over 100 times, with no misfires. (In contrast, some of the other ammunition available on the market for this rifle is undesirable or of very poor quality).[A10-29] The cartridge is readily available for purchase from mail-order houses, as well as a few gunshops; some 2 million rounds have been placed on sale in the United States.[A10-30]

The presence of the cartridge in the chamber did not necessarily mean that the assassin considered firing another bullet, since he may have reloaded merely by reflex.[A10-31]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 558

Bolt face of the C2766 rifle.]

Apart from the cartridge in the rifle, three expended cartridge cases were found in the southeast portion of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, lying between the south wall and a high stack of boxes which ran parallel to the wall.[A10-32] The cartridge cases were a short distance to the west of the southeast corner window in that wall.[A10-33] Based on a comparison with test cartridge cases fired from the C2766 rifle, the three cartridge cases were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle.[A10-34] (See Commission Exhibit No. 558, p. 556.) A test was run to determine if the cartridge-case-ejection pattern of the rifle was consistent with the assumption that the assassin had fired from the southeast window.[A10-35] In this test, 11 cartridges were fired from the rifle while it was depressed 45° downward, and 8 cartridges were fired from the rifle while it was held horizontally. The elevation of the ejected cartridge cases above the level of the ejection port, and the points on the floor at which the ejection cartridge cases initially landed, were then plotted. The results of these tests are illustrated by the diagrams, Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547. Briefly, Commission Exhibit No. 547 shows that with the weapon depressed at a 45° angle, the cartridge cases did not rise more than 2 inches above the ejection port; with the weapon held horizontally, they did not rise more than 12 inches above the ejection port.[A10-36] Commission Exhibit No. 546 shows that if a circle was drawn around the initial landing points of the cartridge cases which were ejected in the test while the rifle was held depressed at 45°, the center of the circle would be located 86 inches and 80° to the right of the rifle’s line of sight; if a circle was drawn around the initial landing points of the cartridge cases ejected while the rifle was held horizontally, the center of the circle would be 80 inches and 90° to the right of the line of sight. In other words, the cartridge cases were ejected to the right of and at roughly a right angle to the rifle.[A10-37] The cartridge cases showed considerable ricochet after their initial landing, bouncing from 8 inches to 15 feet.[A10-38] The location of the cartridge cases was therefore consistent with the southeast window having been used by the assassin, since if the assassin fired from that window the ejected cartridge cases would have hit the pile of boxes at his back and ricocheted between the boxes and the wall until they came to rest to the west of the window.[A10-39]

The Rifle Bullets

In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School

## Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor

Connally’s stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President’s car.[A10-40] The stretcher bullet weighed 158.6 grains, or several grains less than the average Western Cartridge Co. 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.[A10-41] It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated.[A10-42] The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively[A10-43] The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet’s nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the character of the markings it bore.[A10-44] The lighter fragment consisted of bullet’s base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure.[A10-45] The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets.[A10-46] However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification.[A10-47] Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle.[A10-48]

The Revolver

The revolver taken from Oswald at the time of his arrest was a .38 Special S. & W. Victory Model revolver.[A10-49] It bore the serial No. V510210, and is the only such revolver with that serial number, since S. & W. does not repeat serial numbers.[A10-50] The revolver was originally made in the United States, but was shipped to England, as shown by the English inspection or proof marks on the chambers.[A10-51] The revolver showed definite signs of use but was in good operating condition.[A10-52] The revolver was originally designed to fire a .38 S. & W. cartridge, whose bullet is approximately 12 or 13 grains lighter than the .38 Special, and approximately .12 inches shorter, but has a somewhat larger diameter.[A10-53] In the United States, the .38 Special is considered to be a better bullet than the .38 S. & W.,[A10-54] and the revolver was rechambered for a .38 Special prior to being sold in the United States.[A10-55] The weapon was not rebarreled, although the barrel was shortened by cutting off approximately 2¾ of its original 5 inches.[A10-56] The shortening of the barrel had no functional value, except to facilitate concealment.[A10-57]

The weapon is a conventional revolver, with a rotating cylinder holding one to six cartridges. It is loaded by swinging out the cylinder and inserting cartridges into the cylinder’s chambers. If all six chambers are loaded, the weapon can be fired six consecutive times without reloading.[A10-58] To extract empty cartridge cases, the cylinder is swung out and an ejector rod attached to the cylinder is pushed, simultaneously ejecting all the cartridge cases (and cartridges) in the cylinder. If both live cartridges and expended cartridge cases are in the cylinder, before pushing the ejection rod one can tip the cylinder and dump the live cartridges into his hand.[A10-59] The cartridge cases will not fall out, because they are lighter than the cartridges, and when fired they will have expanded so as to tightly fit the chamber walls.[A10-60]

In a crouched stance a person can fire five shots with the revolver in 3-4 seconds with no trouble, and would need no training to hit a human body four times in four or five shots at a range of 8 feet.[A10-61] A person who had any training with the weapon would not find its recoil noticeable.[A10-62]

Revolver Cartridges and Cartridge Cases

When Oswald was arrested six live cartridges were found in the revolver.[A10-63] Three were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated lead bullets, and three were Remington-Peters .38 Specials, loaded with lead bullets.[A10-64] Five additional live cartridges were found in Oswald’s pocket,[A10-65] all of which were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated bullets.[A10-66] The Western and Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridges are virtually identical--the copper coating on the Western bullets is not a full jacket, but only a gilding metal, put on principally for sales appeal.[A10-67]

Four expended cartridge cases were found near the site of the Tippit killing.[A10-68] Two of these cartridge cases were Remington-Peters .38 Specials and two were Western .38 Specials.[A10-69] Based on a comparison with test cartridge cases fired in the V510210 revolver, the four cartridge cases were identified as having been fired in the V510210 revolver.[A10-70]

Revolver Bullets

Four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.[A10-71] In Nicol’s opinion one of the four bullets could be positively identified with test bullets fired from V510210 revolver, and the other three could have been fired from that revolver.[A10-72] In Cunningham’s opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver[A10-73]--that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver’s rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics.[A10-74] Cunningham did not conclude that the bullets had not been fired from the revolver, since he found that consecutive bullets fired in the revolver by the FBI could not even be identified with each other under the microscope.[A10-75] The apparent reasons for this was that while the revolver had been rechambered for a .38 Special cartridge, it had not been rebarreled for a .38 Special bullet. The barrel was therefore slightly oversized for a .38 Special bullet, which has a smaller diameter than a .38 S. & W. bullet. This would cause the passage of a .38 Special bullet through the barrel to be erratic, resulting in inconsistent microscopic markings.[A10-76]

Based on the number of grooves, groove widths, groove spacing, and knurling on the four recovered bullets, three were copper-coated lead bullets of Western-Winchester manufacture (Western and Winchester are divisions of the same company), and the fourth was a lead bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture.[A10-77] This contrasts with the four recovered cartridge cases, which consisted of two Remington-Peters and two Westerns. There are several possible explanations for this variance: (1) the killer fired five cartridges, three of which were Western-Winchester and two of which were Remington-Peters; one Remington-Peters bullet missed Tippit; and a Western-Winchester cartridge case and the Remington-Peters bullet that missed were simply not found. (2) The killer fired only four cartridges, three of which were Western-Winchester and one of which was Remington-Peters; prior to the shooting the killer had an expended Remington-Peters cartridge case in his revolver, which was ejected with the three Western-Winchester and one Remington-Peters cases; and one of the Western-Winchester cases was not found. (3) The killer was using hand-loaded ammunition, that is, ammunition which is made with used cartridge cases to save money; thus he might have loaded one make of bullet into another make of cartridge case.[A10-78] This third possibility is extremely unlikely, because when a cartridge is fired the cartridge case expands, and before it can be reused it must be resized. There was, however, no evidence that any of the four recovered cartridge cases had been resized.[A10-79]

The Struggle for the Revolver

Officer McDonald of the Dallas police, who arrested Oswald, stated that he had struggled with Oswald for possession of the revolver and that in the course of the struggle, “I heard the snap of the hammer, and the pistol crossed my left cheek * * * the primer of one round was dented on misfire at the time of the struggle. * * *”[A10-80] However, none of the cartridges found in the revolver bore the impression of the revolver’s firing pin.[A10-81] In addition, the revolver is so constructed that the firing pin cannot strike a cartridge unless the hammer (which bears the firing pin) has first been drawn all the way back by a complete trigger pull.[A10-82] Had the hammer gone all the way back and then hit the cartridge, it is unlikely that the cartridge would have misfired.[A10-83] It would be possible for a person to interject his finger between the hammer and the cartridge, but the spring driving the hammer is a very strong one and the impact of the firing pin into a finger would be clearly felt.[A10-84] However, the cylinder and the trigger are interconnected and the trigger cannot be fully pulled back if the cylinder is grasped.[A10-85] Therefore, if Oswald had pulled on the trigger while McDonald was firmly grasping the cylinder, the revolver would not have fired, and if the gun was grabbed away at the same time the trigger would have snapped back with an audible sound.[A10-86]

The Paraffin Test

During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald’s hands reacted positively to the test. The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction.[A10-87]

To perform the paraffin test, layers of warm liquid paraffin, interleaved with layers of gauze for reinforcement, are brushed or poured on the suspect’s skin. The warm sticky paraffin opens the skin’s pores and picks up any dirt and foreign material present at the surface. When the paraffin cools and hardens it forms a cast, which is taken off and processed with diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine, chemicals which turn blue in the presence of nitrates. Since gunpowder residues contain nitrates, the theory behind the test is that if a cast reacts positively, i.e., if blue dots appear, it provides evidence that the suspect recently fired a weapon.[A10-88] In fact, however, the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not.[A10-89] On the one hand, diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine will react positively not only with nitrates from gunpowder residues, but nitrates from other sources and most oxidizing agents, including dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorates, periodates, and some oxides. Thus, contact with tobacco, Clorox, urine, cosmetics, kitchen matches, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, or soils, among other things, may result in a positive reaction to the paraffin test. Also, the mere handling of a weapon may leave nitrates on the skin.[A10-90] A positive reaction is, therefore, valueless in determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon. Conversely, a person who has recently fired a weapon may not show a positive reaction to the paraffin test, particularly if the weapon was a rifle. A revolver is so constructed that there is a space between the cylinder, which bears the chambers, and the barrel. When a revolver is fired, nitrate-bearing gases escape through this space and may leave residues on the hand.[A10-91] In a rifle, however, there is no gap between the chamber and the barrel, and one would therefore not expect nitrates to be deposited upon a person’s hands or cheeks as a result of his firing a rifle. As Cunningham testified:

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. * * * I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person’s right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.[A10-92]

The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run by the FBI. In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber revolver. Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on both their firing and idle hands.[A10-93] In a second experiment, paraffin tests were performed on 29 persons, 9 of whom had just fired a revolver or an automatic, and 20 of whom had not fired a weapon. All 29 persons tested positive on either or both hands.[A10-94] In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative.[A10-95]

The paraffin casts of Oswald’s hands and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver cartridge cases.[A10-96] Since barium and antimony were present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on the inside surface. Since the outside surface had not been in contact with Oswald’s cheek, the barium and antimony found there had come from a source other than Oswald. Furthermore, while there was more barium and antimony present on the casts than would normally be found on the hands of a person who had not fired a weapon or handled a fired weapon, it is also true that barium and antimony may be present in many common items; for example, barium may be present in grease, ceramics, glass, paint, printing ink, paper, rubber, plastics, leather, cloth, pyrotechnics, oilcloth and linoleum, storage batteries, matches and cosmetics; antimony is present in matches, type metal, lead alloys, paints and lacquers, pigments for oil and water colors, flameproof textiles, storage batteries, pyrotechnics, rubber, pharmaceutical preparations and calico; and both barium and antimony are present in printed paper and cloth, paint, storage batteries, rubber, matches, pyrotechnics, and possibly other items. However, the barium and antimony present in these items are usually not present in a form which would lead to their adhering to the skin of a person who had handled such items.[A10-97]

The Walker Bullet

On April 10, 1963, a bullet was recovered from General Walker’s home, following an attempt on his life.[A10-98] The bullet, which was severely mutilated, weighed 148.25 grains.[A10-99] This bullet had the rifling characteristics of the C2766 rifle and all its remaining physical characteristics were the same as the Western 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. However, while the bullet could have been fired from the C2766 rifle, it was severely mutilated and in Frazier’s opinion could not be identified as having been fired or not fired from that rifle.[A10-100] Nicol agreed that a positive identification could not be made, but concluded there was “a fair probability” that the bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullets.[A10-101]

FINGERPRINTS AND PALMPRINTS

Two experts gave testimony concerning fingerprints and palmprints: Sebestian Latona[A10-102] and Arthur Mandella.[A10-103] Latona is the supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the Identification Division of the FBI. He has been with that Division over 32 years, having begun as a student fingerprint classifier and worked up to his present position. Mandella is a detective and fingerprint instructor with the police department of the city of New York. He has been in the fingerprint field for 19 years. Both have made a vast number of fingerprint examinations and have testified in Federal, State, and military courts.[A10-104] Their conclusions were identical, except as noted.

General Principles[A10-105]

Fingerprints and palmprints are made by the ridges which cover the surface of the fingers and palms. These ridges first appear 2 or 3 months before birth, and remain unchanged until death. Commission Exhibit No. 634-A (p. 564) illustrates several common characteristics or “points” formed by the ridges; a clear fingerprint impression will contain anywhere from 85 to 125 such points. While many of the common points appear in almost every print, no two prints have the same points in the same relationship to each other.

A print taken by a law-enforcement agency is known as an “inked print,” and is carefully taken so that all the characteristics of the print are reproduced on the fingerprint card; a print which is left accidentally, such as a print left at the scene of a crime, is known as a latent print. To make an identification of a latent print, the expert compares the points in the latent print with the points in an inked print. If a point appearing in a latent print does not appear in the inked print, or vice versa, the expert concludes that the two prints were not made by the same finger or palm. An identification is made only if there are no inconsistencies between the inked and latent prints, and the points of similarity and their relative positions are sufficiently distinctive, and sufficient in number, to satisfy the expert that an identity exists.[A10-106]

There is some disagreement concerning whether a minimum number of points is necessary for an identification. Some foreign law-enforcement agencies require a minimum number of 16 points. However, in the United States, in which there has been a great deal of experience with fingerprints, expert opinion holds there is no minimum number of points, and that each print must be evaluated on its own merits.[A10-107]

Palmprints are as distinctive as fingerprints, but are not as popularly known. Possibly this is because law enforcement agencies usually record only fingerprints for their identification files, since fingerprints can be much more readily classified and filed than palmprints. Also, latent fingerprint impressions are probably more common than latent palmprint impressions, because persons generally touch objects with their fingers rather than their palms. However, palmprints will frequently be found on heavy objects, since the palms as well as the fingers are employed in handling such objects.[A10-108]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 634-A

Ridge Characteristics

Used by Experts in Comparing Fingerprints]

A latent print is the result of perspiration exuded by the sweat pores in the ridges. This perspiration is composed of water, protein or fatty materials, and sodium chloride (salt). A latent print can be developed--made visible--in several ways. Sometimes a latent print can be developed merely by the use of correct lighting. A second method is to brush the print very lightly with a powder, which adheres to its outline. Once a print is powdered it can be photographed, lifted, or both. (In lifting, an adhesive substance, such as scotch tape, is placed over a powdered print. When the adhesive is lifted the powder clings to its surface. The adhesive is then mounted.) However, powder is usually effective only on objects which have a hard, smooth, nonabsorbent surface, such as glass, tile, and various types of highly polished metals and is usually not effective on absorbent materials, such as paper or unfinished wood or metal, which absorb perspiration so that there is nothing on the material’s surface to which the powder can adhere. Prints on absorbent materials can sometimes be developed by iodine fumes, which may react with fatty or protein materials which have been absorbed into the object, or by a silver nitrate solution, which may react with sodium chloride which has been absorbed into the object.[A10-109]

Not every contact of a finger or palm leaves a latent print. For example, if the surface is not susceptible to a latent print, if the finger or palm had no perspiration, or if the perspiration was mostly water and had evaporated, no print will be found.[A10-110]

Objects in the Texas School Book Depository Building

A number of objects found in the Texas School Book Depository Building following the assassination were processed for latent fingerprints by the FBI--in some cases, after they had been processed by the Dallas police. These objects included the homemade wrapping paper bag found near the southeast corner window; the, C2766 rifle; three small cartons which were stacked near that window (which were marked “Box A,” “Box B,” and “Box C”),[A10-111] and a fourth carton resting on the floor nearby (marked “Box D”);[A10-112] the three 6.5-millimeter cartridge cases found near the window; and the cartridge found in the rifle. The results were as follows:

_The paper bag._--The FBI developed a palmprint and a fingerprint on the paper bag by silver nitrate. These were compared with the fingerprints and palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald taken by the Dallas police, and were found to have been made by the right palm and the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-113]

_The C2766 rifle._--The wood and metal of the rifle was absorbent, and not conducive to recording a good print.[A10-114] However, the Dallas police developed by powder some faint ridge formations on the metal magazine housing in front of the trigger and also developed by powder and lifted a latent palmprint from the underside of the barrel.[A10-115] The faint ridge formations were insufficient for purposes of effecting an identification,[A10-116] but the latent palmprint was identified as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-117]

_The cartons._--Using the silver nitrate method, the FBI developed nine identifiable latent fingerprints and four identifiable latent palmprints on Box A,[A10-118] seven identifiable fingerprints and two identifiable palmprints on Box B,[A10-119] and two identifiable fingerprints and one identifiable palmprint on Box C.[A10-120] One of the fingerprints on Box A was identified as the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald,[A10-121] and one of the palmprints on Box A was identified as the left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-122] All the remaining prints on Box A were the palmprints of R. L. Studebaker, a Dallas police officer, and Forest L. Lucy, an FBI clerk, who shipped the cartons from Dallas to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and fingerprints of Detective Studebaker. All but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker’s.[A10-123] One palmprint on Box B was unidentified.[A10-124]

The FBI developed two fingerprints on Box D by silver nitrate, and the Dallas police developed a palmprint on Box D by powder.[A10-125] The fingerprints belonged to Lucy. The palmprint was identified as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-126] While the age of a print cannot be generally determined,[A10-127] this palmprint must have been relatively fresh, because the carton was constructed of cardboard, an absorbent material, and if a long period had elapsed between the time the print was made and the time it was powdered, the perspiration would have been absorbed into the cardboard, and the print could not have been developed by powder.[A10-128] Tests run by the FBI show that usually a latent impression on such cardboard cannot be developed by powder more than 24 hours after it is made.[A10-129] Latona felt that the maximum age of the palmprint on Box D at the time of development (which was shortly after the assassination), would have been 3 days;[A10-130] Mandella felt that the maximum time would have been a day and a half.[A10-131]

_The three cartridge cases and the cartridge case found in the rifle._--No prints were developed on the cartridge found in the rifle or on the three expended cartridge cases.[A10-132]

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS

Two experts gave testimony concerning questioned documents: Alwyn Cole[A10-133] and James C. Cadigan.[A10-134] Cole apprenticed as a questioned document examiner for 6 years, from 1929 to 1935, and has been examiner of questioned documents for the U.S. Treasury Department since then. Cadigan has been a questioned document examiner with the FBI for 23½ years, following a specialized course of training and instruction. Both have testified many times in Federal and States courts.[A10-135] Their conclusions were identical, except as noted.

Both experts examined and testified on the following questioned documents: (1) The mail order to Klein’s Sporting Goods of Chicago, in response to which Klein’s sent the C2766 rifle; the accompanying money order; and the envelope in which the mail order and the money order were sent--all of which bore the name “A. Hidell” and the address “P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas”;[A10-136] (2) the mail order to Seaport Traders, Inc., of Los Angeles, bearing the same name and address, in response to which the Seaport Traders sent the V510210 revolver;[A10-137] (3) part of an application for Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., opened October 9, 1962 and closed May 14, 1963, and two change-of-address orders relating to that box, dated October 10, 1962 and May 12, 1963--all signed “Lee H. Oswald,” and part of an application for Post Office Box 30061, New Orleans, La., naming “A. J. Hidell” as a party entitled to receive mail through the box, signed “L. H. Oswald”;[A10-138] (4) a spurious selective service system notice of classification and a spurious certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps, found in Oswald’s wallet after his arrest, both in the name “Alek James Hidell”;[A10-139] (5) a spurious smallpox vaccination certificate, found among Oswald’s belongings at his room at 1026 North Beckley, purportedly issued to Lee Oswald by “Dr. A. J. Hideel, P.O. Box 30016, New Orleans, La.”;[A10-140] and (6) a card, found in Oswald’s wallet after his arrest, reading “Fair Play for Cuba Committee New Orleans Chapter,” dated “June 15, 1963,” bearing the name “L. H. Oswald” and the signature “Lee H. Oswald,” and signed “A. J. Hidell” as chapter president.[A10-141] Cadigan also examined (7) the unsigned note, Commission Exhibit No. 1, written almost entirely in Russian, which Marina testified Oswald had left for her prior to his attempt on the life of General Walker;[A10-142] and (8) the homemade paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository following the assassination.[A10-143]

_General principles._[A10-144]--The area of questioned document examination encompasses many types of inquiries, the most familiar of which is the identification of handwriting. Handwriting identification is based upon the principle that every person’s handwriting is distinctive. As Cole testified:

Q. Mr. Cole, could you explain the basis on which you were able to make an identification of a questioned writing as being authored by the person who wrote a standard writing?

Mr. COLE. This is based upon the principle that every handwriting is distinctive, that since the mental and physical equipment for producing handwriting is different in every individual, each person produces his own distinctive writing habits. Of course, everyone learns to write in the beginning by an endeavor to repeat ideal letter forms but, practically no one is able to reproduce these forms exactly. Even though a person might have some initial success during the active period of instruction, he soon departs from these and develops his own habits. It may be said that habit in handwriting is that which makes handwriting possible. Habit is that which makes handwriting efficient. If it were not for the development of habit, one would be obliged to draw or sketch.

Some habit would be included even in those efforts. But the production of handwriting rapidly and fluently always involves a recording of personal writing habit. This has been confirmed by observation of a very large number of specimens over a long period of time, and it has further been demonstrated by, on my part, having a formal responsibility for rendering decisions about the identification of handwriting based upon an agreement of handwriting habit in situations where there would be a rigorous testing of the correctness of these decision by field investigators, for example, of the law-enforcement agencies, and a demonstration that these results were confirmed by other evidence.

This is the basis for identification of handwriting.[A10-145]

The same principles are generally applicable to hand printing,[A10-146] and in the balance of this section the term “handwriting” will be used to refer to both cursive or script writing and hand printing.

Not every letter in a questioned handwriting can be used as the basis of an identification. Most people learn to write letters in a standard or “copybook” form: a handwriting is distinctive only insofar as it departs significantly from such forms.[A10-147] Correspondingly, not every variation indicates nonidentification; no two acts are precisely alike and variations may be found within a single document. Like similarities, variations are significant only if they are distinctive.[A10-148] Moreover, since any single distinctive characteristic may not be unique to one person, in order to make an identification the expert must find a sufficient number of corresponding distinctive characteristics and a general absence of distinctive differences.[A10-149]

The possibility that one person could imitate the handwriting of another and successfully deceive an expert document examiner is very remote. A forger leaves two types of clue. First, he can seldom perfectly simulate the letter forms of the victim; concentrating on the reproduction of one detail, he is likely not to see others. Thus, the forger may successfully imitate the general form of a letter, but get proportions or letter connections wrong. In addition, the forger draws rather than writes. Forged writing is therefore distinguished by defects in the quality of its line, such as tremor, waver, patching, retouching, noncontinuous lines, and pen lifts in awkward and unusual places.[A10-150]

To make a handwriting identification, the handwriting in the document under examination (the questioned document) is compared against the handwriting in documents known to have been prepared by a suspect (the known or standard documents). This is exemplified by Cole’s examination of Commission Exhibit No. 773, the photograph of the mail order for the rifle and the envelope in which it was sent:

Q. Now, Mr. Cole, returning to 773, the questioned document, can you tell the Commission how you formed the conclusion that it was prepared by the author of the standards, that is, what steps you followed in your examination and comparison, what things you considered, what instruments or equipment you used, and so forth?

Mr. COLE. I made first a careful study of the writing on Commission Exhibit 773 without reference to the standard writing, in an effort to determine whether or not this writing contained what I would regard as a basis for identification, contained a record of writing habit, and as that--as a result of that part of my examination, I concluded that this is a natural handwriting. By that I mean that it was made at a fair speed, that it doesn’t show any evidence of an unnatural movement, poor line quality, tremor, waver, retouching, or the like. I regard it as being made in a fluent and fairly rapid manner which would record the normal writing habits of the person who made it.

I then made a separate examination of the standards, of all of the standard writings, to determine whether that record gave a record of writing habit which could be used for identification purposes, and I concluded that it, too, was a natural handwriting and gave a good record of writing habit.

I then brought the standard writings together with the questioned writing for a detailed and orderly comparison, considering details of letter forms, proportion, pen pressure, letter connections, and other details of handwriting habit * * *.[A10-151]

The standards used by Cole and Cadigan consisted of a wide variety of documents known to be in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, including indorsements on his payroll checks, applications for employment, for a passport, for membership in the American Civil Liberties Union, and for a library card, and letters to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Marine Corps, the State Department, and the American Embassy in Russia.[A10-152]

The Mail Order for the C2766 Rifle, the Related Envelope, and the Money Order

The mail order and envelope for the C2766 rifle were photographed by Klein’s on microfilm, and then destroyed.[A10-153] To identify the handwriting an enlarged photograph was made which showed the handwriting characteristics with sufficient clarity to form the basis of an identification.[A10-154] Based on a comparison with the standards, the handwriting on the purchase order and the envelope were identified as Lee Harvey Oswald’s.[A10-155] The money order, which was retained by the post office after having been cashed by Klein’s,[A10-156] was also identified as being in Oswald’s handwriting.[A10-157] These identifications were made on the basis of numerous characteristics in which the writing in both the questioned and standard documents departed from conventional letter forms.[A10-158] For example, in the return address on the envelope, the left side of the “A” in “A. Hidell” was made by a downstroke followed by an upstroke which almost exactly traced the down-stroke, the “i” showed an elongation of the approach stroke and an exaggerated slant to the right, and the second “l” was somewhat larger than the first; the “B” in “Box” had an upper lobe smaller than the lower lobe; the “D” in “Dallas” exhibited a distinctive construction of the looped form at the top of a letter, and the “s” was flattened and forced over on its side; and the “x” in “Texas” was made in the form of a “u” with a cross bar. These characteristics were also present in the standards.[A10-159] In addition, these items, as well as other questioned documents, resembled the standards in their use of certain erroneous combinations of capital and lowercase letters.[A10-160] For example, in the mail order, “Texas” was printed with a capital “T,” “X,” “A,” and “S,” but a lowercase “e”; a similar mixture of capital and lowercase letters in “Texas” was found in the standards.[A10-161]

The writing on the purchase order and envelope showed no significant evidence of disguise (subject to the qualification that the use of hand printing on the mail order, rather than handwriting, may have been used for that purpose).[A10-162] However, it is not unusual for a person using an alias not to disguise his writing. For example, Cole, who is document examiner for the Treasury Department, has frequently examined forgeries evidencing no attempt at disguise. [A10-163]

Mail Order for the V510210 Revolver

Based on a comparison with the standards, the handwriting on the mail order[A10-164] for the V510210 revolver was also identified as Lee Harvey Oswald’s.[A10-165]

Post Office Box Applications and Change-of-Address Card

A post office box application consists of three parts: The first contains directions for use. The second provides applicant’s name, address, signature space, box number, date of opening and closing. The third part provides instruction space concerning delivery of mail and names of persons entitled to use the box.[A10-166] Under post office regulations[A10-167] the second part was retained by the Dallas Post Office for box 2915; it destroyed the third part after the box was closed. Based on the standards, the signature “Lee H. Oswald,” and other handwriting on the application, was identified as that of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-168] The postal clerk appeared to have filled in the balance.[A10-169]

The Fort Worth and Dallas post offices retained two change-of-address orders signed “Lee H. Oswald”: One to “Postmaster, Fort Worth, Tex.,” dated October 10, 1962, to send mail to “Oswald, Lee H” at 2703 Mercedes Av., Fort Worth, Texas” and forward to “Box 2915, Dallas, Texas”; the other to “Postmaster, Dallas, Texas” dated May 12, 1963, requested mail for post office box 2915 be forwarded to “Lee Oswald” at “4907 Magazine St., New Orleans, La.”[A10-170] Based on a comparison with the standards, the handwriting on these orders was identified as that of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-171]

The New Orleans post office retained the third part of the application for post office box 30061, New Orleans, La., dated June 11, 1963, and signed “L. H. Oswald.” [A10-172] Inserted in the space for names of persons entitled to receive mail through the box were written the names “A. J. Hidell” and “Marina Oswald.” On the basis of a comparison with the standards, the writing and the signature on the card was identified as the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-173]

The Spurious Selective Service System Notice of Classification and U.S. Marine Corps Certificate of Service

When Oswald was arrested he had in his possession a Selective Service System notice of classification and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps in the name of “Alek James Hidell,” and a Selective Service System notice of classification, a Selective Service System registration certificate, and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps in his own name.[A10-174] (See Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 19 and 21, p. 573.) The Hidell cards where photographic counterfeits.[A10-175] After Oswald’s arrest a group of retouched negatives were found in Mr. Paine’s garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.,[A10-176] among which were retouched negatives of the Oswald cards.[A10-177] A comparison of these retouched negatives with the Hidell and Oswald cards showed that the Hidell cards had been counterfeited by photographing the Oswald cards, retouching the resulting negatives, and producing photographic prints from the retouched negatives.

The Hidell Notice of Classification

_Face side._--The face of the Hidell notice of classification[A10-178] was produced from the face of the Oswald notice of classification[A10-179] by a two-step process. First, the counterfeiter photographed the Oswald notice, making a basic intermediate negative.[A10-180] He then opaqued out of this intermediate negative all of the information typed or handwritten onto the Oswald notice, including the name “Lee Harvey Oswald,” the selective service No., “41-114-39-532,” the signature of the official of the local board, and the mailing date. In addition, he made another intermediate negative of the lowermost third of the Oswald notice, which contained a printed legend setting forth various instructions relating to draft board procedures.[A10-181] This negative reproduced the printed material exactly, but reduced it in size.[A10-182] The two intermediate negatives were combined to produce a third negative, substantially identical to the basic intermediate negative except that, by virtue of the reduction in the size of the printed legend, a square space had been created in the lower left-hand corner.[A10-183] The counterfeiter then made a photographic print of this third negative, which contained blanks wherever typed or handwritten material had appeared on the original Oswald notice and a new space in the lower left-hand corner. Finally, new material was inserted into the blanks on the Hidell notice where typed or handwritten material had appeared on the Oswald notice.[A10-184] Thus the name “ALEK JAMES HIDELL,” the selective service No. “42-224-39-532,” and the mailing date “Feb. 5, 1962,” were typed into the appropriate blanks on the Hidell notice. Two typewriters were used in this typing, as shown by differences in the design of the typed figure “4,”[A10-185] and by differences in the strength of the typed impression.[A10-186] Probably the counterfeiter switched typewriters when he discovered that the ribbon of his first typewriter was not inked heavily enough to leave a clear impression (a problem which would have been aggravated by the fact that the glossy photographic paper used to make the Hidell notice did not provide a good surface for typewriting).[A10-187] The face of the notice also bore many uninked indentations, which could only be made out under strong side lighting.[A10-188] These indentations were apparently made with the typewriter set at stencil--that is, set so that the typewriter key struck the notice directly, rather than striking it through the inked typewriter ribbon.[A10-189] This may have been done as a dry-run practice, to enable the counterfeiter to determine how to properly center and aline the inserted material.[A10-190] A sidelight photograph showed that the names “ALEK,” “JAMES,” and “HIDELL” had each been typed in stencil at least twice before being typed in with the ribbon.[A10-191] A capital letter “O” had been stenciled prior to one of the stenciled “ALEK’s.”[A10-192] A serial number and a date of mailing had also been typed in stencil.[A10-193]

In addition to the typed material, a signature, “Alek J. Hidell,” was written in ink in the blank provided for the registrant’s signature, and another, somewhat illegible signature, apparently reading “Good Hoffer,” was written in ink in the blank provided for the signature of an official of the local board.[A10-194] This name differed from the name written in ink on the Oswald notice, which appeared to consist of a first name beginning with an “E” or a “G” and the surname “Schiffen.”[A10-195] However, the legibility of the name on the Oswald notice was also quite poor, and the counterfeiter might have been attempting to duplicate it. A possible reason for deleting the original name and substituting another is that if the name had not been deleted it would have been reproduced on the Hidell notice as a photographic reproduction, which would look less authentic than a pen-and-ink signature.[A10-196]

Based on a comparison with the handwriting in the standards, the signature “Alek J. Hidell” on the Hidell notice was identified as being in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-197] The signature “Good Hoffer” could not be positively identified, being almost illegible; however, it was not inconsistent with Oswald’s handwriting.[A10-198]

To complete the face of the Hidell notice a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald was inserted into the space in the lower left-hand corner which had been created by reducing the size of the printed legend at the bottom.[A10-199]

[Illustration: CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 19

Face and reverse sides of the Oswald Notice of Classification.

CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 21

Face and reverse sides of the Oswald Selective Service System Registration Certificate and the Oswald Certificate of Service in the U.S. Marine Corps.]

[Illustration: CADIGAN EXHIBITS NOS. 15 AND 16

Face and reverse sides of the Hidell Selective Service System Notice of Classification.

Face and reverse sides of the Hidell Certificate of Service in the U.S. Marine Corps.]

In creating the face of the Hidell notice, the counterfeiter left traces which enabled the experts to link together the Hidell notice, the retouched negatives, and the Oswald notice. To retouch the negatives the counterfeiter simply painted a red opaque substance on one side of the negative over the material he wished to delete. When the negative was printed, the opaquing prevented light from passing through, so that the print showed blanks wherever the negative had been opaqued. However, the original material was still clearly visible on the negative itself.[A10-200] In addition, at several points the typed or handwritten material in the Oswald notice had overlapped the printed material. For example, the signature of the official of the local board overlapped the letters “re” in the printed word “President,” “l” and “a” in the printed word “local,” and “viola” in the printed word “violation.” When this signature was opaqued out, the portions of the printed material which had been overlapped by the signature were either removed or mutilated. The consequent distortions were apparent on both the retouched negative and the Hidell notice itself. Similarly, the selective service number typed on the Oswald notice overlapped the margins of the boxes into which it was typed. Although the counterfeiter opaqued out the numerals themselves, the margins of the boxes remained thickened at the points where they had been overlapped by the numerals. These thickened margins were apparent on both the retouched negative and the Hidell notice.[A10-201]

_Reverse side._--The reverse side of the Hidell notice, which was pasted back-to-back to the face, was actually a form of the reverse side of a Selective Service System registration certificate. Essentially, it was counterfeited the same way as the face of the notice: a photograph was made of the reverse side of the Oswald registration certificate, the material which had been typed or stamped on the Oswald registration certificate was opaqued out of the resulting negative, and a photographic print was made from the retouched negative. This is shown by the negative, in which the opaqued-out information is still visible, and by defects in the printed material on the Hidell notice at point where typed-in material had overlapped printed material on the Oswald registration certificate.[A10-202]

As the final step, new information was typed on the print in the blanks which resulted from the retouching operation.[A10-203] Thus “GR” was substituted for “Blue” under color of eyes; “BROWN” was substituted for “Brn” under color of hair; “FAIR” was substituted for “Med.” under complexion; “5” [ft.] “9” [in.] was substituted for “5” [ft.] “11” [in.] under height; and “155” was substituted for “150” under weight. The name and address of the local board on the Oswald registration certificate were opaqued out, but substantially the same name and address were typed back onto the Hidell notice.[A10-204] As in the signature of the local board official on the face of the notice, a possible reason for deleting the original draft board name and the address and substituting substantially similar material in its place is that if the original material had not been deleted it would have reproduced as a photographic reproduction, which would look much less authentic than typed-in material.[A10-205]

A limited number of typed uninked indentations are also present. Thus the indented letters “CT” appear before the letters “GR” (under color of eyes) and the indented letters “EY” follow “GR.” An indented “9” appears above the visible “9” for the inch figure of height, and an indented “i” appears before the weight, “155.” Much of the typed material on the reverse side of the Hidell notice was not very legible under ordinary lighting, since it was typed with a typewriter which left a very weakly inked impression.[A10-206] In fact, it is difficult to tell whether some of the material, particularly the word “Brown” under color of hair, was put in by stencil or by ribbon.

The Hidell Certificate of Service

The face and reverse side of the Hidell certificate of service were produced from the face and reverse side of the Oswald certificate of service[A10-207] by photographing the Oswald certificate, retouching the resulting negatives to eliminate typed and handwritten material, and making a photographic print from the retouched negative.[A10-208] As in the case of the notice of classification, this is shown by the negative itself, in which the opaqued-out information is still visible, and by defects in the printed material on the Hidell certificate at points where handwritten material had crossed over printed material on the Oswald certificate. Thus, in the Oswald certificate the upper portion of the name “Lee” in Oswald’s signature crosses the letter “u” in the printed word “signature.” The consequent mutilation of the printed letter “u” can be seen on the Hidell certificate. Similarly, the ending stroke in the letter “y” in the name “Harvey” in Oswald’s signature crosses the letter “n” in the printed word “certifying.” This stroke was not removed at all, and can be seen as a stroke across the “n” in the Hidell certificate.[A10-209] As the final step in producing the Hidell certificate, new material was typed into the blanks on the photographic print. On the face, the words “ALEK JAMES HIDELL” were typed into the blank where “LEE HARVEY OSWALD 1653230” had appeared. A sidelight photograph shows that these words had been typed in stencil at least twice before being typed in with the ribbon apparently to determine proper centering and alignment.[A10-210] In producing the reverse side of the Hidell certificate, the signature “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and the dates “24 October 1956” and “11 September 1959,” showing the beginning and end of the period of active service, had been opaqued out. No signature was inserted into resulting blank signature space. However, just below the word “of” in the printed line “signature of individual,” there are two vertical indentations which fill about three-fourths of the height of the signature blank, and a diagonal indentation which slants from approximately the base of the left vertical to approximately the midpoint of the right vertical--the total effect being of a printed capital letter “H.” Also, just below the second and third “i’s” in the printed word “individual” are two more vertical indentations, which could be the vertical strokes of “d’s” or “l’s”--although the circular portion of the letter “d” is not present.[A10-211] These indentations could have been made by any sharp instrument, such as a ballpoint pen which was not delivering ink, a stylus of the type used in preparing mimeograph forms, or even a toothpick.[A10-212] The indentations are brought out rather clearly in a sidelight photograph, but can also be seen on the card itself if the card is held so that light strikes it at an angle.[A10-213]

Into the space for the beginning of active service was typed the date “OCT. 13 1958.” The space for the end of active service contains several light-impression and stencil typewriting operations. It was apparently intended to read “OCT. 12 1961,” but because of the lightness of the impression and the many stenciled characters, the date is barely legible.[A10-214] Interestingly, one of the stenciled impressions in the blank for end of active service reads “24 October 1959,” as determined under a microscope, while a stenciled impression in the blank for beginning of active service reads “24 October 1957.”[A10-215]

The counterfeiting of the Hidell cards did not require great skill, but probably required an elementary knowledge of photography,

## particularly of the photographic techniques used in a printing

plant.[A10-216] A moderate amount of practice with the technique would be required--perhaps half a dozen attempts. Practicing retouching on the balance of the negatives found at the Paine garage would have been sufficient.[A10-217] The retouching of the negatives could have been accomplished without any special equipment. However, the preparation of the negative, apart from retouching, would probably have required a very accurate camera, such as would be found in a photographic laboratory or printing plant.[A10-218]

The Vaccination Certificate

A government-printed form entitled “International Certificates of Vaccination or Revaccination against Smallpox”[A10-219] was found among Oswald’s belongings at his room at 1026 Beckley Avenue, Dallas.[A10-220] The form purported to certify that “LEE OSWALD” had been vaccinated against smallpox on “JUNE 8, 1963” by “DR. A.J. HIDEEL, P.O. BOX 30016, NEW ORLEANS, LA.” The card was signed “Lee H. Oswald” and “A. J. Hideel,” and the name and address “Lee H. Oswald, New Orleans, La.” were hand printed on the front of the card. All of this material, except the signatures and the hand printing, had been stamped onto the card. The Hideel name and address consisted of a three-line stamp--“DR. A. J. HIDEEL/P.O. BOX 30016/NEW ORLEANS, LA.” A circular, stamped, illegible impression resembling a seal appeared under a column entitled “Approved stamp.”[A10-221]

On the basis of a comparison with the standards, Cole identified all of the handwriting on the vaccination certificate, including the signature “A. J. Hideel,” as the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-222] Cadigan identified all of the writing as Oswald’s except for the “A. J. Hideel” signature, which in his opinion was too distorted to either identify or nonidentify as Oswald’s handwriting.[A10-223] The stamped material on the certificate was compared with a rubber stamping kit which belonged to Oswald.[A10-224] In this kit was a rubber stamp with three lines of print assembled: “L. H. OSWALD/4907 MAGAZINE ST/NEW ORLEANS, LA.”[A10-225] Cole found a perfect agreement in measurement and design between the letters stamped on the certificate and the letters he examined from Oswald’s rubber stamping kit. However, he was unable to determine whether the characteristics of Oswald’s rubber stamping kit were distinctive, and therefore, while he concluded that Oswald’s rubber stamping kit could have made the rubber stamp impressions on the certificate, he was unable to say that it was the only kit which could have made the impressions.[A10-226] On the basis of the comparison between the words “NEW ORLEANS, LA.” set up in the rubber stamp in Oswald’s kit, and the words “NEW ORLEANS, LA.” on the certificate, Cadigan concluded that these words had been stamped on the certificate with Oswald’s rubber stamp. However, he could draw no conclusion as to the remaining stamped material, which was not directly comparable to the remaining lines set up on Oswald’s rubber stamp.[A10-227]

On close examination, the circular impression resembling a seal consisted of the words “BRUSH IN CAN,” printed in reverse.[A10-228] Apparently, the impression was made with the top of a container of solvent or cleaning fluid which bore these words in raised lettering. In the center of the impression was a mottled pattern which was similar to the blank areas on a date stamp found in Oswald’s rubber stamping kit.[A10-229]

The Fair Play for Cuba Committee Card

The Fair Play for Cuba Committee card had two signatures: “L. H. Oswald” and “A. J. Hidell.” Based on the standards, both Cole and Cadigan identified “L. H. Oswald” as the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald,[A10-230] but both were unable to identify the “A. J. Hidell” signature.[A10-231] Cadigan noted differences between the Hidell signature and Oswald’s handwriting, indicating the possibility that someone other than Oswald had authored the signature.[A10-232] Cole believed that the signature was somewhat beyond Oswald’s abilities as a penman.[A10-233] On the basis of a short English interlinear translation written by Marina Oswald, Cole felt that she might have been the author of the signature,[A10-234] but the translation did not present enough of her handwriting to make possible a positive identification.[A10-235] In subsequent testimony before the Commission, Marina stated that she was indeed the author of the Hidell signature on the card.[A10-236] Cadigan confirmed this testimony by obtaining further samples of Marina Oswald’s handwriting and comparing these samples with the signature on the card.[A10-237]

The Unsigned Russian-Language Note

Cadigan’s examination confirmed Marina’s testimony that the handwriting in the unsigned note, Commission Exhibit No. 1, was that of Lee Harvey Oswald.[A10-238] Since the note was written almost entirely in the Russian language, which uses the Cyrillic alphabet (as opposed to the Latin alphabet used in the English language), in making his examination Cadigan employed not only Oswald’s English language standards, but also letters written by Oswald in the Russian language.[A10-239]

The Homemade Wrapping Paper Bag

In the absence of watermarks or other distinctive characteristics, it is impossible to determine whether two samples of paper came from the same manufacturer.[A10-240] The homemade paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository following the assassination was made out of heavy brown paper and glue-bearing brown paper tape, neither of which contained watermarks or other distinctive characteristics.[A10-241] However, Cadigan compared the questioned paper and tape in the paper bag with known paper and tape samples obtained from the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, to see if the questioned items could have come from the shipping room.[A10-242] The questioned and known items were examined visually by normal, incidental, and transmitted natural and electric light, and under ultraviolet light;[A10-243] examined microscopically for surface, paper structure, color, and imperfections;[A10-244] examined for their felting pattern, which is the pattern of light and dark areas caused by the manner in which the fibers become felted at the beginning stages of paper manufacture;[A10-245] measured for thickness with a micrometer sensitive to one one-thousandth of an inch,[A10-246] subjected to a fiber analysis to determine the type of fibers of which they were composed, and whether the fibers were bleached or unbleached;[A10-247] and examined spectrographically to determine what metallic ions were present.[A10-248] The questioned and known items were identical in all the properties measured by these tests.[A10-249] (The width of the tape on the paper sack was 3 inches, while the width of the sample tape was 2.975, or twenty-five thousandths of an inch smaller; however, this was not a significant difference).[A10-250] In contrast, a paper sample obtained from the Texas School Book Depository shipping room on December 1, 1963, was readily distinguishable from the questioned paper.[A10-251]

Examination of the tape revealed other significant factors indicating that it could have come from the Texas School Book Depository shipping room. There were several strips of tape on the bag.[A10-252] All but two of the ends of these strips were irregularly torn; the remaining two ends had machine-cut edges. This indicated that the person who made the bag had drawn a long strip of tape from a dispensing machine and had torn it by hand into several smaller strips.[A10-253] Confirmation that the tape had been drawn from a dispensing machine was supplied by the fact that a series of small markings in the form of half-inch lines ran down the center of the tape like ties on a railroad track. Such lines are made by a ridged wheel in a tape dispenser which is constructed so that when a hand lever is pulled, the wheel, which is connected to the lever, pulls the tape from its roll and dispenses it. Such dispensers are usually found only in commercial establishments. A dispenser of this type was located in the Texas School Book Depository shipping room. The length of the lines and the number of lines per inch on the tape from the paper bag was identical to the length of the lines and the number of lines per inch on the tape obtained from the dispenser in the Texas School Book Depository shipping room.[A10-254]

WOUND BALLISTICS EXPERIMENTS

Purpose of the Tests

During the course of the Commission’s inquiry, questions arose as to whether the wounds inflicted on President Kennedy and Governor Connally could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and Western Cartridge Co. bullets and fragments of the type found on the Governor’s stretcher and in the Presidential limousine. In analyzing the trajectory of the bullets after they struck their victims, further questions were posed on the bullet’s velocity and penetration power after exiting from the person who was initially struck. To answer these and related questions, the Commission requested that a series of tests be conducted on substances resembling the wounded portions of the bodies of President Kennedy and Governor Connally under conditions which simulated the events of the assassination.

The Testers and Their Qualifications

In response to the Commission’s request, an extensive series of tests were conducted by the Wound Ballistics Branch of the U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. Scientists working at that branch are engaged in full-time efforts to investigate the wound ballistics of missiles in order to test their effects on substances which simulate live human bodies.[A10-255] The tests for the Commission were performed by Dr. Alfred G. Olivier under the general supervision of Dr. Arthur J. Dziemian with consultation from Dr. Frederick W. Light, Jr.[A10-256] Dr. Olivier received his doctorate in veterinary medicine from the University of Pennsylvania in 1953. Since 1957 he has been engaged in research on wound ballistics at Edgewood Arsenal and is now chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch.[A10-257] His supervisor, Dr. Dziemian, who is chief of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, holds a Ph. D. degree from Princeton in 1939, was a national research fellow in physiology at the University of Pennsylvania and was a fellow in anatomy at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.[A10-258] Since 1947, Dr. Dziemian has been continuously engaged in wound ballistics work at Edgewood Arsenal.[A10-259] In 1930, Dr. Light was awarded an M.D. degree from Johns Hopkins Medical School and in 1948 received his Ph. D. from the same institution.[A10-260] After serving a residency in pathology, he worked as a pathologist until 1940 when he returned to Johns Hopkins University to study mathematics. Since 1951, Dr. Light has been engaged in the study of the pathology of wounding at Edgewood Arsenal.[A10-261] All three of these distinquished scientists testified before the Commission.

General Testing Conditions

The Commission made available to the Edgewood Arsenal scientists all the relevant facts relating to the wounds which were inflicted on President Kennedy and Governor Connally including the autopsy report on the President, and the reports and X-rays from Parkland Hospital.[A10-262] In addition, Drs. Olivier and Light had an opportunity to discuss in detail the Governor’s wounds with the Governor’s surgeons, Drs. Robert R. Shaw and Charles F. Gregory.[A10-263] The Zapruder films of the assassination were viewed with Governor and Mrs. Connally to give the Edgewood scientists their version.[A10-264] The Commission also provided the Edgewood scientists with all known data on the source of the shots, the rifle and bullets used, and the distances involved. For purposes of the experiments, the Commission turned over to the Edgewood testers the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building.[A10-265] From information provided by the Commission, the Edgewood scientists obtained Western bullets of the type used by the assassin.[A10-266]

Tests on Penetration Power and Bullet Stability

Comparisons were made of the penetrating power of Western bullets fired from the assassination rifle with other bullets.[A10-267] From the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, the Western bullet was fired through two gelatin blocks totaling 72½ centimeters in length.[A10-268] As evidenced by Commission Exhibit No. 844, which is a photograph from a high-speed motion picture, the Western bullets passed through 1½ blocks in a straight line before their trajectory curved.[A10-269] After coming out of the second gelatin block, a number of the bullets buried themselves in a mound of earth.[A10-270]

Under similar circumstances, a bullet described as the NATO round M-80 was fired from a M-14 rifle.[A10-271] The penetrating power of the latter is depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 845 which shows that bullet possesses much less penetrating power with a quicker tumbling

## action. Those characteristics cause an early release of energy which

brings the bullet to a stop at shorter distances.[A10-272] A further test was made with a 257 Winchester Roberts soft-nosed hunting bullet as depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 846. That bullet became deformed almost immediately upon entering the block of gelatin and released its energy very rapidly.[A10-273] From these tests, it was concluded that the Western bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano had “terrific penetrating ability” and would retain substantial velocity after passing through objects such as the portions of the human body.[A10-274]

Tests Simulating President Kennedy’s Neck Wound

After reviewing the autopsy report on President Kennedy, the Edgewood scientists simulated the portion of the President’s neck through which the bullet passed. It was determined that the bullet traveled through 13½ to 14½ centimeters of tissue in the President’s neck.[A10-275] That substance was simulated by constructing three blocks: one with a 20-percent gelatin composition, a second from one animal meat and a third from another animal meat.[A10-276] Those substances duplicated as closely as possible the portion of the President’s neck through which the bullet passed.[A10-277] At the time the tests were conducted, it was estimated that the President was struck at a range of approximately 180 feet, and the onsite tests which were conducted later at Dallas established that the President was shot through the neck at a range of 174.9 feet to 190.8 feet.[A10-278] At a range of 180 feet, the Western bullets were fired from the assassination weapon, which has a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,160 feet per second, through those substances which were placed beside a break-type screen for measuring velocity.[A10-279] The average entrance velocity at 180 feet was 1,904 feet per second.[A10-280]

To reconstruct the assassination situation as closely as possible both sides of the substances were covered with material and clipped animal skin to duplicate human skin.[A10-281] The average exit velocity was 1,779 feet from the gelatin, 1,798 feet from the first animal meat and 1,772 feet from the second animal meat.[A10-282] Commission Exhibit No. 847 depicts one of the animal meats compressed to 13½ to 14½ centimeters to approximate the President’s neck and Commission Exhibit No. 848 shows the analogous arrangement for the gelatin.[A10-283] The photograph marked Commission Exhibit No. 849 shows the bullet passing through the gelatin in a straight line evidencing very stable characteristics.[A10-284]

Commission Exhibit No. 850 depicts the pieces of clipped animal skin placed on the points of entry and exit showing that the holes of entrance are round while the holes of exit are “a little more elongated.”[A10-285] From these tests, it was concluded that the bullet lost little of its velocity in penetrating the President’s neck so that there would have been substantial impact on the interior of the Presidential limousine or anyone else struck by the exiting bullet. In addition, these tests indicated that the bullet had retained most of its stability in penetrating the President’s neck so that the exit hole would be only slightly different from the appearance of the entry hole.[A10-286]

Tests Simulating Governor Connally’s Chest Wounds

To most closely approximate the Governor’s chest injuries, the Edgewood scientists shot an animal with the assassination weapon using the Western bullets at a distance of 210 feet.[A10-287] The onsite tests later determined that the Governor was wounded at a distance of 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Depository Building.[A10-288] The average striking velocity of 11 shots at 210 feet was 1,929 feet per second and the average exit velocity was 1,664 feet per second.[A10-289]

One of the shots produced an injury on the animal’s rib very similar to that inflicted on Governor Connally.[A10-290] For purposes of comparison with the Governor’s wound, the Edgewood scientists studied the Parkland Hospital report and X-rays, and they also discussed these wounds with Dr. Shaw, the Governor’s chest surgeon.[A10-291] The similar animal injury passed along the animal’s eighth left rib causing a fracture which removed a portion of the rib in a manner very similar to the wound sustained by the Governor.[A10-292] The X-ray of that wound on the animal is reproduced as Commission Exhibit No. 852.[A10-293] A comparison with the Governor’s chest wound, shown in X-ray marked as Commission Exhibit No. 681, shows the remarkable similarity between those two wounds.[A10-294]

The bullet which produced the wound depicted in Commission Exhibits Nos. 851 and 852 was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 853 and possessed characteristics very similar to the bullet marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399 found on Governor Connally’s stretcher and believed to have been the bullet which caused his chest wound.[A10-295] Those bullets, identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 399 and 853, were flattened in similar fashion.[A10-296] In addition, the lead core was extruded from the rear in the same fashion on both bullets.[A10-297] One noticeable difference was that the bullet identified as Commission Exhibit No. 853, which penetrated the animal, was somewhat more flat than Commission Exhibit No. 399 which indicated that Commission Exhibit No. 853 was probably traveling at somewhat greater speed than the bullet which penetrated the Governor’s chest.[A10-298] After the bullet passed through the animal, it left an imprint on the velocity screen immediately behind the animal which was almost the length of the bullet indicating that the bullet was traveling sideways or end over end.[A10-299] Taking into consideration the extra girth on the Governor, the reduction in the velocity of the bullet passing through his body was estimated at 400 feet.[A10-300] The conclusions from the animal shots are significant when taken in conjunction with the experiments performed simulating the injuries to the Governor’s wrist.

Tests Simulating Governor Connally’s Wrist Wounds

Following procedures identical to those employed in simulating the chest wound, the wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal reproduced, as closely as possible, the Governor’s wrist wound. Again the scientists examined the reports and X-rays from Parkland Hospital and discussed the Governor’s wrist wound with the attending orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Charles F. Gregory.[A10-301] Bone structures were then shot with Western bullets fired from the assassination weapon at a distance of 210 feet.[A10-302] The most similar bone-structure shot was analyzed in testimony before the Commission. An X-ray designated as Commission Exhibit No. 854 and a photograph of that X-ray which appears as Commission Exhibit No. 855 show a fracture at a location which is very similar to the Governor’s wrist wound depicted in X-rays marked as Commission Exhibits Nos. 690 and 691.[A10-303]

The average striking velocity of the shots was 1,858 feet per second.[A10-304] The average exit velocity was 1,786 feet per second for the 7 out of 10 shots from bone structures which could be measured.[A10-305] These tests demonstrated that Governor Connally’s wrist was not struck by a pristine bullet, which is a missile that strikes an object before hitting anything else.[A10-306] This conclusion was based on the following factors: (1) Greater damage was inflicted on the bone structure than that which was suffered by the Governor’s wrist;[A10-307] and (2) the bone structure had a smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound which is characteristic of a pristine bullet as distinguished from the Governor’s wrist which had a larger wound of entry indicating a bullet which was tumbling with substantial reduction in velocity.[A10-308] In addition, if the bullet found on the Governor’s stretcher (Commission Exhibit No. 399) inflicted the wound on the Governor’s wrist, then it could not have passed through the Governor’s wrist had it been a pristine bullet, for the nose would have been considerably flattened, as was the bullet which struck the bone structure, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 856.[A10-309]

Conclusions From Simulating the Neck, Chest, and Wrist Wounds

Both Drs. Olivier and Dziemian expressed the opinion that one bullet caused all the wounds on Governor Connally.[A10-310] The wound to the Governor’s wrist was explained by circumstances where the bullet passed through the Governor’s chest, lost substantial velocity in doing so, tumbled through the wrist, and then slightly penetrated the Governor’s left thigh.[A10-311] Thus, the results of the wound ballistics tests support the conclusions of Governor Connally’s doctors that all his wounds were caused by one bullet.[A10-312]

In addition, the wound ballistics tests indicated that it was most probable that the same bullet passed through the President’s neck and then proceeded to inflict all the wounds on the Governor. That conclusion was reached by Drs. Olivier and Dziemian based on the medical evidence on the wounds of the President and the Governor and the tests they performed.[A10-313] It was their opinion that the wound on the Governor’s wrist would have been more extensive had the bullet which inflicted that injury merely passed through the Governor’s chest exiting at a velocity of approximately 1,500 feet per second. Thus, the Governor’s wrist wound indicated that the bullet passed through the President’s neck, began to yaw in the air between the President and the Governor, and then lost substantially more velocity than 400 feet per second in passing through the Governor’s chest.[A10-314] A bullet which was yawing on entering into the Governor’s back would lose substantially more velocity in passing through his body than a pristine bullet.[A10-315] In addition, the greater flattening of the bullet that struck the animal’s rib (Commission Exhibit No. 853) than the bullet which presumably struck the Governor’s rib (Commission Exhibit No. 399) indicates that the animal bullet was traveling at a greater velocity.[A10-316] That suggests that the bullet which entered the Governor’s chest had already lost velocity by passing through the President’s neck.[A10-317] Moreover, the large wound on the Governor’s back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking.[A10-318]

Dr. Frederick W. Light, Jr., the third of the wound ballistics experts, testified that the anatomical findings alone were insufficient for him to formulate a firm opinion on whether the same bullet did or did not pass through the President’s neck first before inflicting all the wounds on Governor Connally.[A10-319] Based on the other circumstances, such as the relative positions in the automobile of the President and the Governor, Dr. Light concluded that it was probable that the same bullet traversed the President’s neck and inflicted all the wounds on Governor Connally.[A10-320]

Tests Simulating President Kennedy’s Head Wounds

Additional tests were performed on inert skulls filled with a 20 percent gelatin substance and then coated with additional gelatin to approximate the soft tissues overlying the skull.[A10-321] The skull was then draped with simulated hair as depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 860.[A10-322] Using the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the Western bullets, 10 shots were fired at the reconstructed skulls from a distance of 270 feet which was the estimated distance at the time those tests were conducted.[A10-323] It was later determined through the onsite tests that President Kennedy was struck in the back of the head at a distance of 265.3 feet from the assassination weapon.[A10-324]

The general results of these tests were illustrated by the findings on one skull which was struck at a point most nearly approximating the wound of entry on President Kennedy’s head.[A10-325] The whole skull, depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 860, was struck 2.9 centimeters to the right and almost horizontal to the occipital protuberance or slightly above it, which was virtually the precise point of entry on the President’s head as described by the autopsy surgeons.[A10-326] That bullet blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head wounds of the President.[A10-327] The consequences on that skull are depicted in Commission Exhibits Nos. 861 and 862, which illustrate the testimony of Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who supervised the experiments.[A10-328] Based on his review of the autopsy report, Dr. Olivier concluded that the damage to the reconstructed skull was very similar to the wound inflicted on the President.[A10-329]

Two fragments from the bullet which struck the test skull closely resembled the two fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine. The fragment designated as Commission Exhibit No. 567 is a mutilated piece of lead and copper very similar to a mutilated piece of copper recovered from the bullet which struck the skull depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 860. The other fragment, designated as Commission Exhibit No. 569 which was found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine, is the copper end of the bullet.[A10-330] Commission Exhibit No. 569 is very similar to a copper fragment of the end of the bullet which struck the test skull.[A10-331] The fragments from the test bullet are designated as Commission Exhibit No. 857 and are depicted in a photograph identified as Commission Exhibit No. 858.[A10-332] A group of small lead particles, recovered from the test bullet, are also very similar to the particles recovered under the left jump seat and in the President’s head. The particles from the test bullet are a part of Commission Exhibit No. 857 and are depicted in photograph designated as Commission Exhibit No. 859.[A10-333] That skull was depicted as Commission Exhibit No. 862.[A10-334]

As a result of these tests, Dr. Olivier concluded that the Western bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at a distance of 270 feet would make the same type of wound found on the President’s head.[A10-335] Prior to the tests, Dr. Olivier had some doubt that such a stable bullet would cause a massive head wound like that inflicted on the President.[A10-336] He had thought it more likely that such a striking bullet would make small entrance and exit holes.[A10-337] The tests, however, showed that the bones of the skull were sufficient to deform the end of the bullet causing it to expend a great deal of energy and thereby blow out the side of the skull.[A10-338] These tests further confirmed the autopsy surgeons’ opinions that the President’s head wound was not caused by a dumdum bullet.[A10-339] Because of the test results, Dr. Olivier concluded that the fragments found on and under the front seat of the President’s car most probably came from the bullet which struck the President’s head.[A10-340] It was further concluded that the damage done to Governor Connally’s wrist could not have resulted from a fragment from the bullet which struck President Kennedy’s head.[A10-341]

HAIRS AND FIBERS

Testimony on hairs and fibers was given by Paul M. Stombaugh[A10-342] of the FBI. Stombaugh has been a specialist in hairs and fibers since 1960, when he began a 1-year period of specialized training in this field. He has made thousands of hair and fiber examinations, and has testified in Federal and State courts in approximately 28 States.[A10-343] Stombaugh examined and gave testimony on the following objects: (1) The green and brown blanket found in the Paine’s garage, Commission Exhibit No. 140; (2) the homemade paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository following the assassination, Commission Exhibit No. 142; (3) the shirt worn by Oswald on November 22, 1963, Commission Exhibit No. 150; and (4) the C2766 rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 666

DIAGRAM OF A HAIR]

General Principles

_Hairs._--As shown in Commission Exhibit No. 666 (p. 587), a hair consists of a central shaft of air cells, known as the medulla; a cortex containing pigment granules (which give the hair its color) and cortical fusi (air spaces); and a cuticle and an outer layer of scales. Unlike fingerprints, hairs are not unique. However, human hairs can be distinguished from animal hairs by various characteristics, including color, texture, length, medullary structure and shape, shape of pigment, root size, and scale size. In addition, hairs of the Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid human races can be distinguished from each other by color, texture, size and degree of fluctuation of diameter, thickness of cuticle, shape and distribution of pigment, and shape of cross-section. Moreover, even though individual hairs are not unique, the expert usually can distinguish the hairs of different individuals. Thus, Stombaugh, who had made approximately 1,000 comparison examinations of Caucasian hairs and 500 comparison examinations of Negroid hairs, had never found a case in which he was unable to differentiate the hairs of two different Caucasian individuals, and had found only several cases in which he could not distinguish, with absolute certainty, between the hairs of two different Negroid individuals.[A10-344]

_Fibers._--Like hairs, the various types of natural and artificial fibers can be distinguished from each other under the microscope. Like hairs too, individual fibers are not unique, but the expert usually can distinguish fibers from different fabrics. A major identifying characteristic of most fibers is color, and under the microscope many different shades of each color can be differentiated--for example, 50-100 shades of green or blue, and 25-30 shades of black. The microscopic appearance of three types of fibers--cotton, wool, and viscose--is illustrated in Commission Exhibit No. 665 (p. 589). Two of these, cotton and viscose, were the subject of testimony by Stombaugh. Cotton is a natural fiber. Under the microscope, it resembles a twisted soda straw, and the degree of twist is an additional identifying characteristic of cotton. Cotton may be mercerized or (more commonly) unmercerized. Viscose is an artificial fiber. A delustering agent is usually added to viscose to cut down its luster, and under the microscope this agent appears as millions of tiny spots on the outside of the fiber. The major identifying characteristics of viscose, apart from color, are diameter--hundreds of variations being possible--and size and distribution of delustering agent, if any.[A10-345]

_The blanket._--Stombaugh received the blanket, Commission Exhibit No. 140, in the FBI Laboratory at 7:30 a.m., on November 23, 1963.[A10-346] Examination showed that it was composed of brown and green fibers, of which approximately 1-2 percent were woolen, 20-35 percent were cotton, and the remainder were delustered viscose.[A10-347] The viscose fibers in the blanket were of 10-15 different diameters, and also varied slightly in shade and in the size and distribution of the delustering agent. (The apparent cause of those variations was that the viscose in the blanket consisted of scrap viscose.)[A10-348] The cotton also varied in shade, about seven to eight different shades of green cotton being present, but was uniform in twist.[A10-349]

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 665

TEXTILE FIBERS

COTTON

WOOL

VISCOSE]

When received by Stombaugh, the blanket was folded into approximately the shape of a narrow right triangle.[A10-350] A safety pin was inserted in one end of the blanket, and also at this end, loosely wrapped around the blanket, was a string.[A10-351] On the basis of creases in the blanket in this area it appeared that the string had been tied around the blanket rather tightly at one time while something was inside the blanket.[A10-352] Other creases and folds were also present, as illustrated in Commission Exhibit No. 663.[A10-353] Among these was a crease or hump approximately 10 inches long.[A10-354] This crease must have been caused by a hard protruding object approximately 10 inches long which had been tightly wrapped in the blanket, causing the yarn to stretch so that the hump was present even when the object had been extracted.[A10-355] The hump was approximately the same length and shape as the telescopic sight on the C2766 rifle, and its position with respect to the ends of the blanket was such (based on the manner in which the blanket was folded when Stombaugh received it) that had the rifle been in the blanket the telescopic sight could have made the hump.[A10-356]

The string wrapped around the blanket was made of ordinary white cotton.[A10-357] It had been tied into a granny knot (a very common knot tied right over right, right over right) and the dangling ends had been further tied into a bow knot (the knot used on shoelaces).[A10-358]

After receiving the blanket, Stombaugh scraped it to remove the foreign textile fibers and hairs that were present.[A10-359] He found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, and a number of limb, pubic, and head hairs, all of which had originated from persons of the Caucasian race, and had fallen out naturally, as was shown by the shape of their roots.[A10-360] Several of the limb and pubic hairs matched samples of Oswald’s limb and pubic hairs obtained by the Dallas police in all observable characteristics, including certain relatively unusual characteristics.[A10-361] For example, in both Oswald’s pubic hairs and some of the blanket pubic hairs, the color was a medium brown, which remained constant to the tip, where it changed to a very light brown and then became transparent, due to lack of color pigments; the diameters were identical, and rather narrow for pubic hairs; the hairs were very smooth, lacking the knobbiness characteristic of pubic hairs, and the upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs; the tips of the hairs were sharp, which is unusual for pubic hairs; the cuticle was very thin for pubic hairs; the scales displayed only a very small protrusion; the pigmentation was very fine, equally dispersed, and occasionally chained together, and displayed only very slight gapping; cortical fusi were for the most part absent; the medulla was either fairly continuous or completely absent; and the root area was rather clear of pigment, and contained only a fair amount of cortical fusi, which was unusual.[A10-362] Similarly, in both Oswald’s limb hairs and some of the limb hairs from the blanket the color was light brown through its entire length; the diameter was very fine and did not noticeably fluctuate; the tips were very sharp, which is unusual; the scales were of medium size, with very slight protrusion; there was a very slight gapping of the pigmentation near the cuticle; there was an unusual amount of cortical fusi, equally distributed through the hair shaft; and the medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and very uneven.[A10-363]

Other limb, pubic, and head hairs on the blanket did not come from Oswald.[A10-364]

_The paper bag._--Stombaugh received the paper bag, Commission Exhibit No. 142, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.[A10-365] No foreign material was found on the outside of the bag except traces of fingerprint powder and several white cotton fibers, which were of no significance, since white cotton is the most common textile, and at any rate the fibers may have come from Stombaugh’s white cotton gloves.[A10-366] Inside the bag were a tiny wood fragment which was too minute for comparison purposes, and may have come from the woodpulp from which the paper was made; a particle of a waxy substance, like candle wax; and a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers.[A10-367]

The fibers found inside the bag were compared with brown viscose and green cotton fibers taken from the blanket. The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade, diameter, and size and distribution of delustering agent.[A10-368] The green cotton fibers found in the bag were, like those from the blanket, of varying shades, but of a uniform twist. Each green cotton fiber from the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and degree of twist. Like the blanket cotton fibers, the cotton fibers found in the bag were unmercerized.[A10-369]

_The shirt._--Stombaugh received the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.[A10-370] Examination showed that it was composed of gray-black, dark blue, and orange-yellow cotton fibers.[A10-371] The orange-yellow and gray-black cotton fibers were of a uniform shade, and the dark-blue fibers were of three different shades.[A10-372] All the fibers were mercerized and of substantially uniform degree of twist.[A10-373]

_The C2766 rifle._--The rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139, was received in the FBI Laboratory on the morning of November 23, 1963, and examined for foreign material at that time.[A10-374] Stombaugh noticed immediately that the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints, “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 * * *.”[A10-375] In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either adhering to greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices, and were so dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine what type of fibers they were.[A10-376] However, Stombaugh found that a tiny tuft of fibers had caught on a jagged edge on the rifle’s metal butt plate where it met the end of the wooden stock, and had adhered to this edge, so that when the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints the brush had folded the tuft into a crevice between the butt plate and the stock, where it remained.[A10-377] Stombaugh described these fibers as “fresh,”[A10-378] by which he meant that “they were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented.”[A10-379] However, it was not possible to determine how long the fibers had been on the rifle, in the absence of information as to how frequently the rifle had been used.[A10-380] Examination showed that the tuft was composed of six or seven orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. These fibers were compared with fibers from the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, which was also composed of orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. The orange-yellow and gray-black tuft fibers matched the comparable shirt fibers in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and twist. The three dark-blue fibers matched two of the three shades of the dark-blue shirt fibers, and also matched the dark-blue shirt fibers in degree of twist.[A10-381] Based on these facts, Stombaugh concluded that the tuft of fibers found on the rifle “could easily” have come from the shirt, and that “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.”[A10-382]

PHOTOGRAPHS

Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald’s possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine’s garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.[A10-383] In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine’s garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker’s house.[A10-384] An Imperial reflex camera,[A10-385] which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother.[A10-386] Testimony concerning the photographs, the negative, and the camera was given by Lyndal D. Shaneyfelt of the FBI.[A10-387] Shaneyfelt has been connected with photographic work since 1937. He has made 100-300 photographic examinations, and has testified frequently on the subject in court.[A10-388]

_Photographs 133-A and 133-B._--The background and lighting in 133-A and 133-B are virtually identical; the only apparent difference between the two photographs is the pose. However, in 133-A the rifle is held in a position showing many more of its characteristics than are shown in 133-B.[A10-389] In order to bring out the details in the rifle pictured in 133-A, Shaneyfelt rephotographed 133-A and prepared prints of varying densities from the new negative.[A10-390] He also took two new photographs of the C2766 rifle itself: one shows the rifle in approximately the same position as the rifle pictured in 133-A. The other shows a man holding the rifle simulating the pose in 133-A.[A10-391] Shaneyfelt compared the actual rifle, the photograph 133-A, his rephotographs of 133-A, and the two new photographs to determine whether the rifle pictured in 133-A was the C2766 rifle. He found it to be the same in all appearances, noted no differences, and found a notch in the stock of the C2766 which also appeared very faintly in 133-A. However, he did not find enough peculiarities to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C2766 rifle, as distinguished from other rifles of the same configuration.[A10-392]

The rifle’s position in 133-B is such that less of its characteristics were visible than in 133-A; essentially, 133-B shows only the bottom of the rifle. However, the characteristics of the rifle visible in 133-B are also similar to the observable characteristics of the C2766 rifle, except that while the C2766 rifle was equipped with a homemade leather sling when it was found after the assassination, the rifle in 133-B seems to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.[A10-393] The portion of the sling visible in 133-A is too small to establish whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope, and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in 133-B.[A10-394]

_The negative._--Shaneyfelt’s examination of the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed that the photograph, 133-B, had been printed directly or indirectly from the negative. It was Shaneyfelt’s opinion that 133-B had been directly from the negative, but he could not absolutely eliminate the possibility of an internegative, that is, the possibility that a print had been produced from the negative 749, a photograph had been taken of that print, and 133-B had been produced from the new negative, rather than from the original negative.[A10-395] “I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to the added process.”[A10-396] In any event, any “intermediate” print would have been virtually indistinguishable from 133-B, so that Shaneyfelt’s testimony conclusively established that either 133-B or a virtually indistinguishable print had been produced from the negative 749.

[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 751

Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera, with the back removed to show the camera’s film-plane aperture.]

_The camera._--The Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, was a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, one-shutter-speed, box-type camera, made in the United States.[A10-397] Shaneyfelt compared this camera with the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, to determine whether this negative had been taken with the camera.[A10-398] To make this determination, Shaneyfelt compared the margins of the image on Commission Exhibit No. 749 with the margins of the image on a negative he himself had taken with the camera. Microscopic examination shows that the margins of a negative’s image, although apparently straight, are actually irregular. The irregularities usually do not show on a finished print, because they are blocked out to give the print a neat border.[A10-399] The cause of these irregularities can be best understood by examination of Commission Exhibit No. 751 (p. 594), a photograph of the Imperial camera with the back removed to show the camera’s film-plane aperture. When the camera’s shutter is opened, light exposes that portion of the film which is not blocked off by this aperture. The edges of the aperture, therefore, define the edges of the image which will appear on the developed negative. In effect, the edge of the image is a shadowgraph of the edge of the aperture. As Shaneyfelt testified:

* * * the basis of the examination was a close microscopic study of the negative made in the camera to study the shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture.

As the film is placed across the aperture of the camera, and the shutter is opened, light comes through and exposes the film only in the opening within the edges. Where the film is out over the edges of the aperture it is not exposed, and your result is an exposed negative with a clear edge, and on the negative then, the edges of that exposure of the photograph, are actually shadowgraphs of the edges of the aperture.[A10-400]

The basis of the identification is that the microscopic characteristics of every film-plane aperture, like those of a rifle barrel, are distinctive, for much the same reason; that is, when the camera is manufactured, certain handwork is done which differs microscopically from camera to camera, and further differences accrue as the camera is used. As Shaneyfelt testified:

Q. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is the basis of your statement, the theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold.

In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little--or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera.

Q. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very similar; yes.[A10-401]

Based on his examination of the shadowgraph on the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, Shaneyfelt determined that it had been taken with the Imperial camera.[A10-402]

Three edges of the shadowgraph of the film-plane aperture were also visible on one of the photographs of General Walker’s house, not having been blocked out in the making of the print. On the basis of these three margins, Shaneyfelt determined that this photograph had also been taken with Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera. Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found, and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area.[A10-403]

During his interrogations Oswald had been shown 133-A, and had claimed it was a composite--that the face in the picture was his, but the body was not.[A10-404] Shaneyfelt examined 133-A and 133-B to determine if they were composite pictures. He concluded that they were not:

* * * it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can’t point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture.

I found no such characteristics in this picture.

In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it, and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.

Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn’t been entirely retouched out.

This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.

Q. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?

A. Yes.[A10-405]

Furthermore, the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed absolutely no doctoring or composition.[A10-406] Since the negative was made in Oswald’s Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, a composite of 133-B could have been made only by putting two pictures together and rephotographing them in the Imperial camera--all without leaving a discernible trace. This, to Shaneyfelt, was “in the realm of the impossible”:

In addition, in this instance regarding 133-B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.

This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn’t seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular photograph.[A10-407]

* * * * *

Q. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]

A. We have the negative of 133B.

Q. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?

A. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.

Q. So that the only composition that could have been made would have been in this process which you have described of picture on picture and negative and then photographing?

A. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.

Q. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?

A. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.[A10-408]

Following the assassination, photographs similar to 133-A appeared in a number of newspapers and magazines.[A10-409] At least some of these photographs, as reproduced, differed both from 133-A and from each other in minor details.[A10-410] Shaneyfelt examined several of these reproductions and concluded that in each case the individual publisher had taken a reproduction of 133-A and retouched it in various ways, apparently for clarifying purposes, thus accounting for the differences between the reproductions and 133-A, and the differences between the reproductions themselves.[A10-411] Subsequently one of the publishers involved submitted the original photographs which it had retouched. Shaneyfelt’s examination of this photograph confirmed his original conclusion.[A10-412] The remaining publishers either confirmed that they had retouched the photographs they had used, or failed to contradict Shaneyfelt’s testimony after having been given an opportunity to do so.[A10-413]

APPENDIX XI

Reports Relating to the Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department

As discussed in chapters IV and V, Lee Harvey Oswald was interrogated for a total of approximately 12 hours between 2:30 p.m. on Friday, November 22, 1963, and 11:15 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. There were no stenographic or tape recordings of these interviews. Several of the investigators present at one or more of the interrogation sessions, prior to testifying before the Commission, had prepared memoranda setting forth their recollections of the questioning of Oswald and his responses. The following are the most important of these reports.

REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD

We conducted the investigation at the Texas Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963, immediately after the President was shot and after we had found the location where Lee Harvey Oswald had done the shooting from and left three empty cartridge cases on the floor and the rifle had been found partially hidden under some boxes near the back stairway. These pieces of evidence were protected until the Crime Lab could get pictures and make a search for fingerprints. After Lt. Day, of the Crime Lab, had finished his work with the rifle, I picked it up and found that it had a cartridge in the chamber, which I ejected. About this time some officer came to me and told me that Mr. Roy S. Truly wanted to see me, as one of his men had left the building. I had talked to Mr. Truly previously, and at that time he thought everyone was accounted for who worked in the building. Mr. Truly then came with another officer and told me that a Lee Harvey Oswald had left the building. I asked if he had an address where this man lived, and he told me that he did, that it was in Irving at 2515 W. 5th Street.

I then left the rest of the search of the building with Chief Lumpkin and other officers who were there and told Dets. R. K. Sims and E. L. Boyd to accompany me to the City Hall where we could make a quick check for police record and any other information of value, and we would then go to Irving, Texas, in an effort to apprehend this man. While I was in the building, I was told that Officer J. D. Tippit had been shot in Oak Cliff. Immediately after I reached my office, I asked the officers who had brought in a prisoner from the Tippit shooting who the man was who shot the officer. They told me his name was Lee Harvey Oswald, and I replied that that was our suspect in the President’s killing. I instructed the officers to bring this man into the office after talking to the officers for a few minutes in the presence of Officers R. M. Sims and E. L. Boyd of the Homicide Bureau and possibly some Secret Service men. Just as I had started questioning this man, I received a call from Gordon Shanklin, Agent in Charge of the FBI office here in Dallas, who asked me to let him talk to Jim Bookhout, one of his agents. He told Mr. Bookhout that he would like for James P. Hosty to sit in on this interview as he knew about these people and had been investigating them before. I invited Mr. Bookhout and Mr. Hosty in to help with the interview.

After some questions about this man’s full name I asked him if he worked for the Texas School Book Depository, and he told me he did. I asked him which floor he worked on, and he said usually on the second floor but sometimes his work took him to all the different floors. I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in. I asked him why he left the building, and he said there was so much excitement he didn’t think there would be any more work done that day, and that as this company wasn’t particular about their hours, that they did not punch a clock, and that he thought it would be just as well that he left for the rest of the afternoon. I asked him if he owned a rifle, and he said that he did not. He said that he had seen one at the building a few days ago, and that Mr. Truly and some of the employees were looking at it. I asked him where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show. I asked him why he carried his pistol, and he remarked, “You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it.”

Mr. Hosty asked Oswald if he had been in Russia. He told him, “Yes, he had been in Russia three years.” He asked him if he had written to the Russian Embassy, and he said he had. This man became very upset and arrogant with Agent Hosty when he questioned him and accused him of accosting his wife two different times. When Agent Hosty attempted to talk to this man, he would hit his fist on the desk. I asked Oswald what he meant by accosting his wife when he was talking to Mr. Hosty. He said Mr. Hosty mistreated his wife two different times when he talked with her, practically accosted her. Mr. Hosty also asked Oswald if he had been to Mexico City, which he denied. During this interview he told me that he had gone to school in New York and in Fort Worth, Texas, that after going into the Marines, finished his high school education. I asked him if he won any medals for rifle shooting in the Marines. He said he won the usual medals.

I asked him what his political beliefs were, and he said he had none but that he belonged to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and told me that they had headquarters in New York and that he had been Secretary for this organization in New Orleans when he lived there. He also said that he supports the Castro Revolution. One of the officers had told me that he had rented the room on Beckley under the name of O. F. Lee. I asked him why he did this. He said the landlady did it. She didn’t understand his name correctly.

Oswald asked if he was allowed an attorney and I told him he could have any attorney he liked, and that the telephone would be available to him up in the jail and he could call anyone he wished. I believe it was during this interview that he first expressed a desire to talk to Mr. Abt, an attorney in New York. Interviews on this day were interrupted by showups where witnesses identified Oswald positively as the man who killed Officer Tippit, and the time that I would have to talk to another witness or to some of the officers. One of these showups was held at 4:35 pm and the next one at 6:30 pm, and at 7:55 pm. At 7:05 pm I signed a complaint before Bill Alexander of the District Attorney’s office, charging Oswald with the Tippit murder. At 7:10 pm Tippit was arraigned before Judge Johnston. During the second interview I asked Oswald about a card that he had in his purse showing that he belonged to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which he admitted was his. I asked him about another identification card in his pocket bearing the name of Alex Hidell. He said he picked up that name in New Orleans while working in the Fair Play for Cuba organization. He said he spoke Russian, that he corresponded with people in Russia, and that he received newspapers from Russia.

I showed the rifle to Marina Oswald, and she could not positively identify it, but said that it looked like the rifle that her husband had and that he had been keeping it in the garage at Mrs. Paine’s home in Irving. After this, I questioned Oswald further about the rifle, but he denied owning a rifle at all, and said that he did have a small rifle some years past. I asked him if he owned a rifle in Russia, and he said, “You know you can’t buy a rifle in Russia, you can only buy shotguns. I had a shotgun in Russia and hunted some while there.” Marina Oswald had told me that she thought her husband might have brought the rifle from New Orleans, which he denied. He told me that he had some things stored in a garage at Mrs. Paine’s home in Irving and that he had a few personal effects at his room on Beckley. I instructed the officers to make a thorough search of both of these places.

After reviewing all of the evidence pertaining to the killing of President Kennedy before District Attorney Henry Wade and his assistant, Bill Alexander, and Jim Allen, former First Assistant District Attorney of Dallas County, I signed a complaint before the District Attorney charging Oswald with the murder of President Kennedy. This was at 11:26 pm. He was arraigned before Judge David Johnston at 1:35 am, November 23, 1963.

Oswald was placed in jail about 12:00 midnight and brought from the jail for arraignment before Judge David Johnston at 1:36 am.

On November 23 at 10:25 AM Oswald was brought from the jail for an interview. Present at this time was FBI agent Jim Bookhout, Forrest Sorrells, special agent and in charge of Secret Service, United States Marshall Robert Nash, and Homicide officers. During this interview I talked to Oswald about his leaving the building and he told me he left by bus and rode to a stop near home and walked on to his house. At the time of Oswald’s arrest he had a bus transfer in his pocket. He admitted this was given to him by the bus driver when he rode the bus after leaving the building.

One of the officers had told me that a cab driver, William Wayne Whaley, thought he had recognized Oswald’s picture as the man who had gotten in his cab near the bus station and rode to Becklay Avenue. I asked Oswald if he had ridden a cab on that day, and he said, “Yes, I did ride in the cab. The bus I got on near where I work got into heavy traffic and was traveling too slow, and I got off and caught a cab.” I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said he remembered that when he got in the cab a lady came up who also wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to “take another cab”.

We found from the investigation the day before that when Oswald left home, he was carrying a long package. He usually went to see his wife of week ends, but this time he had gone on Thursday night. I asked him if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it.

During this conversation he told me he reached his home by cab and changed both his shirt and trousers before going to the show. He said his cab fare home was 85 cents. When asked what he did with his clothing he took off when he got home, he said he put them in the dirty clothes. In talking with him further about his location at the time the President was killed, he said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called “Junior” and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister.

I asked him why he lived in a room, while his wife lived in Irving. He said Mrs. Paine, the lady his wife lived with, was learning Russian, that his wife needed help with the young baby, and that it made a nice arrangement for both of them. He said he didn’t know Mr. Paine very well, but Mr. Paine and his wife, he thought, were separated a great deal of the time. He said he owned no car, but that the Paines have two cars, and told that in the garage at the Paine’s home he had some sea bags that had a lot of his personal belongings, that he had left them there after coming back from New Orleans in September.

He said he had a brother, Robert, who lived in Fort Worth. We later found that this brother lived in Denton. He said the Paines were close friends of his.

I asked him if he belonged to the Communist Party, but he said that he had never had a card, but repeated that he belonged to the Fair Play for Cuba organization, and he said that he belonged to the American Civil Liberties Union and paid $5.00 dues. I asked him again why he carried the pistol to the show. He refused to answer questions about the pistol. He did tell me, however, that he had bought it several months before in Fort Worth, Texas.

I noted that in questioning him that he did answer very quickly, and I asked him if he had ever been questioned before, and he told me that he had. He was questioned one time for a long time by the FBI after he had returned from Russia. He said they used different methods, they tried the hard and soft, and the buddy method, and said he was very familiar with interrogation. He reminded me that he did not have to answer any questions at all until he talked to his attorney, and I told him again that he could have an attorney any time he wished. He said he didn’t have money to pay for a phone call to Mr. Abt. I told him to call “collect”, if he liked, to use the jail phone or that he could have another attorney if he wished. He said he didn’t want another attorney, he wanted to talk to this attorney first. I believe he made this call later as he thanked me later during one of our interviews for allowing him the use of the telephone. I explained to him that all prisoners were allowed to use the telephone. I asked him why he wanted Mr. Abt, instead of some available attorney. He told me he didn’t know Mr. Abt personally, but that he was familiar with a case where Mr. Abt defended some people for a violation of the Smith Act, and that if he didn’t get Mr. Abt, that he felt sure the American Civil Liberties Union would furnish him a lawyer. He explained to me that this organization helped people who needed attorneys and weren’t able to get them.

While in New Orleans, he lived at 1907 Magazine Street and at one time worked for the William Riley Company near that address. When asked about any previous arrests, he told me that he had had a little trouble while working with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and had a fight with some anti-Castro people. He also told me of a debate on some radio station in New Orleans where he debated with some anti-Castro people.

I asked him what he thought of President Kennedy and his family, and he said he didn’t have any views on the President. He said, “I like the President’s family very well. I have my own views about national policies.” I asked him about a polygraph test. He told me he had refused a polygraph test with the FBI, and he certainly wouldn’t take one at this time. Both Mr. Bookhout, of the FBI, and Mr. Kelley, and the Marshall asked Oswald some questions during this interview.

Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 am. At 12:35 pm Oswald was brought to the office for another interview with Inspector Kelley and some of the other officers and myself. I talked to Oswald about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked to be the same rifle we had recovered. This picture showed to be taken near a stairway with many identifying things in the back yard. He told me about one of the places where he had lived.

Mr. Paine had told me about where Oswald lived on Neely Street. Oswald was very evasive about this location. We found later that this was the place where the picture was made. I again asked him about his property and where his things might be kept, and he told me about the things at Mrs. Paine’s residence and a few things on Beckley. He was placed back in jail at 1:10 PM.

At 6:00 PM I instructed the officers to bring Oswald back into the office, and in the presence of Jim Bookhout, Homicide officers, and Inspector Kelley, of the Secret Service, I showed Oswald an enlarged picture of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. This picture had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Paine’s house. He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before. When I told him that the picture was recovered from Mrs. Paine’s garage, he said that the picture had never been in his possession, and I explained to him that it was an enlargement of the small picture obtained in the search. At that time I showed him the smaller picture. He denied ever seeing that picture and said that he knew all about photography, that he had done a lot of work in photography himself, that the small picture was a reduced picture of the large picture, and had been made by some person unknown to him. He further stated that since he had been photographed here at the City Hall and that people had been taking his picture while being transferred from my office to the jail door that someone had been able to get a picture of his face and that with that, they had made this picture. He told me that he understood photography real well, and that in time, he would be able to show that it was not his picture, and that it had been made by someone else. At this time he said that he did not want to answer any more questions and he was returned to the jail about 7:15 pm.

At 9:30 on the morning of November 24, I asked that Oswald be brought to the office. At that time I showed him a map of the City of Dallas which had been recovered in the search of his room on North Beckley. This map had some markings on it, one of which was about where the President was shot. He said that the map had nothing to do with the President’s shooting and again, as he had one in the previous interviews, denied knowing anything about the shooting of the President, or of the shooting of Officer Tippit. He said the map had been used to locate buildings where he had gone to talk to people about employment.

During this interview Inspector Kelley asked Oswald about his religious views, and he replied that he didn’t agree with all the philosophies on religion. He seemed evasive with Inspector Kelley about how he felt about religion, and I asked him if he believed in a Diety. He was evasive and didn’t answer this question.

Someone of the Federal officers asked Oswald if he thought Cuba would be better off since the President was assassinated. To this he replied that he felt that since the President was killed that someone else would take his place, perhaps Vice-President Johnson, and that his views would probably be largely the same as those of President Kennedy.

I again asked him about the gun and about the picture of him holding a similar rifle, and at that time he again positively denied having any knowledge of the picture or the rifle and denied that he had ever lived on Neely Street, and when I told him that friends who had visited him there said that he had lived there, he said that they were mistaken about visiting him there, because he had never lived there.

During this interview, Oswald said he was a Marxist. He repeated two or three times, “I am a Marxist, but not a Leninist-Marxist.” He told me that the station that he had debated on in New Orleans was the one who carried Bill Stakey’s program. He denied again knowing Alex Hidell in New Orleans, and again reiterated his belief in Fair Play for Cuba and what the committee stood for.

After some questioning, Chief Jesse E. Curry came to the office and asked me if I was ready for the man to be transferred. I told him we were ready as soon as the security was completed in the basement, where we were to place Oswald in a car to transfer him to the County Jail. I had objected to the cameras obstructing the jail door, and the Chief explained to me that these have been moved, and the people were moved back, and the cameramen were well back in the garage. I told the Chief then that we were ready to go. He told us to go ahead with the prisoner, and that he and Chief Stevenson, who was with him, would meet us at the County Jail.

Oswald’s shirt, which he was wearing at the time of arrest, had been removed and sent to the crime lab in Washington with all the other evidence for a comparison test. Oswald said he would like to have a shirt from his clothing that had been brought to the office to wear over the T-short that he was wearing at the time. We selected the best-looking shirt from his things, but he said he would prefer wearing a black Ivy League type shirt, indicating that it might be a little warmer. We made this change and I asked him if he wouldn’t like to wear a hat to more or less camouflage his looks in the car while being transferred as all of the people who had been viewing him had seen him bareheaded. He didn’t want to do this. Then Officer J. R. Leavalle handcuffed his left hand to Oswald’s right hand, then we left the office for the transfer.

Inasmuch as this report was made from rough notes and memory, it is entirely possible that one of these questions could be in a separate interview from the one indicated in this report. He was interviewed under the most adverse conditions in my office which is 9 feet 6 inches by 14 feet, and has only one front door, which forced us to move this prisoner through hundreds of people each time he was carried from my office to the jail door, some 20 feet, during each of these transfers. The crowd would attempt to jam around him, shouting questions and many containing slurs. This office is also surrounded by large glass windows, and there were many officers working next to these windows. I have no records in this office and was unable to record the interview. I was interrupted many times during these interviews to step from the office to talk to another witness or secure additional information from officers needed for the interrogation.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

REPORTS OF AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

FD-302 (Rev 3-3-59) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 1026 North Beckley, Dallas, Texas, was interviewed by Captain WILL FRITZ of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police Department. Special Agents JAMES P. HOSTY, JR. and JAMES W. BOOKHOUT were present during this interview. When the Agents entered the interview room at 3:15 p.m., Captain FRITZ had been previously interviewing LEE HARVEY OSWALD for an undetermined period of time. Both Agents identified themselves to OSWALD and advised him they were law enforcement officers and anything he said could be used against him. OSWALD at this time adopted a violent attitude toward the FBI and both Agents and made many uncomplimentary remarks about the FBI. OSWALD requested that Captain FRITZ remove the cuffs from him, it being noted that OSWALD was handcuffed with his hands behind him. Captain FRITZ had one of his detectives remove the handcuffs and handcuff OSWALD with his hands in front of him.

Captain FRITZ asked OSWALD if he ever owned a rifle and OSWALD stated that he had observed a MR. TRUELY (phonetic), a supervisor at the Texas Schoolbook Depository on November 20, 1963, display a rifle to some individuals in his office on the first floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository, but denied ever owning a rifle himself. OSWALD stated that he had never been in Mexico except to Tijuana on one occasion. However, he admitted to Captain FRITZ to having resided in the Soviet Union for three years where he has many friends and relatives of his wife.

OSWALD also admitted that he was the secretary for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, Louisiana a few months ago. OSWALD stated that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee has its headquarters in New York City. OSWALD admitted to having received an award for marksmanship while a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. He further admitted that he was living at 1026 N. Beckley in Dallas, Texas, under the name of O. H. LEE. OSWALD admitted that he was present in the Texas Schoolbook Depository on November 22, 1963, where he has been employed since October 15, 1963. OSWALD stated that as a laborer, he has access to the entire building which has offices on the first and second floors and storage on the third and fourth, as well as the fifth and sixth floors. OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building.

After hearing what had happened, he said that because of all the confusion there would be no work performed that afternoon so he decided to go home. OSWALD stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes and went to a movie. OSWALD admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. OSWALD further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump.

OSWALD frantically denied shooting Dallas police officer TIPPETT or shooting President JOHN F. KENNEDY. The interview was concluded at 4:05 p.m. when OSWALD was removed for a lineup.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas

File # DL 89-43

by Special Agents JAMES P. HOSTY, JR. and JAMES W. BOOKHOUT /wvm

Date dictated 11/23/63

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI, and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

FD-302 (Rev. 3-3-59) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, interviewed in offices of the Dallas Police Department, was advised that he did not have to make any statement, any statement he made could be used against him in court and of his right to an attorney. He was requested to furnish descriptive and biographical data concerning himself.

The following was obtained from his responses and examination of contents of his wallet:

OSWALD declined to explain his possession of a photograph of a Selective Service card in the name of “ALEK JAMES HIDELL”.

When interview had been substantially completed and OSWALD was asked as to his present employment, he stated he thought perhaps interview to obtain descriptive information was too prolonged, that he had declined to be interviewed by any other officers previously, and did not desire to be interviewed by this agent. He remarked “I know your tactics--there is a similar agency in Russia. You are using the soft touch and, of course, the procedure in Russia would be quite different.”

OSWALD was advised questions were intended to obtain his complete physical description and background. Upon repetition of the question as to his present employment, he furnished same without further discussion.

Race White Sex Male Date of Birth October 18, 1939 Place of Birth New Orleans, Louisiana Height 5’ 9” Weight 140 Hair Medium brown, worn medium length, needs haircut Eyes Blue-gray Scars No tattoos or permanent scars Relatives Mother--MARGUERITE OSWALD, unknown address, Arlington, Texas, practical nurse (has not seen for about one year) Father--ROBERT LEE OSWALD deceased, August 31, 1939, New Orleans, Louisiana Wife--MARINA; two infant children Brothers--JOHN OSWALD, address unknown, last known at Fort Worth, Texas, five or six years ago, age about 30, works with pharmaceuticals, but not graduate pharmacist; ROBERT OSWALD, 7313 Davenport, Fort Worth, Texas (wife--VADA, two small children), works for brick company (believed Acme)

Dress at Time of Interview Black trousers, brown “salt and pepper”, long sleeved shirt, bare-headed

Contents of Wallet Had card in possession, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, Social Security No. 433-54-3937

Photo of Selective Service System card with photo of OSWALD, “Notice of Classification” and name “ALEK JAMES HIDELL, SSN 42-224-39-5321”. Card shows classification IV____(?). Bears date February 5, 1962, reverse side shows card from Texas Local Board, 400 West Vickery, Fort Worth, Texas. Card shows erasures and retyping of the information indicated and bears longhand signature “ALEK J. HIDELL”. Signature of member or clerk of local board (indistinct, may be GOOD____).

Local Board 114, Forth Worth, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, SSN 41-114-39-532, address 3124 West 5th Street, Fort Worth, Texas, registered September 14, 1959. Date of birth October 18, 1939, New Orleans, 5’ 11”, 150 lbs., blue eyes, brown hair. Mrs. ZOLA Z. BURGER, Clerk.

Snapshot photo of woman, apparently wife

Snapshot photo of infant

White card with longhand, “Embassy USSR, 1609 Decatur, NW, Washington, D. C., Consular REZHUYEHKO” (indistinct)

Department of Defense Identification No. N4,271,617, issued to LEE H. OSWALD, expiration date December 7, 1962, Private First Class, E-2, MCR/INAC, Service No. 1653230. Card shows date of birth October 18, 1939, 5’ 11”, 145 lbs., brown hair, gray eyes.

Dallas Public Library card, undated, expiration date December 7, 1965, issued to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 602 Elsbeth, Dallas, school or business--Jaggers--Chiles-- Stovall, followed by the name JACK L. BOWEN, 1916 Stevens Forest Drive, WH 8-8997.

U. S. Forces, Japan Identification card issued to LEE H. OSWALD, Private, Service No. 1653230, organization--MACS-1 MAG-11 1st MAW. Identification card #00646, issued, May 8, 1958. Date of birth October 18, 1939, American.

Card, “Compliments GA--JO Enkanko Hotel, telephone number ED 5-0755 of reverse side.

Certificate of Service in Armed Forces of United States, issued to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 1653230, reflected honorably served on active duty, U. S. Marine Corps, October 24, 1956--September 11, 1959.

Card of “Fair Play for Cuba Committee, 799 Broadway, New York 3, New York, telephone ORegon 4-8295”, issued to LEE H. OSWALD, May 28, 1963, filed by V. T. LEE as Executive Secretary

Card of “Fair Play for Cuba, New Orleans Chapter”, issued to L. H. OSWALD, June 15, 1963, filed by A. T.(?) HIDELL, Chapter President (note name HIDELL on fictitious Selective Service card)

Selective Service notice of classification card to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, Selective Service No. 41-114-39-532, IV-A; dated February 2, 1960, from Local Board 114, Fort Worth, Texas

$13.00 in currency, consisting of one $5.00 bill and eight $1.00 bills

Residence 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas, phone BL 3-1628 (residence of wife for past five weeks)

Room in rooming house, 1026 North Beckley, for about five weeks. Phone number unknown.

Previous Residences 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, no phone (about three months)

602 Elsbeth, no phone (about seven months), Dallas, Texas

Unrecalled street in Fort Worth, Texas, (a few months), with brother in Fort Worth, Texas, for a few months.

Previously in Soviet Union, until July, 1962.

Occupations Photography--Jaggers--Chiles--Stovall, 522 Browder, Dallas, Texas

Factory worker, William B. Riley Company (Coffee and Coffee Canisters), 644 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana

Unemployed for several months

Employed with Texas State Book Depository, Dallas, Texas, September, 1963, stock work, filing orders, etc.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas

File # 89-43

by Special Agent MANNING C. CLEMENTS /mac

Date dictated 11/23/63

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

FD-302 (Rev 3-3-59) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/25/63

LEE HARVEY OSWALD was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J. W. FRITZ in the presence of Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSWALD was advised of the identity and official capacity of said agent and the fact that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make could be used in a court of law against him, and that any statement made must be free and voluntary and that he had the right to consult with an attorney.

OSWALD stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which MR. TRULY and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLY, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of BILL SHELLY, he did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building. He stated after arriving at his residence, then he went to a movie, where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

OSWALD stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. His usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however, he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.

on 11/22/63

at Dallas, Texas

File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT /wvm

Date dictated 11/24/63

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

FD-302 (Rev 3-3-59)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/25/63

LEE HARVEY OSWALD was interviewed by Captain J. W. FRITZ, Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department. OSWALD was advised of the identity of SA JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, and his capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was informed of his right to an attorney, that any statement he might make could be used against him in a court of law, and that any statement which he might make must be free and voluntary. He furnished the following information in the presence of T. J. TULLY, U.S. Secret Service; DAVID B. GRANT, Secret Service; ROBERT I. NASH, United States Marshall; and Detectives BILLY L. SENKEL and FAY M. TURNER of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department.

Following his departure from the Texas School Book Depository, he boarded a city bus to his residence and obtained transfer upon departure from the bus. He stated that officers at the time of arresting him took his transfer out of his pocket.

OSWALD advised that he had only one post office box which was at Dallas, Texas. He denied bringing any package to work on the morning of November 22, 1963. He stated that he was not in the process of fixing up his apartment and he denied telling WESLEY FRAZIER that the purpose of his visit to Irving, Texas, on the night of November 21, 1963, was to obtain some curtain rods from MRS. RUTH PAINE.

OSWALD stated that it was not exactly true as recently stated by him that he rode a bus from his place of employment to his residence on November 22, 1963. He stated actually he did board a city bus at his place of employment but that after about a block or two, due to traffic congestion, he left the bus and rode a city cab to his apartment on North Beckley. He recalled that at the time of getting into the cab, some lady looked in and asked the driver to call her a cab. He stated that he might have made some remarks to the cab driver merely for the purpose of passing the time of day at that time. He recalled that his fare was approximately 85 cents. He stated that after arriving at his apartment, he changed his shirt and trousers because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved, shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers. He indicated that he had placed these articles of clothing in the lower drawer of his dresser.

OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called “Junior” and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize. He stated that his lunch had consisted of a cheese sandwich and an apple which he had obtained at MRS. RUTH PAINE’s residence in Irving, Texas, upon his leaving for work that morning.

OSWALD stated that MRS. PAINE receives no pay for keeping his wife and children at her residence. He stated that their presence in MRS. PAINE’s residence is a good arrangement for her because of her language interest, indicating that his wife speaks Russian and MRS. PAINE is interested in the Russian language.

OSWALD denied having kept a rifle in MRS. PAINE’s garage at Irving, Texas, but stated that he did have certain articles stored in her garage, consisting of two sea bags, a couple of suitcases, and several boxes of kitchen articles and also kept his clothes at MRS. PAINE’s residence. He stated that all of the articles in MRS. PAINE’s garage had been brought there about September, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana.

OSWALD stated that he has had no visitors at his apartment on North Beckley.

OSWALD stated that he has no receipts for purchase of any guns and has never ordered any guns and does not own a rifle nor has he ever possessed a rifle.

OSWALD denied that he is a member of the Communist Party.

OSWALD stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about six months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.

OSWALD stated that he arrived about July, 1962, from USSR and was interviewed by the FBI at Fort Worth, Texas. He stated that he felt they overstepped their bounds and had used various tactics in interviewing him.

He further complained that on interview of RUTH PAINE by the FBI regarding his wife, that he felt that his wife was intimidated.

OSWALD stated that he desired to contact Attorney ABT, New York City, indicating that ABT was the attorney who had defended the Smith Act case about 1949-1950. He stated that he does not know Attorney ABT personally. Captain FRITZ advised OSWALD that arrangements would be immediately made whereby he could call Attorney ABT.

OSWALD stated that prior to coming to Dallas from New Orleans he had resided at a furnished apartment at 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. While in New Orleans, he had been employed by WILLIAM B. RILEY Company, 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans.

OSWALD stated that he has nothing against President JOHN F. KENNEDY personally; however in view of the present charges against him, he did not desire to discuss this phase further.

OSWALD stated that he would not agree to take a polygraph examination without the advice of counsel. He added that in the past he has refused to take polygraph examinations.

OSWALD stated that he is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and added that MRS. RUTH PAINE was also a member of same.

With regard to Selective Service card in the possession of OSWALD bearing photograph of OSWALD and the name of ALEK JAMES HIDELL, OSWALD admitted that he carried this Selective Service card but declined to state that he wrote the signature of ALEK J. HIDELL appearing on same. He further declined to state the purpose of carrying same or any use he has made of same.

OSWALD stated that an address book in his possession contains the names of various Russian immigrants residing in Dallas, Texas, whom he has visited with.

OSWALD denied shooting President JOHN F. KENNEDY on November 22, 1963, and added that he did not know that Governor JOHN CONNALLY had been shot and denied any knowledge concerning this incident.

on 11/23/63

at Dallas, Texas

File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT /wvm

Date dictated 11/24/63

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

FD-302 (Rev. 3-3-59) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/25/63

LEE HARVEY OSWALD was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, at 6:35 p.m., by Captain J. W. FRITZ in the presence of Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT, Federal Bureau of Investigation. OSWALD was advised of the identity and official capacity of said Agent and the fact that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make could be used in a court of law against him, and that any statement made must be free and voluntary and that he had the right to consult with an attorney.

Captain J. W. FRITZ exhibited to LEE HARVEY OSWALD a photograph which had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department in a search, by starch warrant, of the garage at the residence of MRS. RUTH PAINE, located at Irving, Texas, which photograph reflects OSWALD holding a rifle and wearing a holstered pistol. OSWALD was asked if this was a photograph of himself. OSWALD stated that he would not discuss the photograph without advice of an attorney. He stated that the head of the individual in the photograph could be his but that it was entirely possible that the Police Department had superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. He pointed out that numerous news media had snapped his photograph during the day and the possibility existed that the police had doctored up this photograph.

OSWALD denied that he had purchased any rifle from Kleins Store in Chicago, Illinois.

OSWALD complained of a lineup wherein he had not been granted a request to put on a jacket similar to those worn by some of the other individuals in the lineup.

on 11/23/63 at Dallas, Texas

File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT /wvm

Date dictated 11/24/63

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

[Illustration]

REPORTS OF INSPECTOR THOMAS J. KELLEY, U.S. SECRET SERVICE

FIRST INTERVIEW OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD

At about 10:30 A.M., November 23, 1963, I attended my first interview with Oswald. Present during the interview at the Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department, were Special Agent Jim Bookhout, FBI; Captain Will Fritz, Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department; U.S. Marshal Robert Nash; SA David Grant and SAIC Sorrels; and Officers Boyd and Hall of Captain Fritz’s detail. The interview was not recorded. Mr. Sorrels and my presence was as observers, since Oswald was being held for murder and his custody and interrogation at that time was the responsibility of the Dallas Police Department.

In response to questions by Captain Fritz, Oswald said that immediately after having left the building where he worked, he went by bus to the theater where he was arrested; that when he got on the bus he secured a transfer and thereafter transferred to other buses to get to his destination. He denied that he brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he had ever had any conversation about curtain rods with the boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment. Fritz asked him if he had ridden a taxi that day and Oswald then changed his story and said that when he got on the bus he found it was going too slow and after two blocks he got off the bus and took a cab to his home; that he passed the time with the cab driver and that the cab driver had told him that the President was shot. He paid a cab fare of 85¢.

In response to questions, he stated that this was the first time he had ever ridden in a cab since a bus was always available. He said he went home, changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. This was a red shirt, and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a button down collar and of reddish color. The trousers were grey colored.

He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as “Junior”, a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread, fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he went to work.

He stated that Mrs. Paine practices Russian by having his wife live with her. He denied that he had ever owned a rifle. He said he does not know Mr. Paine very well but that Paine usually comes by the place where his wife was living with Mrs. Paine on Friday or Wednesday. He stated that Mr. Paine has a car and Mrs. Paine has had two cars. He said in response to questions by Captain Fritz that his effects were in Mrs. Paine’s garage and that they consisted of two sea bags with some other packages containing his personal belongings and that he had brought those back from New Orleans with him sometime in September. He stated that his brother, Robert, lived at 7313 Davenport Street, Fort Worth, and that the Paines were his closest friends in town. He denied that he had ever joined the Communist party; that he never had a Communist card. He did belong to the American Civil Liberties Union and had paid $5 a year dues. He stated that he had bought the pistol that was found in his possession when he was arrested about seven months ago. He refused to answer any questions concerning the pistol or a gun until he talked to a lawyer.

Oswald stated that at various other times he had been thoroughly interrogated by the FBI; that they had used all the usual interrogation practices and all their standard operating procedure; that he was very familiar with interrogation, and he had no intention of answering any questions concerning any shooting; that he knew he did not have to answer them and that he would not answer any questions until he had been given counsel. He stated that the FBI had used their hard and soft approach to him, they used the buddy system; that he was familiar with all types of questioning and had no intention of making any statements. He said that in the past three weeks when the FBI had talked to his wife, they were abusive and impolite; that they had frightened his wife and he considered their activities obnoxious. He stated that he wanted to contact a Mr. Abt, a New York lawyer whom he did not know but who had defended the Smith Act “victims” in 1949 or 1950 in connection with a conspiracy against the Government; that Abt would understand what this case was all about and that he would give him an excellent defense. He stated in returning a question about his former addresses that he lived at 4907 Magazine Street in New Orleans at one time and worked for the William Riley Company; that he was arrested in New Orleans for disturbing the peace and paid a $10 fine while he was demonstrating for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; that he had a fight with some anti-Castro refugees and that they were released while he was fined.

Upon questioning by Captain Fritz, he said, “I have no views on the President.” “My wife and I like the President’s family. They are interesting people. I have my own views on the President’s national policy. I have a right to express my views but because of the charges I do not think I should comment further.” Oswald said, “I am not a malcontent; nothing irritated me about the President.” He said that during 1962 he was interviewed by the FBI and that he at that time refused to take a polygraph and that he did not intend to take a polygraph test for the Dallas police. At this time Captain Fritz showed a Selective Service Card that was taken out of his wallet which bore the name of Alex Hidell. Oswald refused to discuss this after being asked for an explanation of it, both by Fritz and by James Bookhout, the FBI Agent. I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not. I then asked him if he had shot the President and he said he had not. I asked him if he had shot Governor Connally and he said he had not. He did not intend to answer further questions without counsel and that if he could not get Abt, then he would hope that the Civil Liberties Union would give him an attorney to represent him. At that point Captain Fritz terminated the interview at about 11:30 A.M., 11-23-63.

Thomas J. Kelley Inspector

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

INTERVIEWS WITH LEE HARVEY OSWALD ON NOVEMBER 23, 1963

At about 12:35 P.M., November 23, 1963, Lee Oswald was interviewed in the offices of Captain Will Fritz of the Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department. Among those present at this interview were Inspector Kelley, Captain Fritz, Detectives Senkel and Tiernon of the Homicide Division and SA James Bookout, FBI. Captain Fritz conducted the interview which was concerned mostly with Oswald’s place of residence in Dallas and was an attempt to ascertain where the bulk of Oswald’s belongings were located in Dallas. As a result of the interview, Oswald furnished information to Captain Fritz that most of his personal effects, including a sea bag, were in the garage at the address of Mrs. Paine, 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas.

The interview was concluded about 1:10 P.M. and immediately thereafter members of the Homicide Division secured a search warrant and recovered Oswald’s effects from the home of Mrs. Paine. Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the _Militant_ and “The Worker” in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on his right side. This photograph was enlarged by the Dallas Police Laboratories and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 P.M. that same evening.

On November 23, 1963, at 6:00 P.M., in the office of Captain Fritz, Homicide Division, Dallas Police Department, I was present at an interview with Oswald. Also present were Captain Fritz, FBI Agent Jim Bookhoutt, and four officers from the Homicide Division. This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were seized as a result of the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Paine at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. When the photographs were presented to Oswald, he sneered at them saying that they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the police and apparently after they photographed him they superimposed on the photographs a rifle and put a gun in his pocket. He got into a long argument with Captain Fritz about his knowledge of photography and asked Fritz a number of times whether the smaller photograph was made from the larger or whether the larger photograph was made from the smaller. He said at the proper time he would show that the photographs were fakes. Fritz told him that the smaller photograph was taken from his effects at the garage. Oswald became arrogant and refused to answer any further questions concerning the photographs and would not identify the photographs as being a photograph of himself. Captain Fritz displayed great patience and tenacity in attempting to secure from Oswald the location of what apparently is the backyard of an address at which Oswald formerly lived, but it was apparent that Oswald, though slightly shaken by the evidence, had no intention of furnishing any information.

The interview was terminated at about 7:15 P.M.

Thomas J. Kelley Inspector

[Illustration]

CO-2-34,030

U. S. Secret Service

November 29, 1963

Chief Inspector Kelley

Preliminary Special Dallas Report # 3

Covers third interview with Oswald and circumstances immediately following his murder

This interview started at approximately 9:30 AM on Sunday, November 24, 1963. The interview was conducted in the office of Captain Will Fritz of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police. Present at the interview in addition to Oswald were Captain Fritz, Postal Inspector Holmes, SAIC Sorrels, Inspector Kelley and four members of the Homicide Squad. The interview had just begun when I arrived and Captain Fritz was again requesting Oswald to identify the place where the photograph of him holding the gun was taken. Captain Fritz indicated that it would save the Police a great deal of time if he would tell them where the place was located. Oswald refused to discuss the matter. Captain Fritz asked, “Are you a Communist?” Oswald answered, “No, I am a Marxist but I am not a Marxist Leninist”. Captain Fritz asked him what the difference was and Oswald said it would take too long to explain it to him. Oswald said that he became interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee while he was in New Orleans; that he wrote to the Committee’s Headquarters in New York and received some Committee literature and a letter signed by Alex Hidell. He stated that he began to distribute that literature in New Orleans and it was at that time that he got into an altercation with a group and he was arrested. He said his opinions concerning Fair Play for Cuba are well known; that he appeared on Bill Stukey’s television program in New Orleans on a number of occasions and was interviewed by the local press often. He denies knowing or ever seeing Hidell in New Orleans, said he believed in all of the tenets of the Fair Play for Cuba and the things which the Fair Play for Cuba Committee stood for which was free intercourse with Cuba and freedom for tourists of the both countries to travel within each other’s borders.

Among other things, Oswald said that Cuba should have ~folded~ full diplomatic relationship with the United States. I asked him if he thought that the President’s assassination would have any effect on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He said there would be no change in the attitude of the American people toward Cuba with President Johnson becoming President because they both belonged to the same political party and the one would follow pretty generally the policies of the other. He stated that he is an avid reader of Russian literature whether it is communistic or not; that he subscribes to “The Militant”, which, he says, is the weekly of the Socialist party in the United States (it is a copy of “The Militant” that Oswald is shown holding in the photograph taken from his effects at Irving Street). At that time he asked me whether I was an FBI Agent and I said that I was not that I was a member of the Secret Service. He said when he was standing in front of the Textbook Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone before he left.

I asked Oswald whether as a Marxist he believed that religion was an opiate of the people and he said very definitely so that all organized religions tend to become monopolistic and are the causes of a great deal of class warfare. I asked him whether he considered the Catholic Church to be an enemy of the Communist philosophy and he said well, there was no Catholicism in Russia; that the closest to it is the Orthodox Churches but he said he would not further discuss his opinions of religion since this was an attempt to have him say something which could be construed as being anti-religious or anti Catholic.

Capt. Fritz displayed an Enco street map of Dallas which had been found among Oswald’s effects at the rooming house. Oswald was asked whether the map was his and whether he had put some marks on it. He said it was his and remarked “My God don’t tell me there’s a mark near where this thing happened”. The mark was pointed out to him and he said “What about the other marks on the map?--I put a number of marks on it. I was looking for work and marked the places where I went for jobs or where I heard there were jobs”.

Since it was obvious to Captain Fritz that Oswald was not going to be cooperative, he terminated the interview at that time.

I approached Oswald then and, out of the hearing of the others except perhaps one of Captain Fritz’s men, said that as a Secret Service agent, we are anxious to talk with him as soon as he had secured counsel; that we were responsible for the safety of the President; that the Dallas Police had charged him with the assassination of the President but that he had denied it; we were therefore very anxious to talk with him to make certain that the correct story was developing as it related to the assassination. He said that he would be glad to discuss this proposition with his attorney and that after he talked to one, we could either discuss it with him or discuss it with his attorney, if the attorney thought it was the wise thing to do, but that at the present time he had nothing more to say to me. Oswald was then handed some different clothing to put on. The clothing included a sweater. Captain Fritz made a number of telephone calls to ascertain whether the preparations he had placed into effect for transferring the prisoner to the County Jail were ready and upon being so advised, Captain Fritz and members of the Detective Bureau escorted Oswald from the Homicide Office on the third floor to the basement where Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.

On the completion of the interview, SAIC Sorrels and I proceeded to the office of the Chief of Police on the third floor and were discussing the interview when we heard that Oswald had been shot. We both ran down the steps to the basement. I arrived in the ante-room where they had dragged Oswald. SAIC Sorrels located and interviewed Ruby. Someone was bending over Oswald with a stethoscope and he appeared to be unconscious in very serious condition at that time. I asked Captain Fritz what had happened and he said Oswald had been shot by one Jack “Rubio” whom the police knew as a tavern operator. Shortly thereafter a stretcher arrived and I accompanied the stretcher to the ambulance which had been hastily backed into the garage. I observed that during the transfer that Oswald was unconscious; when the ambulance drove away from the building, I attempted to board a cruiser that apparently was going to follow the ambulance but I was unable to get into the car before it pulled away. Special Agents Warner and Patterson had heard of the shooting on their radio, proceeded to Parkland Hospital where Oswald was being taken and arrived vary shortly after Oswald had arrived at the emergency entrance and was being taken into the emergency treatment room. One or the other of these agents was in close proximity to Oswald while he was being treated. When I arrived at the hospital, I rode up on the elevator with Dr. Shaw who had looked at Oswald as he had come in and was being recalled to the operating room where Oswald had been taken. While Oswald was in the operating room, no one other than medical personnel was present but a Dallas policeman who had accompanied Oswald in the ambulance was standing in the doorway of the operating room in operating room scrub clothes. No other investigating personnel were in the vicinity. In the immediate vicinity of the detective was Special Agent Warner. Oswald made no statements from the time he was shot until the time of his death. He was unconscious during the ambulance run to the hospital which I verified through Detective Daugherty, who accompanied him. He did not regain consciousness at any time during the treatment until he died. At the time of his death, myself, Detective Daugherty and Colonel Garrison of the Texas State Police were on the fifth floor of the hospital arranging a security room in which to take Oswald, in the event he survived the operating room treatment. It was never necessary to use this room and upon learning of his death, I proceeded to the morgue to arrange for his family to view the body. When the family heard of the death they were in the process of being interviewed by Special Agents Kunkel and Howard, and requested to be brought to the hospital. Oswald’s brother, Robert, who had also come to the hospital, was being interviewed by Special Agent Howlett. Before the post mortem was performed, Oswald’s family, with the exception of Robert, viewed the body. Robert arrived too late to view the body before the autopsy had started and was not permitted by hospital authorities to view the body. The family was accompanied during the viewing by the hospital chaplain.

After making arrangements through the chaplain and another clergyman for the burial of the body, the family was returned to a secluded spot under the protection of Special Agents Kunkel and Howard, and the Irving Texas police. Precaution was taken to insure their safety in view of the excitement caused by the killing of Oswald. Special Agents Howard and Kunkel did an excellent job in handling the security of this family detail and insuring their safety. Thereafter, I was called by SAIC Bouck who advised me that the President and the Attorney General were concerned about the safety of this family and instructed that all precautions should be taken to insure that no harm befell them. SAIC Bouck was advised that the family was presently under our protection; we would continue providing protection until further notice.

Later that same day, I was contacted by SA Robertson of the FBI who asked whether we had someone with the family. He was assured that we had. He requested to be advised where the family had been taken. Since their ultimate destination was unknown to me at the time, I assured him that when I learned of their whereabouts I would relay it to him. He said that they received instructions from the Attorney General and President Johnson that precaution should be taken to insure the family safety.

At 11 pm, Sunday, November 24th, I was advised of the location of the family and immediately notified Robertson and inquired whether they now wished to take over their protection. He said no they had no such instructions, they merely wished to be assured that someone was looking out for their safety. I assured them that adequate protection was being provided and that they were available for interviews by the FBI. He stated that they did not wish to interview the family at this time; that they merely wanted to make sure they were in safe hands.

TJK:VS

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

REPORT OF U.S. POSTAL INSPECTOR H. D. HOLMES

Dallas, Texas

December 17, 1963

_MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW_

Informal memorandum furnished by Postal Inspector H. D. Holmes, Dallas, Texas, of an interview he took part in with Lee H. Oswald on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, between the approximate hours of 9:25 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. Those present, in addition to Inspector Holmes, were Captain Will Fritz, Dallas Police, Forrest V. Sorrels, Local Agent in Charge, Secret Service, and Thomas J. Kelly, Inspector, Secret Service. In addition, there were three Detectives who were apparently assigned to guarding Oswald as none of them took part in the interrogation.

Oswald at no time appeared confused or in doubt as to whether or not he should answer a question. On the contrary, he was quite alert and showed no hesitancy in answering those questions which he wanted to answer, and was quite skillful in parrying those questions which he did not want to answer. I got the impression that he had disciplined his mind and reflexes to a state where I personally doubted if he would ever have confessed. He denied, emphatically, having taken part in or having had any knowledge of the shooting of the policeman Tippitt or of the President, stating that so far as he is concerned the reason he was in custody was because he “popped a policeman in the nose in a theater on Jefferson Avenue.”

P. O. BOXES--He was questioned separately about the three boxes he had rented, and in each instance his answers were quick, direct and accurate as reflected on the box rental applications. He stated without prompting that he had rented Box 2915 at the Main Post Office for several months prior to his going to New Orleans, that this box was rented in his own name, Lee H. Oswald, and that he had taken out two keys to the box, and that when he had closed the box, he directed that his mail be forwarded to him at his street address in New Orleans.

He stated that no one received mail in this box other than himself, nor did he receive any mail under any other name than his own true name; that no one had access to the box other than himself nor did he permit anyone else to use this box. He stated it was possible that on rare occasions he may have handed one of the keys to his wife to go get his mail but certainly nobody else. He denied emphatically that he ever ordered a rifle under his name or any other name, nor permitted anyone else to order a rifle to be received in this box. Further, he denied that he had ever ordered any rifle by mail order or bought any money order for the purpose of paying for such a rifle. In fact, he claimed he owned no rifle and had not practiced or shot a rifle other than possibly a .22, small bore rifle, since his days with the Marine Corp. He stated that “How could I afford to order a rifle on my salary of $1.25 an hour when I can’t hardly feed myself on what I make.”

When asked if he had a post office box in New Orleans he stated that he did, for the reason that he subscribed to several publications, at least two of which were published in Russia, one being the hometown paper published in Minsk where he met and married his wife, and that he moved around so much that it was more practical to simply rent post office boxes and have his mail forwarded from one box to the next rather than going through the process of furnishing changes of address to the publishers. When asked if he permitted anyone other than himself to get mail in box 30061 at New Orleans, he stated that he did not. It will be recalled that on this box rent application he showed that both Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell were listed under the caption “Persons entitled to receive mail through box”. After denying that anyone else was permitted to get mail in the box, he was reminded that this application showed the name Marina Oswald as being entitled to receive mail in the box and he replied “well so what, she was my wife and I see nothing wrong with that, and it could very well be that I did place her name on the application”. He was then reminded that the application also showed the name A. J. Hidell was also entitled to receive mail in the box, at which he simply shrugged his shoulders and stated “I don’t recall anything about that”.

He stated that when he came back to Dallas and after he had gone to work for the Texas School Book Depository, he had rented a box at the nearby Terminal Annex postal station, this being Box 6225, and that this box was also rented in his name, Lee H. Oswald. He stated he had only checked out one key for this box, which information was found to be accurate, and this key was found on his person at the time of his arrest. He professed not to recall the fact that he showed on the box rental application under name of corporation “Fair Play For Cuba Committee” and “American Civil Liberties Union”. When asked as to why he showed these organizations on the application, he simply shrugged and said that he didn’t recall showing them. When asked if he paid the box rental fee or did the organizations pay it, he stated that he paid it. In answer to another question, he also stated that no one had any knowledge that he had this box other than himself.

ORGANIZATIONS- MEMBERSHIP IN--With respect to American Civil Liberties Union he was a little evasive stating something to the effect that he had made some effort to join but it was never made clear whether he had or had not been accepted. He stated that he first became interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, after he went to New Orleans, that it started out as being a group of individuals who, like him, who thought and had like political opinions. They did decide to organize, and did organize after a fashion, but denied that they had any president or any elected officers. He stated that he, himself, could probably be considered the secretary since he wrote some letters on their behalf and attempted to collect dues which, if I recall, were $1.00 per month. He also stated that there was a “Fair Play for Cuba Committee” in New York which was better organized. He denied that he was sent to Dallas for the purpose of organizing such a cell in Dallas.

When asked if he was a communist, he stated emphatically not, that he was a Marxist. Someone asked the difference and he stated that a communist is a Lenin-Marxist, that he himself was a pure Marxist, and when someone asked the difference, he stated that it was a long story and if they didn’t know, it would take too long to tell them. He stated further that he had read about everything written by or about Karl Marx.

When asked as to his religion, he stated that Karl Marx was his religion, and in response to further questioning he stated that some people may find the Bible interesting reading, but it was not for him, stating further that even as a philosophy there was not much to the Bible.

MARINE CORP SERVICE--Captain Fritz made some mention of his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corp at which point he bristled noticeably, stating that he had been discharged with an “honorable” discharge and that this was later changed due to his having attempted to denounce his American Citizenship while he was living in Russia. He stated further that since his change of citizenship did not come to pass, he had written a letter to Mr. Connally, then Secretary of the Navy, and after considerable delay, received a very respectful reply wherein Connally stated he had resigned to run for Governor of Texas, and that his letter was being referred to the new Secretary, a Mr. Cork, Kurth, or something like that. He showed no particular animosity toward Mr. Connally while discussing this feature.

MAP--Captain Fritz advised him that among his effects in his room, there was found a map of the City of Dallas that had some marks on it and asked him to explain this map. Oswald said he presumed he had reference to an old City map which he had on which he had made some X’s denoting location of firms that had advertised job vacancies. He stated that he had no transportation and either walked or rode a bus and that as he was constantly looking for work, in fact had registered for employment at the Texas Employment Bureau, and that as he would receive leads either from newspaper ads or from the Bureau or from neighbors, he would chart these places on the map to save time in his traveling. He said to the best of his recollection, most of them were out Industrial, presumably meaning Industrial Blvd. When asked as to why the X at the location of the Texas School Book Depository at Elm and Houston, he stated that “Well, I interviewed there for a job, in fact, got the job, therefore the X”.

When asked as to how he learned about this vacancy, he stated that “Oh, it was general information in the neighborhood, I don’t recall just who told me about it, but I learned it from people in Mrs. Paynes’ neighborhood” and that all the people around there were looking out for possible employment for him.

## ACTIVITY JUST PRIOR TO AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ASSASSINATION

ATTEMPT--To an inquiry as to why he went to visit his wife on Thursday night, November 21, whereas he normally visited her over the weekend, he stated that on this particular weekend he had learned that his wife and Mrs. Payne were giving a party for the children and that they were having in a “houseful” of neighborhood children and that he just didn’t want to be around at such a time. Therefore, he made his weekly visit on Thursday night.

When asked if he didn’t bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said “Oh, I don’t recall, it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don’t always find one that just fits your sandwiches.” When asked as to where he placed the sack when he got in the car, he said in his lap, or possibly the front seat beside him, as he always did because he didn’t want to get it crushed. He denied that he placed any package in the back seat. When advised that the driver stated that he had brought out a long parcel and placed it in the back seat, he stated “Oh, he must be mistaken or else thinking about some other time when he picked me up.”

When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn’t say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated “You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes.” Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that “he is one of our employees” whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building. I don’t recall that anyone asked why he left or where or how he went. I just presumed that this had been covered in an earlier questioning.

A. J. HIDELL IDENTIFICATION CARD--Captain Fritz asked him if he knew anyone by the name of A. J. Hidell and he denied that he did. When asked if he had ever used this name as an alias, he also made a denial. In fact, he stated that he had never used the name, didn’t know anyone by this name, and never had heard of the name before. Captain Fritz then asked him about the I.D. card he had in his pocket bearing such a name and he flared up and stated “I’ve told you all I’m going to about that card. You took notes, just read them for yourself, if you want to refresh your memory.” He told Captain Fritz that “You have the card. Now you know as much about it as I do.”

* * * * *

About 11:00 a.m. or a few minutes thereafter, someone handed through the door several hangers on which there were some trousers, shirts, and a couple of sweaters. When asked if he wanted to change any of his clothes before being transferred to the County jail, he said “Just give me one of these sweaters.” He didn’t like the one they handed him and insisted on putting on a black slip-over sweater than had some jagged holes in it near the front of the right shoulder. One cuff was released while he slipped this over the head, following which he was again cuffed. During this change of clothing, Chief of Police Curry came into the room and discussed something in an inaudible undertone with Captain Fritz, apparently for the purpose of not letting Oswald hear what was being said. I have no idea what this conversation was, but just presume they were discussing the transfer of the prisoner. I did not go downstairs to witness the further transfer of the prisoner.

H. D. HOLMES Postal Inspector Dallas 22, Texas

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

APPENDIX XII

Speculations and Rumors

Myths have traditionally surrounded the dramatic assassinations of history. The rumors and theories about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln that are still being publicized were for the most part first bruited within months of his death. Wherever there is any element of mystery in such dramatic events misconceptions often result from sensational speculations.

Lacking the testimony of Lee Harvey Oswald, it has been necessary to reconstruct painstakingly all of the facts that led the Commission to the conclusion that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, acting alone and without advice or assistance. The Commission has found no credible evidence that he was a member of a foreign or domestic conspiracy of any kind. Nor was there any evidence that he was involved with any criminal or underworld elements or that he had any association with his slayer, Jack Ruby, except as his victim. The evidence on these issues has been set forth in great detail in this report.

In addition the Commission has inquired into the various hypotheses, rumors, and speculations that have arisen from the tragic developments of November 22-24, 1963. It is recognized that the public judgment of these events has been influenced, at least to some extent, by these conjectures.

Many questions have been raised about the facts out of genuine puzzlement or because of misinformation which attended some of the early reporting of the fast-crowding events of these 3 days. Most of the speculation and attempted reconstruction of these events by the public centered on these basic questions: Was Lee Harvey Oswald really the assassin of the President; why did he do it; did he have any accomplices; and why did Ruby shoot Oswald? Many of the theories and hypotheses advanced have rested on premises which the Commission feels deserve critical examination.

Many people who witnessed the assassination and the killing of Oswald or were present in the area were a major source of diverse and often contradictory information. As is easily understood under such circumstances, all of the witnesses did not see and hear the same thing or interpret what they saw and heard the same way and many changed their stories as they repeated them. Moreover, they were interviewed at different times after the event by different people and often under circumstances which made accurate reporting extremely difficult.

Even the occupants of the cars in the Presidential motorcade were not entirely in agreement in their accounts because they, too, saw and heard what happened from different positions. Moreover, those closest to the assassination were subjected to a physical and emotional strain that tended to affect their recollections of what they thought they saw or heard. Consequently, the presentation of the news from Dallas included much misinformation. This, to some extent, was unavoidable, but the widespread and repetitive dissemination of every scrap of information about the President’s assassination and its aftermath has helped to build up a large number of erroneous conclusions. The manner in which local authorities released information about the investigation, sometimes before it could be verified in all detail, has further contributed to the fund of ill-founded theories. Typographical mistakes in the press and failure to transcribe sound accurately from tapes resulted in errors, some of which have remained uncorrected in print at the time of the publication of this report.

Much of the speculation that has persisted in one form or another since November 22-24 came from people who usually spoke in good faith. Some of the errors have resulted simply from a lack of complete knowledge at the time of the event. In this category are the statements attributed to doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital who attended the dying President and described his wounds to the press afterward. It remained for the autopsy in Washington, completed early the next morning, to ascertain the full facts concerning the wounds. The correction of earlier assertions of fact on the basis of later and fuller analysis or investigation is a normal part of the process of accumulation of evidence. But it is not often that the process is conducted in such an intense glare of worldwide publicity, and later corrections have difficulty overtaking the original sensational reports.

There is still another category of speculation and rumor that complicated and broadened the work of the Commission. Numerous people claimed to have seen Oswald or Ruby at various times and places in the United States or abroad. Others insisted that during the days following the assassination, they had detected significant actions on television that were witnessed by no one else. Still others assumed from a widely published picture that Oswald was standing on the steps of the entrance to the Texas School Book Depository at the time the President was shot. Throughout the country people reported overheard remarks, conversations, threats, prophesies, and opinions that seemed to them to have a possible bearing on the assassination. More than a few informants initially told their speculations or professed firsthand information to newspaper and television reporters. Later, many of them changed or retracted their stories in telling them to official investigators.

The U.S. investigative agencies expended much valuable time and effort inquiring into these leads. Investigations of a vast number of rumors and speculations reached into almost every part of the United States and to most of the other continents of the world.

The Commission’s work was also handicapped by those witnesses and other persons connected with the investigation who sold for publication evidence pertinent to the investigation. These persons sold pictures and documents and even recollections, sometimes before the Commission had an opportunity to receive their evidence. Some of the evidence thus published was changed from its original form and gave misleading impressions to the public. The piecemeal release of this evidence, sometimes in distorted or exaggerated form, and often out of context, provided the basis for new speculations and rumors or served to reinforce already current ones. The practice was frequently harmful to the work of the Commission and a disservice to the public.

This appendix is intended to clarify the most widespread factual misunderstandings. False or inaccurate speculations concerning the assassination and related events are set forth below together with brief summary statements of what the Commission has found to be the true facts. The citation following each Commission finding is either to that portion of the report in which the subject is discussed more fully, to the evidence in the record supporting the finding, or to both. For complete answers to these speculations, the sources cited in the footnotes should be consulted. The speculations are considered under the following headings:

1. The source of the shots. 2. The identity of the assassin. 3. Oswald’s movements between 12:33 and 1:15 p.m. on November 22, 1963. 4. The murder of Patrolman Tippit. 5. Oswald after his arrest. 6. Oswald in the Soviet Union. 7. Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. 8. Oswald and U.S. Government agencies. 9. Conspiratorial relationships. 10. Miscellaneous charges.

THE SOURCE OF THE SHOTS

There have been speculations that some or all of the shots aimed at President Kennedy and Governor Connally came from the railroad overpass as the Presidential automobile approached it, or from somewhere other than the Texas School Book Depository Building. Related speculations maintain that the shots came from both the railroad overpass and the Texas School Book Depository Building. These are supported by a number of assertions that have been carefully examined by the Commission in the course of its investigation and rejected as being without foundation. They are set forth below, together with the results of the Commission’s investigation.

_Speculation._--The shots that killed the President came from the railroad overpass above the triple underpass.

_Commission finding._--The shots that entered the neck and head of the President and wounded Governor Connally came from behind and above. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the President from anywhere other than the Texas School Book Depository Building.[A12-1]

_Speculation._--The railroad overpass was left unguarded on November 22.

_Commission finding._--On November 22 the railroad overpass was guarded by two Dallas policemen, Patrolmen J. W. Foster and J. C. White, who have testified that they permitted only railroad personnel on the overpass.[A12-2]

_Speculation._--There are witnesses who alleged that the shots came from the overpass.

_Commission finding._--The Commission does not have knowledge of any witnesses who saw shots fired from the overpass. Statements or depositions from the 2 policemen and 13 railroad employees who were on the overpass all affirm that no shots were fired from the overpass. Most of these witnesses who discussed the source of the shots stated that they came from the direction of Elm and Houston Streets.[A12-3]

_Speculation._--A rifle cartridge was recovered on the overpass.

_Commission finding._--No cartridge of any kind was found on the overpass nor has any witness come forward to claim having found one.[A12-4]

_Speculation._--A witness to the assassination said that she saw a man run behind the concrete wall of the overpass and disappear.

_Commission finding._--Mrs. Jean L. Hill stated that after the firing stopped she saw a white man wearing a brown overcoat and a hat running west away from the Depository Building in the direction of the railroad tracks. There are no other witnesses who claim to have seen a man running toward the railroad tracks. Examination of all available films of the area following the shooting, reexamination of interviews with individuals in the vicinity of the shooting, and interviews with members of the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas County sheriff’s office failed to corroborate Mrs. Hill’s recollection or to reveal the identity of the man described by Mrs. Hill.[A12-5]

_Speculation._--Immediately after the shooting a motorcycle policeman was seen racing up the grassy embankment to the right of the shooting scene pursuing a couple seeking to flee from the overpass.

_Commission finding._--There are no witnesses who have ever stated this and there is no evidence to support the claim. A motorcycle policeman, Clyde A. Haygood, dismounted in the street and ran up the incline. He stated that he saw no one running from the railroad yards adjacent to the overpass. Subsequently, at 12:37 p.m., Haygood reported that the shots had come from the Texas School Book Depository Building.[A12-6]

_Speculation._--More than three shots, perhaps as many as five or six, were fired at the President and Governor Connally.

_Commission finding._--The weight of the evidence indicates that three shots were fired, of which two struck President Kennedy. There is persuasive evidence from the experts that one of these two bullets also struck Governor Connally. Some witnesses claimed that they heard more than three shots but, as fully described in