C. Cunningham 3

TESTIMONY OF CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM RESUMED beginning at 3H488...

The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.
Mr. DULLES. You are still under oath, Mr. Cunningham, so we won't swear you again. Will you proceed?
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I would like to take up a few things relating to this morning's testimony and then we will go back to paraffin test.
First, I hand you two bullets and I ask you whether you are familiar with these bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your mark on those bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the nose; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you identify them to us?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. These are two of the tests that I fired from Commission Exhibit 143, Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. One is a--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One of them is a copper-coated lead bullet. In this case, I know that it is Western, because that was the cartridge I used, and the other one is a Winchester .38 Special lead bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted in evidence as Commission Exhibit 606?
Mr. DULLES. They may be admitted as 606.
(The bullets referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 606, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, using these bullets as demonstrations, could you toll us how you determined that the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, which you looked at this morning, and those were Exhibits 602 through 604, were respectively a Western-Winchester .38 Special and a Remington- Peters .38 Special?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; however, I couldn't do it with these two bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Sure, use 602 to
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The copper-coated lead bullet. I could use and I did use it--I made a photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before we discuss that further, let's see if we can mark that for identification. Can you describe what is in this photograph?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. It is a photograph of four bullets. The first bullet starting from the left is Commission Exhibit No. 604. As you can see right on the label, it is Q-501, which would be Commission Exhibit 604. The next bullet to it is a test bullet that I fired from Commission Exhibit 143, which is a known 158-grain lead bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture.
The third bullet in the photograph is our number C-253, which is Commission Exhibit No. 603. And the fourth bullet in the photograph is this particular bullet which you have given Commission Exhibit 606. It is a copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I was present when it was taken. I compared the bullets with the negative, and I can testify that this photograph is a true representation-an accurate representation of the four bullets that were photographed.
Mr. DULLES. And this photograph is Commission Exhibit No.---
Mr. EISENBERG. If you will admit it into evidence, it will be 607.
Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

488

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 607 and was received in evidence.)
(At this point Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)
Mr. DULLES. All right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, we have introduced a photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 607, which shows four bullets labeled "C-252, R-P," "C-253," and "Western."
Are two of those bullets the bullets which you just identified as Exhibit 606?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; Commission Exhibit 606, the copper-coated Western bullet, is the same bullet that was in this photograph, labeled the Western bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you hold that up?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; that is the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. The copper-coated or copper-colored bullet in 606 corresponds with the far right- hand side bullet labeled "Western" in 607?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the lead-colored bullet in 606?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is a Remington-Peters 158-grain lead bullet. I do not have that one with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. This would be similar in appearance though to the bullet which was photographed as the "R-P" bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it isn't.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Because this is a Winchester.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why isn't it copper coated?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Corp. loads both lead and copper-coated bullets into their .38 Specials.
As of today, Winchester is only loading--under that brand--uncoated bullets. That is what their latest catalog says.
Only Western is loading copper-coated bullets. They are both made in the same factory--they are both made by the Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. in East Alton, Ill
Mr. EISENBERG. So you didn't give us an R-P test bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Did you use an R-P test bullet in attempting to make your identification?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; you asked for our first two tests.
Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Okay. Can you show by use of that photograph, Exhibit 607, how you were able to determine that certain of the bullets found in Officer Tippit were of R-P manufacture, .38 Special, and certain were Winchester-Western?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
First of all, in the manufacture of these bullets, each manufacturer has his own specifications for how they are to look. By that I mean generally that both manufacturer's bullets are similar. They are similar in weight. They are generally similar in size and diameter as well as length. However, the number and the spacing between the grooves--these grooves, the cannelures, are not similar. It is actually a knurling process, you can see the knurling marks.
Mr. DULLES. What is the purpose of those?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Lubrication grooves. .38 Specials being lead bullets--in order to keep down excessive leading they put in a lubricant--Remington- Peters--they use a very dark heavy lubricant. Western- Winchester, they use a very light-colored waxy type of lubricant.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Up above you will see a small groove. It is nothing more
than just a slight groove. That can be caused when the case is crimped, the bullet is crimped into the case.
Representative FORD. That is in the R-P?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On both of them, sir.
Representative FORD. That is on both?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM Yes; you see one here, that has actually been put in. They

489

load up to that certain place and they crimp into that groove, which is known as a crimping groove.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say crimping groove, do you mean the cartridge is tightened around the case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The neck of the case is tightened around--is crimped into the bullet. The distance between the base to the first cannelure, and the width of the cannelure, the portion of the bullet between the two cannelures, and the width of the next cannelure, is individual with Remington-Peters bullets.
In other words, Western-Winchester bullets are not made with the same width cannelures and the same distances between the two of them. Each manufacturer prefers to have a certain distance between cannelures and a certain width of cannelure, and it is strictly individual to each company. By these specifications--and also another very important thing is the base shape--you can determine whether or not a bullet is of one manufacture or another.
If you will take these two, one of the tests in Commission Exhibit No. 606, you will see that the number, the width and everything about the copper-coated Western and the uncoated Winchester are the same. In other words, they put a flash coat of the gilding metal on the bullet and as I testified previously its chief value is for sales appeal, and, a secondary value to prevent leading.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. Back on the record again. Continue please.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, as of November 22, 1963, how many major manufacturers were there in the United States who were manufacturing .38 Special bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Three.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who were they?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First, is the Western Cartridge Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., East Alton, Ill., which manufactures ammunition under the trade names "Western" as well as "Winchester."
The next major manufacturer is Du Pont, and they manufacture in their Remington Cartridge Division ammunition under the trade names "Remington" and "Peters," and the third manufacturer is Federal Cartridge Co. in Minneapolis.
Mr. EISENBERG. How many manufacturers of .38 Special ammunition are there outside the United States, approximately?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would have no way of knowing all of them. I know it is manufactured in Canada by Dominion, and Norma also manufactures it.
Mr. DULLES. What was that name?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Norma.
Mr. DULLES. N-o-r-m-a?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. In Canada too?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it is in Sweden.
DWM in Germany must manufacture it, I am just recalling these larger manufacturers that should manufacture it. Also, some English manufacturers.
Mr. EISENBERG. How are you certain that one of the bullets found in Officer Tippit was not manufactured by one of the foreign manufacturers, either one you are acquainted with or one you are not?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We maintain a Test Specimen and a Standard Ammunition File, and we have foreign ammunition in them, although I don't think we have all of the foreign. But we have never come across a foreign-made bullet with the same physical characteristics as the bullets represented by those removed from the body of Office Tippit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you attempt to get a complete file of .38 Special ammunition?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We definitely maintain an up-to-date file in our Standard Ammunition File in the laboratory of all domestic manufactured ammunition as well as some foreign, for instance, Norma and Dominion, and we have specimens from other foreign manufacturers.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you say that of the specimens you do have which you feel are as complete as possible you have never come across two types which are similar at least to these .38 Specials?

490

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now Mr. Frazier yesterday said that the Walker bullet seemed to be a 6.5 millimeter bullet or may have been fired from the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, had the same general rifling characteristics as was found on that rifle which is in evidence as Commission Exhibit--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; 139.
Now do you have a complete file of 6.5 or a large file of 6.5 millimeter ammunition?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have some.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you feel it is as complete as your .38 Special file?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I do not. However, we have never found any foreign manufacturer manufacturing 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition that was similar to this.
From its general appearance, it has all the similarities of a western-world-manufactured bullet--
Mr. EISENBERG. Now this is Commission--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In other words, the knurling is typical--the physical characteristics were similar to those of the bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is Commission Exhibit 573, which is the as to which Mr. Frazier has testified, and which is believed to be the bullet found in the Walker residence.
Are you familiar with it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have examined it as well as Mr. Frazier?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that this bullet was a 6.5 mm. Western copper-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano bullet?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would.
Mr. EISENBERG. As definitely as yon say the bullets which we have just been looking at are respectively Remington-Peters and Western-Winchester .38 Special bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Could I see that just a moment? What did that hit, the brick wall of the house?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. DULLES. You don't know?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know. I have no first-hand knowledge of it. It is in essentially the same condition as when we received it in the laboratory, and all I know would be what has already been furnished your Commission by report.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now given the fact that that was a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that have been fired in any other 6.5 millimeter rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; it has to be a rifle that is chambered specifically for this particular cartridge. In other words, there are other 6.5 millimeter cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, as I understand it, your conclusion and Mr. Frazier's was only that this cartridge, that this bullet, could have been fired from Exhibit 139 or a rifle with similar--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the basis of the rifling characteristics it could have been fired from 139. However, there are insufficient marks remaining to determine whether or not it had actually been so fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now the testimony yesterday as I recall it was that it was fired either from Exhibit 139 or from a rifle with similar, or from a weapon with similar rifling characteristics?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. But according to your testimony it would have to be similar to a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

491

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I did not so testify. You asked if you could fire another 6.5 mm. cartridge other than the cartridge
Mr. EISENBERG. I asked if that cartridge, if a Western manufacture 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could be fired in a gun other than the 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. And you said, as I recall it, "It could only be fired from a gun chambered for that cartridge."
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. That 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could only be fired in a weapon that is chambered for that particular cartridge. Further we have never found another cartridge that this particular type bullet has been loaded into.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you any reason to believe there is another 6.5 millimeter rifle manufactured that is chambered for that cartridge?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None that I know of. Maybe I misunderstood you. You mean, if the weapon is chambered for a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, then that is commonly known as its caliber?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But you can rechamber weapons for another cartridge, as they do all the time with the military surplus Springfield rifles. You can have them rebarreled and rechambered.
Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from rechambering, talking just about original manufacture, do I understand that the only weapon which you have encountered, the only 6.5 millimeter weapon you have encountered which would fire the particular type of cartridge which is Exhibit 573 is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; the various models of it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Okay.
Before the luncheon--are there any further questions along this line?
Before the luncheon recess we were talking about the paraffin test and we were discussing the significance of a positive result, and you had given testimony concerning two experiments which the FBI had run which indicated that positive results might be obtained even by a person who had not recently fired a weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; 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.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you expect to find residues on a person who has fired a revolver such as Commission Exhibit 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again, by its design, you would expect to find some thing, although there are cases where you won't find it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you expect to find a residue in the case of the revolver as opposed to the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A revolver has a revolving cylinder. There is a space between the barrel and the front portion of the cylinder.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could show that by use of Exhibit 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can see when you close the cylinder, and each chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp and then into the rifling.
The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues around the entrance to the rear

492

portion of the barrel which is next to the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself.
So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands after he fired a revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that there is no equivalent gap in the manufacture of a rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you run any kind of a test with this revolver which would indicate whether it did in fact leave residues?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; I did, or we dad, three of us, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Killion, and myself. The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with green soap and rinsed them in distilled water.
Mr. EISENBERG. The purpose of this washing was what?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet- recovery room, four times--and then after firing I opened it up and ejected the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the cartridge cases was in my hand at the time.
I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of diphenylbenzidine.
The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, you testified this morning that many common substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-called paraffin test.
Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this test so unreliable. Handling a recently fired weapon. that is covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and in some cases more especially up here and around here you would.
Mr. DULLES. Does the time between the tests, between the firing and the test, make very much difference, within a few hours?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the residues are on the skin they will react. In other words, if the material has been washed off completely, then you are all through, but if it remains on the skin or is imbedded in the pores of the skin it would still react, but so will so many other things.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review for a second your testimony this morning, in the experiments that the FBI ran, a revolver or automatic pistol were used as opposed to rifles, as I recall it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any negative results following the shooting of the revolver or automatic pistol?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. None of those were negative results, but they were not run under the same conditions. By the way, with an automatic pistol you shouldn't expect to find any residues, for the same reason as with a rifle the cartridge is chamber, and the boltface comes in right behind.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you look at your notes for your first experiment, be cause as I recall there were some negative results on that,
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am talking about the first experiment now, not the second one.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The first experiment--yes; that was true. This test was a little bit different.
In other words, they were not just taking people from their work. These people had washed their hands.

493

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, their hands were cleaned before they fired the weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. But then some of them fired a revolver and still didn't get a residue, as I remember your testimony?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?
Representative FORD. Based on your testimony this morning, and what you have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted and how extensively are they?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the cast and we will process them.
However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction.
Representative FORD. Is this a test that has been conducted by law-enforcement agencies for some time. Is it a new test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the first test that I reported on here were conducted in 1935.
There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons.
Mr. DULLES. Explain that.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, "We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now," and they will--it is--
Mr. DULLES. I get your point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Following up Congressman Ford's question, does the FBI run paraffin tests except on request from other law-enforcement agencies?

494

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't, no. Basically, the paraffin test is the preparing of the cast. We don't do that. We will run the chemical processing of these casts at the request of the local law-enforcement agency.
Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.
Representative FORD. Is that because of the feeling that it is not as reliable as it should be?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon. It is positive, and diphenlybenzidine solution is very positive and very sensitive, as to whether or not an oxidizing agent is present and it is used in chemistry.
Mr. DULLES. You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here, wouldn't we?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; I mentioned that this morning.
Representative FORD. He brought it out this morning.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would be willing to state right now if we processed both of your hands you would come up positive, because invariably pipe smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would get a positive reaction.
I am a cigar smoker, I also would come up positive.
Mr. EISENBERG. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DULLES. Do you have any further questions?
Representative FORD. I have no questions.
Mr. RHYNE. I take it in sum and substance that these paraffin tests are practically worthless?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For the determination of whether or not a person has fired a weapon.
Mr. RHYNE. A gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Now the test is not worthless in chemistry.
Mr. DULLES. What use are they then except possibly from this psychological angle that you have mentioned?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We don't
Mr. DULLES. Are they useful in other ways than but for the psychological reasons you mentioned?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As far as whether or not a person has fired a gun?
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. Even with the mere handling of this weapon I could pick up residues. One could not testify that a person has fired a weapon because be had residues on his hands, which I showed you this morning, for example.
There is a spot right there on my hand, and all I have done is empty the weapon.
Representative FORD. Did the FBI conduct a paraffin test on Oswald?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the Dallas Police Department did.
Representative FORD. The FBI did not?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did not, sir.
Representative FORD. You didn't analyze it?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did not. We obtained the paraffin casts and another agent in the spectographic unit took them to Oak Ridge and had them subjected to neutron activation, with which I am not familiar. But we did not do the original examination and the reporting. I don't know definitely as to what the Dallas Police Department did.
Mr. EISENBERG. It was under the supervision of the Dallas Police Department. I think a doctor performed the test, I am not sure whether it was a police doctor or not.
By the way, after the paraffin test is run, does the positive reaction stay evident on the paraffin cast?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it does not, due to the fact you have to wash it off. The solution of diphenylbenzidine is 70 percent sulphuric acid. The solution we were using in these tests was .25 grams of diphenylbenzidine to 100 ml. of 70 percent sulphuric acid, and sulphuric acid is corrosive. In other words, the majority of the solution is 70 percent sulphuric acid.

495

Mr. EISENBERG. So the casts as they are now don't show anything except white paraffin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. DULLES. You have no further questions?
Mr. MURRAY. No, thank you, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. Thank you very much, sir.