BOSTON IlMA PUBLIC LIBRARY Dalat ireBea ie eine Gate ale Sn) "Sar! Taeom shone Camino‘a eerste? ene ee E ee Seen etea ie atin rs $ Set eZ Reet itis ea See A anne Nan Fete Ns Lae ya Maa Tae Fa Pin tne Se ew‘om ee ne ae oe on i See patna PS ean Fp ie ans Sa ne *em nen ~t Tom ameSante eta a aeny maT Pagbag at a wee me Te ha Fim a ne wal Nation es aatiae ge ae? Tania ae in anit ee a ae ap aT eee ; des - : on deag San T wo Saanlea ae : ¥ ™ > ¥ al ~ s ~ celia anioaiatetiee’ See Maced eet eh lh a dine Pet ie Gp ee Eg eningTan wh2 Fi ra : ss perry SA Ar eR "i bD aa o . Se eelisiiiniiecieat tial 2 F ‘. , . “er < ie ee hoe fh > f 2 E - : . : “ 1 aS : ? Sa a : n elit iat te” 4 acento aia ‘ Fekete” r ss “ : ° 7 wnat Sean in an ite aen ae enani : iz rm . ~ 2 < WERT ~ —) bm Bowe einee FeeSy einMaaae Hine we ome ~ tens 5! ‘ on nnae Pie ns Sas Si HateMe Ms eh aT PAsThe ap has Phen Ton he oon ones so é in? nara Meat i Fae hPa BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2025 with funding from Boston Public Library https://archive.org/details/investigationofa02unit INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY HEARINGS» BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE QN ASSASSINATIONS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | Wa eae FIFTH CONGRESS ay SEPTEMBER 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1978 VOLUME II Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations ae “Bos ayro}dt ch jigs bh nit] Tae if NT at 4 Oat SOVERNAE ee ai =D ME 18: OEP! rE 5125 A823 AUTHOR Investigation of the Assass'n of 7 VOTITLE Pres, e wie e Vol. 2 DATE DUE INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WES. law Ubrary HEARINGS nd AN BEFORE THE B E ELECT COMMITTEE ‘ON “ASSASSENATIONS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SEPTEMBER 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1978 VOLUME II Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations os U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41-371 O WASHINGTON : 1979 For sale by the Superintendent of Doc , U.S. Government Printing Office Washington a anes SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS LOUIS STOKES, Ohio, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut District of Columbia CHARLES THONE, Nebraska YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan California CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut HAROLD E. FORD, Tennessee FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania Subcommittee on the Subcommittee on the Assassination of Assassination of Martin Luther King, dr. John F. Kennedy WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, Chairman HAROLD E. FORD YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE FLOYD J. FITHIAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD ROBERT W. EDGAR CHARLES THONE STEWART B. McKINNEY HAROLD S. SAWYER LOUIS STOKES, ex officio LOUIS STOKES, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio (ID CONTENTS September 11, 1978: Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director ................... meeumony. of Willis) Earimans sleet tree tectlegsck Meletlccsssvcsnncsontoasssocconseon eratement of G. Robert Blakey, chief:CcOUNSe! si.icicseccenssvicvsosconcessasssesssnodevresscashtl eee 101 21TOS: Mss ALCO Pte ad access eh aisle cae ainet ll os menvohebunasrasty evens aly AFTERNOON SESSION Testimony of James E. Barger—[Resumed] ................sscccssscccssrccesseceeesneeeesereeees Spon 01 Paul McOachren. a CRatitan. den. crensscvdrtieens bestia ieevsbaesreon Testimony of David Green, professor, Harvard University ............c:cccscceseeees September 12, 1978: Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel. ................:ccccsscsssscesecesecenteeeseeeeees PMIMETRTLY 00" (SEL VINT AVICUGINIGY™,... 3ectahac taser tdenostleeks custtes Setocnc ued Meds Moved sessde Aube Beet. MNOIAS KANT ND. PARA Reet anne ccstaelcsdtcessastrevivaieessdsvanterparticce September 13, 1978: Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel ...............cceceseesseeseeseeeeceeseeeneeees Beers y OT WVLAT INA OS WHI. F OLCGL. stecriesecsssuptteiosetdereteteetecnaxtnatbapntee tovtcces teary AFTERNOON SESSION Testimony of Marina Oswald Porter—[Resumed]..............cc:ccesseecesseeeesseeeessceeees September 14, 1978: Testimony of Marina Oswald Porter—[Resumed].............cceeeessseesseeeeeseeeenes Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel...................cesscsssseceeesrccesnecesenees RUPE MT POAC” 09-9 VVTILUE catpork etescere tort egs ocirtacetioenuercomeeaptigat one reeitoiees oats AFTERNOON SESSION Testimony of Jack D. White—[Resumed] ...................scccssscssecesseceescessecessseeseeeenees Testimony of Calvin S. McCamy and Sgt. Cecil W. Kirk uu... cece Peary OL.) oseph..P, ‘McNally 4... oad:-aisdegsls-esty- bbc oder ainnede September 15, 1978: Testimony of Calvin S. McCamy and Sgt. Cecil W. Kirk—[Resumed] .......... Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel... cee eeseeeseseeeeeeteeeeeseeseees RR EL ATEN eUOTNTD, CLAYSs isa 2 Oe a eared ecb ursad cg nace nes Cheins wseee eee Tel anand eso AFTERNOON SESSION Testimony ar OTE eri aTCRUST beta d EY bn vac gannsovacoevecaconaehesnédacdetbsknquossaaseencos 58 yomela A ot ey ie a i:eae He —- or. sistye-> tales ta verye fers awakes serar eon bgaaiv02 basin t waghal eee bpica snothdiveene 309% vs’ See pei espn? sige ROM AT: sent ane s taste So eee st«- duets 4ute¥ otissah rT es Sagano tte:Dai die chet) ohh <4 *\yrene “as ee ae re RY, eer Nee eid Pee ce ) a pron" LN pare i ne ae ‘ sitsi) Shalit ist) Y ah ie m StoreensaN BRE ere ehaee te bo peby am NE ted ereven: « af poe ihe oh sae sider - & wretdbgtrnh pga CreRNET TIN Cease his math _ iG ae he + ne bn hana a + an? ths ‘te ‘1 42) Gas ri dead “it a 2) RED IRE Sate tata ROR : ea Le ye Se eer ye eh ; h . i“ t ¥% REx Sapa Aa Soren P+) on eres z nN sore —_ ". , we * OTR seer cutee ae me hey Ve beninn rai fhe) phi tw ; tt ua 8 Oe ‘> acviaeil a at ae se arertn a di Qe vr " ane Ree eT pre: 1 yeu brie, Lethe 4(-$y oe) eae q 4 -a) ays vedere, Letire uaa aé iv vf Oe ‘ 4 a \ a + a‘ oy recy Wi Ki — i » Se. ay wp belt peeps ery oop eee ye nove inh CHT ONE : Re ‘ 4? Ate)>| me feck ys gdoaren artnet Leseeeae MARIA at ue A pte 4 eaos “]" : Fue) ’ - 7 Rs epee) eter # shoal evens 0 mi afP i Shs |ekelew 5 Ay ' | ST we, ee mvs ares WET) iar aa iv ae 4 ‘ “we : %,, A, “ onge eSa feeSe| e an eats ; siubiadale “ ra Ey Pt (esate pasta Wenivabiay ican ieoe|ag e eae Bia ha — OW Rie 4lo¥niee ry cals Gino git a : f ye oe one? | whe Pol Bay Bip woddderviente i A faviok uey Vises ardaewinnre Hospcan eeee™ =~ : ry N helegh ude aslike 4 +n , iy ioe aa seelitet w fiwe’ 192 bow yooh ee 5 ' i a $ 230 9; AGS i | alist, Lotdy alienate a n el nares 4 a . _.toemes stds ,youl J ps ’ ft My sep eeee t Fmt 7a cte* “eilt. Akad bods geeks sted + weal Perr eeeice, bell a vie dpe tower tee mi ey warah,. sos YOM v Leite ff ap 7he Mag i Sci ay hs Lo ureriaelt oahanernsnt eslone APRON ih ores) BE 6 a var ela ddhvectapeee if f Le fal ¥ wu © rats ie Che r «a bt ‘ 4 ‘? 4 Lp i f ay hak it iat Dares 4 we. ya " J it | y ee tyi iy ' . ’ i] ‘ Pe ha A oh re \ Tey oe} S ri : A < 4 . a yi \ To 1 vical iBe")oe gh i { ; * ‘Ol g ’ = bid bb xf . ‘a 4 5 4 Hf. "* 4 ae a if ‘ dei } Adee j P : ib,? ‘ 1") ta " A he re i 7 Jos) : ' ; a Ai +n yr gist iz “ft f : ue ' at Fa ud 5c ale ol: “4 in bi al er a » a i hthth or Vey f ut 4 } ¥ Aa Wy i.L ee if a a, s Ay? Pet La cre 7 7 ; Lia ; 2 i, ws! ’ eld vi fa } DF yt . : i hea? i) veggng LA tAB PR ae i Re e VA. ays Aes ' Da 5 t¥ ! 4 p i. INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The select committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:10 a.m., in room 845, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the select committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, McKinney, Sawyer, Dodd, Ford, Fithian, and Edgar. Staff present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director; Elizabeth L. Berning, chief clerk; Leodis Matthews, staff counsel; and Gary Cornwell, deputy chief counsel. Chairman SToKEs. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. At the outset of this morning’s hearings I would like to make some brief remarks. This morning, the Select Committee on Assassinations begins its second week of public hearings into the death of President John F. Kennedy. The evidence to be heard today will be directed toward the number, direction and timing of the shots fired at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Much of the evidence heard last week by the committee tended to support the basic conclusions of the Warren Commission, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of the President. The evidence to be heard today will be troubling to some persons. I would caution against those who would too quickly draw sensa- tional conclusions from this evidence. Mr. Justice Holmes used to say that the first requirement of a good theory was that it fit the facts. Since all of the evidence in the Kennedy investigation is not in, it is not yet possible to fit any theory to the facts. A final resolu- tion of the questions that may be raised by today’s evidence must, therefore, await the conclusion of our hearings and the submission of our final report in December. Mrs. BENSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Mildred Benson. I am from Pittsburgh. The Kennedy assassinations—— Chairman Strokes. Madam, you are disturbing a congressional hearing and that will not be tolerated. Madam, I will have to ask you to leave the hearings. (1) 2 Mrs. BENSON. These were political conspiracies. My family and I have been subjected to a savage program—— Chairman Stokes. Will the Capitol Police see that this lady is removed from the hearings? Mrs. Benson. John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were killed by political conspiracy. Chairman StToKEs. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. Biakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three days of testimony before the committee—both firsthand and expert in character—have indicated that a number of crucial issues in the Kennedy assassination turn on questions relating to the shots fired by the assassin or assassins. How many were fired? What was the time span between them? From what direction were they fired? Put succinctly: resolving the question of the number of those who participated in the assassination itself—a lone assassin or more than one gunman, that is, a conspiracy—may well hinge on the number of shots fired, the time interval between them, and the direction from which they were fired. As we have seen, the Warren Commission was persuaded that there were at least two shots—more probably three—and they all came from the Texas School Book Depository, which was to the right rear of the Presidential limousine. The Commission found the discovery of three spent cartridge cases on the floor of the sixth story of the book depository, its most persuasive evidence on the question of the number of shots, even though the medical and ballistics evidence could account for only two shots. Based on expert FBI testimony that the minimum time required to fire the rifle ranged from 2.25 to 2.3 seconds and an anlysis of the Zapruder film, it also concluded that the time from the first to the last shot most probably ranged from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. The best way, of course, to determine the number of shots is to listen to them—either when they occur or subsequently—on a sound recording, if one were to exist. The Warren Commission was alerted to the possibility of such a recording, one that was made by Dallas radio station KBOX and later used as part of a phonograph record produced by Colpix, Inc., ‘Four Days that Shocked the World.” A private citizen who had bought the record informed th commission on January 8, 1964 about the program and suggested that sounds of shots could be detected in an on-the-scene account 0 the assassination by Dallas reporter Sam Pate. The Commission obtained the recording from KBOX, and o June 29 Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter wrote a memo to Gener Counsel J. Lee Rankin in which he noted, ‘‘Several members of the staff listened to the tape and heard two noises which sound like gunshots. . .” On June 30, the Commission sent the tape to Dr. Lawrenc Kersta of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J. Dr. Ker sta’s analyses of the tape, however, were apparently inconclusive. say ‘apparently,’ because attempts by this committee to find re ports of Dr. Kersta’s work have been to date unsuccessful. 3 Another way to try and pin down the number, time sequence and direction of the shots is to take testimony from on-the-scene wit- nesses. The Warren Commission conducted—or had conducted for’ it—exhaustive interviews of this character. The recollections of the witnesses, however, were far from con- sistent. On the number of shots, the range was two to six, although three was seemingly the consensus. The time sequence ranged from 5 to 6 seconds. On their origin, reactions were also mixed. Many witnesses thought they came from the general direction of the book deposi- tory, but a significant number of others put the firing point at a piece of elevated landscape to the front and right of the limousine that has come to be known as the “grassy knoll.” Many witnesses frankly confessed confusion. For example, Abra- ham Zapruder, who stood on a concrete abutment in front of the grassy knoll and took his widely viewed movie of the assassination, said that he thought it came “from back of me,” but that there was “too much reverberation” to tell for sure. In any event, it seems clear that any serious effort to explain or understand what happened in Dealey Plaza must take into account all of the firsthand evidence on number, time and direction—even when it is apparently in conflict. On the other hand, some of the testimony relating to the direc- ‘tion of the shots was based on more than a reaction to the bark of a rifle. Howard L. Brennan, for example, said he actually “saw a man fire one shot” from the depository. James Jarman, who was on the fifth floor of the depository, also said he heard the sound of a bolt action of a rifle and the cartridge cases dropping to the floor above him. Nevertheless, many critics have alleged that the Commission, in the ultimate analysis, forced the evidence on the question of number and direction into a mold consistent with the discovery of che three cartridge cases on the sixth floor of the book depository. Mark Lane, for example, argues that this was how the single dullet theory came into being. In his ‘Rush to Judgment,’ Lane writes the Commission “. . . salvaged its basic working hypothesis the lone assassin theory) by concluding that the bullet that struck xovernor Connally first struck the President.” Josiah Thompson, in his “Six Seconds in Dallas,” did a statistical analysis of the statements of the witnesses to the shots. His find- ngs support the commission on the number of shots but dispute it m the direction from which they came: 84.4 percent of them heard ‘hree shots, Thompson found, but of those who had an opinion as 0 direction, 52 percent thought they came from the grassy knoll, 9 percent from the direction of the depository. Inevitably, of course, the select committee has had to attempt to ‘inravel these conflicting views. Fortunately, it has had the aid of nodern technology. New scientific methods have been applied to old evidence in some cases; in other cases, it has analyzed impor- ant pieces of new evidence that had previously been overlooked. ‘or one example, the committee devised new tests for the Zapruder }ilm, an original piece of evidence. For another, the committee sked a consultant to perform advanced computer studies with new 4 evidence, a sound recording of the assassination itself that has been only recently turned up. The photographic experiments were conducted by the commit- tee’s photographic panel of experts. They involved attempts to analyze camera ‘jiggle’ in an effort to record what may well have been the startled reactions to gunshot. The thought was that Zapruder may have reflexively moved his camera when he heard each shot. By measuring the intensities of blurs on a given frame, it was hoped that the timing of the shots could be indirectly pinpointed. Dr. William Hartmann was in charge of what has come to be known on the staff as the jiggle analysis. Dr. Hartmann received a B.S. degree in physics from Pennsylvania University in 1961, an M.S. degree in geology from the University of Arizona in 1965 and Ph. D. degree in astronomy from the University of Arizona in 1966. He has been assistant professor at the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, associate and senior scientist at the IIT Research Institute and currently is the senior scientist at the Plan- etary Science Institute of Scientific Applications, Inc. Dr. Hartmann is a member of the American Astronomical Soci- ety and is the cowinner of the 1965-66 Ninniger Meterorite Award. He has written numerous professional articles and has served as an associate editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research. He has apunered a planetary textbook and coauthored a book on the planet ars. Dr. Hartmann served as a photo analyst for the U.S. Air Force/ University of Colorado study of UFO’s and served as photo analyst and coinvestigator on the Mariner 9 mission to photograph Mars. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Dr. Hartmann. Chairman SToKEs. The committee calls Dr. Hartmann. | Sir, will you raise your right hand to be sworn? | Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Dr. HARTMANN. I do. Chairman StToxkEs. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel Gary Cornwell. Mr. CoRNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hartmann, as a member of the’ photo panel, did you conduct} photographic analysis in order to determine if there was any mea-’ surable reaction on the part of photographers who were taking! pictures in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination which! might be associated with the sound of gunfire? . TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM HARTMANN Dr. HARTMANN. Yes. 2 Mr. CoRNWELL. What theoretical reason or justification would) there be for conducting that type of analysis? | Dr. HARTMANN. I think there are several possible justifications. for it that add together. | First, psychological experiments have shown that there is a) rather universal startle reaction, and interestingly enough, the 5 classic work on this published in 1939 used gunshots before unsu- specting witnesses as the source of the stimulus to cause the startle reaction. Second, using a motion picture camera such, as Mr. Zapruder’s camera and his film, is an ideal test for startle reaction, because the photographer is attempting to hold this camera still or pan very smoothly, so that any startle reaction would cause a disturb- ance of that smooth panning motion. Third, then there would be a question, was the stimulus, the gunfire in Dealey Plaza, loud enough to cause such a startle reac- tion. I was present on August 20 when the committee did some test firing with the rifle similar to the one believed to have been used, and I found, first of all, that this was a very loud noise, louder than { had suspected, and in fact I attempted to take some pictures simultaneously with the gunfire and found that in three out of shree cases my pictures were blurred when they were taken with zunfire and not when they were taken at other times. In fact I think my pictures were probably more blurred, showed a larger startle reaction than Mr. Zapruder’s. Finally, it is a reasonable investigation to undertake because we e oa e al IF ZAPRUDER PANNED HIS CAMERA PERFECTLY, AND MAINTAINED GOOD HORIZONTAL PANNING BUT DID NOT PAN SMOOTHLY, THE JIGGLE RECORD WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS : JFK Exuisit F-371 ZAPRUDER FILM FRAMES 139-208 JFK Exuisit F-372 _ Frames 139-261 Frames 261-315 Frames 315-366 Frames 366-393 be ee ee —- 7 4 JFK Exuisit F-373 Mr. CoRNWELL. Dr. Hartmann, referring to the center JFK ex- hibit F-83872, would it be accurate to state that the blowup there) illustrates that at some points in the film Mr. Zapruder in fact doubled back instead of going forward with his panning as you) would expect? Dr. HARTMANN. Yes. There is a slight doubling back, and I would) just caution that there are different types of panning errors. In other words, there is this type that I sketched here. There is the} type where you actually double back, but there is the type where} you are going along in a straight smooth direction and suddenly move a great distance in this direction, all right, just to the right} in the same direction, but by more than you should have, so that) that produces a line, a straight line, still, and yet there is a very large error here. So don’t be fooled into thinking that the only reactions or jiggles are the places where the line gets tangled.) There may be some reactions in places where the line is spaced out by more than the usual amount. Mr. CORNWELL. As the exhibits were being put up, you stated) that you could quantify the results of the technique applied by Mr.| Scott, the same as the technique that you had applied. I would like at this time to show you JFK exhibit F-176, and ask} you if you can identify that. ! Dr. HARTMANN. Yes, sir. This is the same type of plot that was} done with the set of measurements I made. The set of frame numbers are along the bottom and the amount of jiggle or blur} plotted for each frame. Mr. CORNWELL. In this case it relates to the Scott technique?) Dr. HARTMANN. Correct. | 13 Mr. CoRNWELL. We would ask at this time that that exhibit be placed into evidence, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SToKEs. Without objection it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] Pe ? oe av° #* & ° na FK behind Ams £4 pva ) units (Arbitrary 1O0-FRAME FRAME— PANNING SMCOTH FROM DEPARTURE iG oes Sito 1g80 190 200 B10 220 230 240 250 20 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 eda M1 lie cicada) brit aed Le]Ryle +1 LBPre | +3 mus | J -6 -5 -4 -3 2 =a JFK Exuisit F-176 Mr. CoRNWELL. Now, in addition to the two approaches you have described, are you aware of any other way in which jiggle might be measured? Dr. HARTMANN. Yes. The physicist, Luis Alvarez, has in 1976 published in the American Journal of Physics an analysis of the same film using a third method, and that method was basically to take the set of blurs similar to what I described first, what I was quoting in my method, and his reasoning is as follows: That if the blur, if the amount of blur stays the same from one frame to the next to the next, then essentially nothing is happening. But if there is a sudden change in the amount of blur, then that is a sensitive measurement of a disturbance. And so what he plotted was the difference in blur from one frame to the next. So that is a third set of measurements. Mr. CoRNWELL. When did you first become aware of Dr. Al- varez—— Dr. HARTMANN. That paper was circulated to us on the photo panel some months ago, but I purposely did not study his results until I finished mine and Scott’s. Mr. CoRNWELL. I would like at this time to show you exhibit 177 -and ask you if you can identify that. Dr. HARTMANN. Yes, sir. This is an analysis or a plot showing all three sets of information on the same time scale now. So, for the first time we have a chance to really compare what the three independent and different types of measurements show, the same boxes here with the same set of frame numbers and the same timings, and, incidentally, I have noted some events as they happen along the sequence in the film, just to give you a reference to what is happening in the motorcade. Now above the little line are the peaks, the greatest blurs that were measured by my technique, this is taken directly off that earlier graph. Below the line is just a flipped over image of the blurs or jiggles measured by Mr. Scott's technique, and I think you 41-371 O- 79 - 2 Vol. 2 14 find some pretty good agreement there. And then down at the bottom in red has been added directly, hand-copied from Alvarez’s graph published in his paper, the set of measurements that he made, and, incidentally, they jiggle in both directions because he kept track of either what he called a positive blur in one direction or a negative in the other direction, so his are a kind of a squiggle, and ours are just motions up or down. Mr. CorRNWELL. I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to ask that JFK exhibit F-177 be admitted into evidence. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into evidence at this point. [The information follows:] SUMMARY OF TWO INDEPENDENT BLUR ANALYSES s PEA LIT ASS oO. FPR A s o Re s eg zs i a RS ie -) #0 we of ¢ ey ForreaMt og Alyee et eeae a ed Lak §& © s t . e x £ mye areas £ 4 pee fs ¢ Zapruder reacting, crying out ZAPRUDER FRAME NO.— > 140 BLUR ON PRESIDENTIAL ‘{Nolee i subtracted ) wt PANNING SHUTTER CI R subtracted ) YIME (SECONDS FROM __, ; FATAL SHOT TO HEAD) =9 =) =F 6 —5 =4 =3 =2 = r) +1 +2 +3 JFK Exuisit F-177 Mr. CoRNWELL. Dr. Hartmann, can you tell us, from the analysis that you have just described, precisely when the shots were fired? Dr. HARTMANN. Well, in my opinion, if you look only at this record of blur, in spite of the fact that there is pretty good agree- ment, it would be very difficult to say that a particular episode of jiggling here, a particular set of blurs,\is the response to a gunshot. | The question is, we believe, that if there was a loud gunshot, | there probably. was a startle reaction. But there could have been other kinds of reactions that would cause jiggles, just false alarms. And so on the basis of looking just at the blur, I would say no. However, if we then look at the photo visual evidence of what is happening in the parade, I think we can begin to identify some of these as gunshots. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you explain that if you could in relation to frame 313—— Dr. HARTMANN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL [continuing]. Where the gunshot occurred? Dr. HARTMANN. That, in particular, is perhaps the most signifi- cant one, where we know that there has been a gunshot. And we see that there is a very strong episode of this jiggling initiated at that time. The lapse time the jiggles begin—of course one has to | define how do you detect when the jiggle really begins? 15 And perhaps the best way is to go, is to look at the frame group from when the jiggle initiates to when it reaches a maximum. In this case that is about 313 to 319. The shot was probably fired at 310, as I mentioned before, and that number of frames is consistent with the measures of startle reaction time that were reported in the book that I mentioned. So I think that is a good confirmation that we are really seeing here the reaction to both the sound of the Banehot and probably the visual sight of what happened on that shot. Mr. CoRNWELL. And would it be accurate to state that the second largest area of blur or jiggle, apart from the one which occurred peontly after the head shot, would be in the earlier portion of the film‘ Dr. HARTMANN. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. What frame is that associated with? Dr. HARTMANN. About frames 190 to 200 there is a strong blur reaction initiated. So having concluded that this is in fact, that the blur sequence around 318 to 319 is in fact a response to the gun- shots, I would think that the logical inference would be that the blur sequence, the blur episode, running typically from 190 to 200 is also a response to a possible gunshot. And we know that the President emerged from behind the sign somewhat later, some frames later, showing in fact a reaction to such a wound. So this could very well be the blur or startle reaction to the gunshot that caused the back wound to the President. Mr. CORNWELL. And what, if any, corroboration is provided by this analysis to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the President and the Governor may have been shot in the vicinity of frame 210. | Dr. HARTMANN. Yes, they picked 210. I would say that to pick 210 in the face of this current evidence, to pick 210 as the time for that first shot, which is the Warren Commission’s conclusion, would not be warranted from this evidence, because the blur before frame 210, from 190 to 200, is clearly much larger than any blur after frame 210. In fact, there is really very little evidence for a blur in the appropriate amount of time after frame 210. Furthermore, there is some photo evidence that tends to support the thought of a shot in the time frame shortly before 190. For example, there is the Phillip Willis photograph which shows Mr. Zapruder in the background and the motorcade passing in between. Because the motorcade is in between, it is quite possible, quite easy, to determine exactly which Zapruder frame that corresponds to, because you can tell which part of the motorcade is passing between Zapruder and Willis. And Willis said that he took that photograph as a reaction. He pressed the shutter as a reaction to what he perceived as the first shot, at least a shot. Well, it turns out that that frame is 202. So that means that Mr. Willis is telling us that he pressed the shutter as part of his reaction to a shot, and he was reacting at frame 202, while here we see that Mr. Zapruder is in the middle of his reaction at frame 202. So that is very nice consistent evidence that something happened, say, at 190 or shortly before 190. Mr. CorNWELL. Mr. Chairman, I was incorrect earlier when I Stated that JFK exhibits F-224, 225, 226, and 227, the Zapruder 16 film blowups, had been previously admitted into evidence. I would at this time ask that they be admitted into evidence. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. Mr. CoRNWELL. I have no further questions. Thank you, Dr. Hartmann. Dr. HARTMANN. Thank you. Chairman SToKes. The committee will defer questioning of this — witness until later this afternoon after the committee has had the advantage of hearing the acoustical evidence, which will come into the record shortly. Sir, we will defer our questioning of you until later this after- noon. Dr. HARTMANN. Thank you. Chairman SToKEs. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. STATEMENT OF G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In September 1977 the committee learned of the existence of a Dallas police tape, one that had recorded the sounds of the assassi- nation from the transmitter of a motorcycle policeman who had accidentally left his microphone switch in the on position. There was immediate hope that by scientifically enhancing the tape, the sound of the shots could be made audible. The committee was told by the Dallas Police Department that it thought that all of its assassination evidence had been turned over to the FBI. It did not therefore have a copy of the tape. One was obtained, nevertheless, from Mary Ferrell, a critic who lived in the city of Dallas. The committee then set out to find an acoustical consultant to analyze the tape. After consideration of five possible candidates, the committee picked the firm of Bolt, Beranek & Newman of Cambridge, Mass. Bolt, Beranek & Newman can count among its many important forensic accomplishments an analysis of the tape-recorded sounds of the Kent State shooting incident in, 1970 and the discovery and analysis of the 18-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. B.B. & N. first analyzed the segment of the radio program, “Four Days that Shocked the World,’ that had been believed to have covered the assassination. As it turned out, it was not contempora- neous with the actual shooting of the President. The committee then forwarded the tape it had obtained from Mary Ferrell to B.B. & N., but no audible sounds could be dis- cerned in the analysis. Meanwhile, committee investigators working on the case in Dallas were in contact with Paul McCaghren, a retired assistant police chief who had been assigned to a special Dallas police assas- sination investigating squad. McCaghren was one of several Dallas police veterans who donat- ed their firsthand knowledge of the city to the committee. They “read us into their backyard,” so to speak, as one of our investiga- tors so aptly put it. Their help has been invaluable. 1 Among the original documents and tapes that McCaghren sup- plied the committee was a crucial November 22, 1963 dispatch tape along with the dictabelts that recorded the transmission from the motorcycle with the open mike. These materials were promptly sent to Bolt, Beranek & Newman. To supplement the analysis of the tape, B.B. & N. experts also went to Dallas last month to conduct an acoustical reenactment based on the live firing of a rifle in Dealey Plaza. In these tests, the Dallas Police Department was exceptionally cooperative. It obtained weapons, constructed the bullet “traps” and rerouted traffic during the 5 hours of testing. Police marksmen fired rounds from the Book Depository, as well as from the “grassy knoll.” The final results of this work have only recently been received by the committee. Nevertheless, they have been thoroughly analyzed. The man in charge of the Bolt, Beranek & Newman acoustical analysis is Dr. James E. Barger, the firm’s chief scientist. Dr. Barger received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1957, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Connecticut in 1960, and an M.A. in applied physics from Harvard University in 1962. In 1964 he received a Ph. D. in applied physics from Harvard University. He has been a sonar project officer in the U.S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, a research assistant at the Harvard University’s Acoustics Research Laboratory, a senior scientist and director of the Physical Science Division with Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. ’ Dr. Barger is the author of numerous scientific papers. He has lectured in the field of applied acoustics in the United States and Canada and currently is a lecturer on sound scattering and rever- berations with Bolt, Beranek & Newman’s antisubmarine warfare course. He has been a National Science Foundation fellow and currently is a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America. He is also a member of the U.S. Naval Advisory Board for Underwater Sound Reference Services. As chief scientist with Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Dr. Barger personally supervised the analysis of the 18-minute gap on the Nixon-Watergate tapes and the analysis, as I noted previously, of the gunfire sounds recorded during the shooting episode at Kent State University. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate at this time to call Dr. Barger. Chairman SToKEs. The committee calls Dr. Barger. Doctor, would you stand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. BARGER Dr. BARGER. I do. Chairman Strokes. Thank you. You may be seated. Mr. Cornwell. Mr. CoRNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 18 Dr. Barger, I would like to first direct your attention to the point in time that our chief counsel just made reference to, namely, when the committee brought to you a tape recording and a Dicta- belt of the Dallas Police Department’s recordings of transmissions on November 22. At that point in time, what did the committee ask you to try to do with that tape recording? Dr. Barcer. Mr. Cornwell, there was a series of questions that were asked in increasing order of difficulty. The first question and the least difficult potentially to answer was, simply, was the motorcycle with the stuck transmitter likely to have been in Dealey Plaza. If so, was the sound of shots recorded thereon or detectable thereon. And if that turned out to be the case, how many shots. If that could be determined, what was the time sequence between them, and if that could be determined, from what locations were the shots fired. And if by chance that also could be determined, what weapons fired the shots? Mr. CORNWELL. Would there be some reason to believe that you could answer any or all of these questions? Dr. BARGER. Well, the reason to believe that there may be an- swers to the latter questions was, of course, less likely than the former ones, but the answer was generally yes. The tapes had a good deal of noise on them, motorcycle noise, crowd noise, radio frequency interference, and the like. The most serious problem was the motorcycle noise. There is a way to help reduce that. It is a technique called adaptive filtering. It considers that the motorcycle is a repetitive device. As the cylinders fire, they do so periodically. The adaptive filter can learn to understand the event and project what will happen the next time the piston fires and subtract that noise out from the tape. We thought once the adaptive filtering was conducted, the tape might then be noise-free enough to attempt a detection of the sounds of gunfire. Now it was perfectly clear that these sounds were not clearly audible. There is in the field of detection theory a favorite ap- proach called matched filtering. The matched filter is a device that is used to detect events that you have some understanding of, even though they are subaudible. Matched filters are used in radar sets commonly to detect the presence of impulsive signals in noise, even though they are not visible or audible in the raw data. There was reason to believe that applying these techniques we might be able to detect the impulsive sounds of gunfire. Mr. CORNWELL. What, if anything, gave you reason to believe that you might be able to determine the direction from which gunfire came or the fact that it was gunfire? Dr. BARGER. When an impulsive source of sound is generated in an enclosed or semi-enclosed environment, such as an urban envi- ronment, the impulsive sound spreads from the place where the sound was generated in all directions and is reflected, scattered, and diffracted into all possible receivers, such as microphones that might be stuck and such as ears. Now the impulsive signals that arrive at these receivers—micro- phones or ears—over all of these paths through the processes of reflection, and scattering, occur in a unique pattern, and that 19 pattern depends on where the source of sound was and where the receiver is at that time. This unique pattern can be learned by, for example, reconstructing the sound of the acoustical event and measuring the unique pattern. If the microphone or receiver moves from one place to another, the pattern will change, and it is in fact these echo patterns that are the matching patterns that we considered using in the matched filter as a very powerful method for detecting the possible presence _of gunfire in the tapes. Mr. CoRNWELL. Let’s begin with what you describe as the unique sound of gunfire, and at this point show you JFK exhibit F-357. First, will you simply tell us what that is? Dr. BARGER. This is an exhibit that illustrates the acoustical disturbance generated by a rifle firing a supersonic bullet in free space. Mr. CORNWELL. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that exhibit be admitted into evidence so that we may ask Dr. Barger further questions concerning it. Chairman SToKEs. I am sorry, Counsel? I didn’t hear you. Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to ask at this point if that exhibit might be admitted into evidence. Chairman SToKEs. Without objection, it may be entered. [The information follows:] 20 Loci of Muzzie Blast and Shock Waves at Two Times After Firing of Supersonic Bullet Zone of Muzzle Blast i Only Zone of Shock Wave and ¥i Muzzle Blast Bullet Trajectory Bullet @ itDirectionof Wave, Sensed When Bullet at (4). Loci of Muzzie Blast and Shock Waves at Two Times After Firing of Supersonic Bullet Zone of Shock Wave and i Muzzie Blast Bullet Trajectory Bullet @ Bullet @ Apparent Direction of Shock Wave, Sensed When Bullet at (1). JFK Exurisit F-357 21 Mr. CoRNWELL. Would you at this point then, Dr. Barger describe this phenomenon using the exhibit? Dr. BARGER. This simple diagram shows the location of a rifle firing a supersonic bullet along this horizontal trajectory. At the instant in time that this illustration depicts, the bullet is at posi- tion 1. The sound generated by the muzzle blast is expanding spherically around the origin of the gunfire, namely, the muzzle of the rifle. At the time depicted here, that impulsive sound spherical surface has reached the point shown by the circle. The bullet, however, being faster than the speed of sound has advanced beyond the position of the sound wave. It generates a shock wave as a super- sonic transport would and the locus of that shock wave is from the bullet itself to the tangent of the sound wave at this point. At a later time [now referring to the second exhibit] the bullet will have advanced, and both the shock wave and the sound wave would have expanded to the position shown here. The sound wave has expanded to this point, and the shock wave has progressed to this region. If an observer were at this point, at the first time that I showed, when the bullet was at this point, the observer would hear the shock wave because it would pass him at that time. At the second time that I show here, when the bullet is advanced to the second position, the sound waves of the rifle would reach the observer at that point and he would then hear the muzzle blast. Mr. CORNWELL. You have emphasized at several points that this r a diagram showing the principles with respect to a supersonic ullet. What, if any, differences would you find if the bullet were subsonic? Dr. BARGER. If the bullet were subsonic, at the first time that I have shown when the muzzle blast has reached this point, the bullet would have lagged behind the position of the sound wave at that point, and it would always be behind; getting farther and farther behind, as time went on; and no shock wave is generated by that bullet. Mr. CoRNWELL. If you wanted to look at those principles on a recording, would there be a way that you could do that? Dr. Barcer. Yes. This observer is the same as the receiver I spoke of earlier. It could be a microphone or an ear, and therefore what I said for this observer holds for the—— Mr. CorNWELL. I would like at this point then to show you JFK exhibit F-364 and ask you if you could tell us what that is. Dr. BarGeEr. This is an illustration of the shape of the acoustical waveform generated by two rifles. Mr. CoRNWELL. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that JFK exhibit F-364 be admitted into evidence. Chairman SToKEs. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 22 Muzzle Blast and Shock Waveforms for Mannlicher Carcano and M-1 Rifles. MANNLICHER CARCANO | | Shock Wave ~ ® Building XX Se ve Sod aes Amplitude Threshold Amplitude of Significance Time Fire JFK Exuisir F-334 29 Mr. CORNWELL. Would you explain then what the principles are that are illustrated by that? Dr. BARGER. Yes. I have said we are aiming for the application of a matched filter to the Dallas Police tape that Mr. Blakey de- scribed, seeking the possible detection of gunfire thereupon. Now the pattern that will be the match in this filter would be an echo pattern as generated at a receiver, such as a microphone, in an urban environment that has buildings and an impulsive sound source that might have been generated in one of them. In the lower figure here, we show, along the horizontal scale, time increasing, and in the vertical scale here the amplitude of sound that might arise at any particular time. Now the sound from the muzzle of the rifle expands as I showed in the first exhibit, and it propagates along this direct path, which is the path having the least length between the source and the microphone. But I have illustrated that there are two here very close together marked D, and Dz. The reason for that is that next to the direct path is another ray of sound that hits the street just below the microphone and reflects up into the microphone. Those two paths have very nearly the same length, therefore, they occur at very nearly the same time, and they have very nearly the same amplitude, and so I have plotted them at this same point. Now, sound propagating over this direct path loses energy only by spreading out to fill the sphere that I described in the first exhibit. Sound paths having the next highest amplitude are those that are reflected from the surface of a building. Reflection occurs whenever the angle of the sound ray incident upon the building is reflected from it at the same angle. The same sound that hit the building was reflected off. It is still going after reflection in only one direction, just as it was before reflection. Therefore, it has not been diminished in intensity. It has merely had the direction of its propagation changed. It then hits the microphone as does another similar path hit the street and then the microphone. These two paths being longer occur later. They are marked with R: and R, ae illustrating the reflected direct and reflected surface bounce path. The sounds that comprise echo patterns that have the next stronger amplitudes are the diffracted paths. These paths hit large edges such as the corner of a building. Now when the sound strikes the corner of that building, it is spread out in a plane that I am now describing with this pointer. It goes into all directions within that plane, including the direction of the microphone. Since some of the sound that hit that corner at that time went in other directions it is diminished in amplitude at the time it arrives at the microphone. Therefore, Path M that I just described, which is clearly shorter than the Path R because this corner is closer to the source than was the reflection path is right there, has a lower amplitude than the reflective path had. _ The furtherest corner of the building will give a diffracted path Similarly. Now, we have discussed reflections and diffractions. The third most important, but generally the weakest method of changing the direction of sound is by scattering. I have illustrated 26 a parallelogram here which represents people or automobiles or anything of small size. When the sound hits an object of small size, it is sent out in all directions, including the direction of the micro- phone. Having been sent in all directions in space, it is diminished in amplitude considerably, so only if that scattering occurs close to the microphone, as I have shown here, or if the scattering object, namely this windowsill, is close to the source, as I have shown here, will those paths have sensible amplitude. In order to have significant amplitude, the scattering object has to lie close to the direct path. Therefore the traveltime over the scatter path has to be only slightly larger than the traveltime over the direct path. Therefore, right after the loud sound arrival you see lots of weaker sound arrivals that are scattered from small objects. There are other buildings, of course, in a typical urban environ- ment and in particular, in Dealey Plaza, and so there are diffracted and reflected sound paths coming in, as I have illustrated with a simple “U” here from other directions. They will occur at later times because they come from buildings that are further away and they will be scattered out in time. A cursory examination shows we would expect echo patterns that would persist for about 1 second. In that period of time there — would be on the order of 10 or 12 reflected, diffracted and scattered paths having significant amplitude, namely, amplitudes above some threshold below which exists only noise. Mr. CorNwWELL. If I understand correctly then, the sound would travel at the same rate of speed after it hit any of those surfaces no matter whether it was reflected or scattered or whatever, and therefore the spacing of the marks on a time scale would be deter- | mined strictly by the distances that the sound had to travel from its source to the microphone or ear, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. In your hypothetical urban environment that you | show there on JFK exhibit F-334, how many different points of sound source, or different locations for a point of sound source, and | how many different locations for a microphone, might you expect to produce the exact same spacing of the points on the time scale and amplitude at those points? | Dr. BarGeEr. It is clear that moving the position of this micro- | phone in any direction will alter the relative length of the sound | paths and therefore alter the spacing between them. If there are enough different reflectors and scatterers, then the pattern] achieved at any particular point is unique and would not be repli- cated at any other point. Mr. CorRNWELL. If we had a time scale such as shown at the bottom, you would expect that to be produced from a sound only in one place in the environment and at a point where the microphone or receiving ear was located at only one point? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. In the absence of noise, if you could measure this pattern precisely it would uniquely fix the position of the microphone. 27 Mr. CoRNWELL. Now, you told us earlier that when you received the tape recording here in question you listened to it and it had a large amount of noise or static in it, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. What did you do after initially listening to this recording? Dr. BARGER. Initially we listened to the whole tape and we found at one point on the tape a 5'%-minute segment in which the sound of a motorcycle engine and other noises were heard continuously. This particular 5%-minute segment was the period of the stuck microphone button that Professor Blakey described earlier. The sound in that 5%-minutes was mostly motorcycle noise. However, there was a period half-way through it, approximately, where the motorcycle noise diminished. That is a brief description of what we heard. Now, as I said, we realized from the outset that we were seeking to detect sub-audible events, or at least not audibly recognizable events, and this is helped by looking at the electrical waveform that represents the sounds in a form called a waveform chart. So the first thing we did was to digitize the sounds in this 54-minute tape recording to form a computer file of the information contained by that digitalization, and then plot out a chart showing the wave- form on the tape. This process was conducted by Dr. Wolf at BBN and it generated about 234 linear feet of waveform. Mr. CoRNWELL. I now show you JFK exhibit F-335 and ask you if you can tell us what that is? : Dr. BARGER YES. That is about ten feet of the 234 feet of wave- orm. Mr. CoRNWELL. I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to ask that that exhibit be admitted into evidence. pearman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. \AA NAN SN AAG AN a at AASB: ANN it HN a | \ AR aS JFK Exuisit F-335 29 Mr. CoRNWELL. What, if anything, did you learn from the pro- duction of this type of chart and your analysis of it? Dr. BARGER. This exhibit shows the waveform of the sounds on the tape displayed at 50 inches per second starting 130 seconds after the onset of the stuck microphone button and extending to the time of 141.6 seconds. Of course, it is difficult to see here without a telephoto lens but I will describe it to you. This continuation of rather constant level noise is typical of what preceded this segment for about 2 minutes. It is motorcycle noise. At this time, about 132 seconds after the -microphone button became stuck, it is clear that the amplitude of that noise is diminishing. Shortly after that time, a series of impul- sive events are seen in the tape. We concluded that it is possible that some of these impulsive events are in fact what an echo pattern would look like as transmitted through the radio in ques- tion. Mr. CORNWELL. In addition to the motorocycle noise, did you find on your graph other types of noise or static, something like that? Dr. BARGER. Yes. I just mentioned briefly that in addition to this continuum of noise which sounds like and apparently is motorcycle noise, there are sharp impulsive events of this type. They occur from time to time. Many of these have become understood by us to be impulsive events caused by other radios when they key in and attempt to transmit on this radio channel as well. Mr. CoRNWELL. After 15 years in what condition was the tape? ae Ea possibly have any effect on the level of noise that you ound‘ Dr. BARGER. The possibility that some of this noise was caused by the tape recording process is clearly a real one. The noises generat- ed by the motorcycle are so intense that the noises generated by the recording process are relatively less. Therefore that is not the principal source of disturbance. Mr. CoRNWELL. After reviewing the output in this form, what did you do next? Dr. BARGER. We realized that we could see impulsive events occurring at times after the motorcycle noise diminished of its own accord. We have then to determine whether such impulsive events might also be present in the tape recording at earlier times before the motorcycle in fact quieted down. We decided the best way to do that, as I mentioned briefly before, was to filter this tape recording through an adaptive filter that would, as I described it, learn about the motorcycle noise, project slightly ahead, and subtract it out. Mr. CoRNWELL. There might be members of the committee who are familiar with some types of filters, but the particular type that _ you needed for this process, was it available in 19638? Dr. BarceEr. No. Mr. CoRNWELL. When, approximately, would it have been devel- oped, if you know? Dr. BARGER. I am not exactly sure. The type of adaptive filter we used is called a Widrow adaptive filter. We used the least means squares logarithm to compute the filter weights. I don’t believe that process was described in the literature until 1968 or so. Mr. CoRNWELL. I would like to show you JFK exhibits F-336A and F-336B. Would you tell us what those are, please? 41-371 O - 79 - 3 Vol. 2 30 Dr. BARGER. These are about 18 feet of the waveforms that were obtained by filtering the motorcycle tape through the adaptive filter. The beginning time of this segment is 130 seconds after the onset of the stuck button, as was the previous exhibit. In this case, the terminating time is 150 seconds. Mr. CorRNWELL. I would ask at this point, Mr. Chairman, that JFK exhibits F-336A and B be admitted into evidence. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. (The information follows:] Adaptive Filtered Waveforms Recorded from Channel 1 Transmitter with Stuck Microphone. JFK Exuisit F-336A Adaptive Filtered Waveforms Recorded from Channei 1 Transmitter with Stuck Microphone. ; _) SSS ses JFK Exuisit F-336B 31 Mr. CoRNWELL. Did you learn anything new from reviewing the data in this filtered form? Dr. BARGER. Yes, we did, but these waveforms are sufficiently indistinct to you that you wouldn’t be able to tell it from where you are sitting. The amplitude of the noise in the portions of the record where the motorcycle was heard most loudly have been reduced relative to the amplitude of the signals in the period where the motorcycle noise had previously and is still quiet. It, therefore, enabled us to examine those portions of the tape that were recorded when the motorcycle was running faster and during which time the noise of the motorcycle was perhaps obscur- ing any impulsive sounds that might in fact appear to be echo patterns. Mr. CoRNWELL. What, if any, technique did you apply to learn more about the data after receiving it in this filtered form? Dr. BARGER. After examining the 234 feet of filtered waveforms we discovered there were no other impulsive events on the tape that had been masked by the motorcycle noise, with one exception. That impulsive series of events came near the end of the 5-minute segment and was very unlike the series of impulsive events that we ‘ety before us here, at times around 130 seconds after the stuck utton. Mr. CORNWELL. What, specifically, did you do to determine what the nature of the impulsive events were? Dr. Barcer. At this stage we conducted a series of tests which we call screening tests, to determine whether those impulsive events might be ruled out as gunfire. I might add before we did that we did attempt some different analyses beyond those that I have described so far, that would help us understand the nature of the impulsive events that we did in fact perceive. The first of those analyses, in fact, was a calculation of the spectrographic analysis of some of the transient events. Mr. CoRNWELL. I would like to show you JFK exhibit F-356 and ask you, Would it be possible for you to use that exhibit to illus- trate the analysis, the spectrographic analysis you just mentioned? Dr. BARGER. Yes. This exhibit is made up of two spectrographs of two segments of the tape recording that help explain the presence of some of the impulses on the tape. Mr. CoRNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-356 admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Stokes. Without objection it may be entered at this point. (The information follows:] 32 Spectograms from Waveforms Recorded from Channel 1 Transmitter with Stuck Microphone (kHz) Frequency Time (seconds) (kHz) Frequency Time (seconds) JFK Exuisit F-356 Dr. BARGER. There were a series of impulsive events on the tape that were particularly numerous at times about 145 seconds to 150 seconds. These are shown in a spectrogram as follows: The time on the spectrogram is marked on the horizontal scale in seconds. The frequency of the energy in the sounds on the tape at each time is marked on the vertical scale in kilohertz. At this point, half a kilohertz, is the frequency approximately equal to the pitch of middle C on a piano. The height of these spikes—the distance the spike reaches upward in this coordinate indicates how sharp it is, how much high frequency content it contains, but that is about all. The interesting thing shown are these horizontal dark bands. The horizontal dark bands are the sounds made visible in the spectrogram that are caused by the heterodyning between two radio transmitters. The radio transmitter with the stuck micro- phone is transmitting for sure. There are other radios that trans- mit on the channel, which puts their carrier frequency onto the air as well. The carrier frequencies of the two radios are not exactly the same. They beat between each other and generate what is called a heterodyne tone, a beep. The indication of that beep, which would 33 be determined by where it was positioned in the vertical dimension of the spectrogram, is dependent on the exact radio in question and what its carrier frequency really is. We see there are heterodyne tones with this pitch, this pitch and this pitch, and even with this pitch. That indicates that during this time there were at least four other radios that were briefly trying to transmit by pressing their talk buttons. When they realized the channel was still in use, they let it up. So the time between when they push the button, which generates a transient, until the time they let up the button, which also gener- ates a transient, there is a heterodyne tone observable in the spectrogram. These tones were subaudible on the tape so the spec- trogram revealed their presence. Whenever there were a pair of impulses with a heterodyne tone between them, we knew those impulses were generated by another transmitter and should be eliminated from consideration as possible members of an echo pat- tern. Mr. CORNWELL. In addition to the spectrographic analysis you have just described were there any other techniques that you uti- lized in order to determine whether or not the impulses on the tape were in fact associated or might be associated with gunfire. - Dr. Barcer. Yes, there was one in particular. We wanted to demonstrate there were audible acoustical sounds on the tape. The sound of a bell toll at 152 seconds from the time of the stuck button was vaguely evident. We wished to analyze that segment of the tape with an energy spectrum. Mr. CoRNWELL. I show you JFK exhibit F-355 and ask you to tell us what that is. Dr. BARGER. This is what I just described. The energy spectrum of the segment of the tape that contains the toll of the bell. Mr. CORNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-3855 admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman SToKEs. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. (The information follows:] ggg-4 LaInxy MAL (ZH) Aouenbas4 Q2°% Q2°OF ° Or 2% Q9°1 Qr ot 2271 @Q°1 28° Oe ek Qv- 00 °Z (49 ob tb (gp) 49M0g 34 8 z : € 22° BO1 Pau utd JOU | 20° seddn Or’ oS puis Q2°% ez't 92a" Ort eo" @2°St1 e9° Or *% "112g & JO punos 9U} HBululejuoD JUEWHas ede, jo winioeds Abieug 35 Dr. BARGER. In this exhibit the frequency of each component of sound is plotted on the horizontal scale and the loudness of that component is plotted on the vertical scale, again in decibels. The nature of an energy spectrum, if you have nothing in the record except noise, is a rather jiggly line, sometimes described as a hairy line, that is rather gently undulating in the frequency domain. However, if there are periodic components in the sound, such as generated by a bell or an overtone of a bell, they will generate a spike in the spectrum such as these spikes that are clearly visible in this exhibit. In fact, there is a harmonic series of periodic events that are visible in this record and we have labeled them with the number 1 to represent the fundamental, and the numbers 2, 8, 4, 5, 6, to represent the harmonic overtones. This particular spectrum, which was calculated by Mr. Schmidt, -has been done over a third of a second of the tape that was identified by the audible, but barely audible, sound of this bell. - Now, there is a very interesting feature in this spectrum and that is in particular this particular peak. The reason this is of significance is as follows: It is characteristic of the design and manufacture of carillon bells that they contain a harmonic series such as I have numbered here. The fundamental frequency is in the description of carillon sounds called the hum note. The second harmonic is called the strike note and that is the note to which the bell is tuned. In this case that is 440 hertz, which is A below middle C. The strike note characteristically has a minor third above it and this peak in the spectrum is at the right frequency ratio to the strike tone to be the minor third of a carillon bell. They typically have a fifth and an upper third above them and both of those overtones are clearly evident in the spectrum of this bell. It is not at all unlikely that a strong seventh overtone of the hum note would appear. This, therefore, is a very clear indication that the bell is a large carillon bell. The sound of it would reach this tape recording only through an acoustical path. Mr. CORNWELL. So somewhat similar to the spectrographic analy- sis technique, by applying the energy spectrum analysis you were again able to identify transients or short peaks in the data which were not associated with gunfire? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. At this point then you had filtered the tape and you had eliminated both background noise, such as the motorcycle, and a number of other transients using the techniques you just described, what conclusions were you able to draw at this point from your analysis? Dr. BARGER. We concluded there were sounds of acoustical origin on the tape, giving us confidence that the acoustical part of the otherwise partially malfunctioning transmitter was working. We found that there are impulses on the tape that are unique to the segment following 130 seconds from the onset of the stuck button and a cursory examination of those impulses indicated that we could not rule out the possibility that they were in fact echo patterns. Mr. CoRNWELL. What did you do next? 36 Dr. BARGER. Well, it seemed prudent to do something more than a cursory examination of the echo patterns so we devised six screening tests to determine if they might in fact be the sounds of gunfire. If the echo patterns passed these six screening tests we would proceed to the filter detector which I described before as the most powerful test we could perform. The first screening test was: Did the impulsive patterns on the tape occur at the time of the assassination? The second screening test was, simply: Were these patterns that occurred at this time in the data unique throughout the 5.5-minute segment? In other words, could they be shown to have occurred only once? Third, we asked, did the span of time occupied by the impulse patterns cover at least 5 seconds? Because if they had not, they could not possibly represent the entire span of the gunfire as given by analysis of the Zapruder film. Fourth, we asked, do the shape of the impulses on this tape recording resemble the shape of impulses of gunfire transmitted through that type of radio? They certainly didn’t resemble the wave forms of gunfire I showed in the first exhibit, as the radio would be expected to distort them. Would it have distorted them in the way that they appear on the tape? The fifth screening test was: Does the narrow range of observed amplitudes of the impulses on the tape correspond to the expected range of amplitudes for the wide range of echo amplitudes as compressed upon transmission through the radio? The sixth one was: Do the number of impulses that we would expect in an echo pattern in Dealey Plaza approximate the number of impulses that are seen in the tape to occur at this time? Those six questions were asked and they received an affirmative answer. Mr. CorNWELL. Let me ask you—I believe your explanation per- haps was clear that you wanted to find out if they occurred at the right time of day; if they were unique, in other words, if they were not so thoroughly scattered throughout the data that they were the cause of something else; that their shape was appropriate; that they had the right amplitude or height after the compression of the radio; and that there was approximately the right number of im- pulses. But you also stated—I believe your third item was that the time span had to be at least 5 seconds. Do I understand—you made reference to the Zapruder film—is that simply a matter of looking at the head shot at 313, or 312, and going back into the film at which point I suppose everyone would agree that the participants, the President and Governor Connally, - are clearly reacting, and saying that there was at least a minimum period of time of 5 seconds that the shots had to cover. Is that accurate? Dr. BARGER. That is accurate. Mr. CorNWELL. So no matter what else might ultimately be found out about the number of shots, or the timing, or sequencing, or anything else, you at that point were looking to see if it at least covered a 5-second span? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. Then, let’s go to the first test and show you JFK. exhibit F-366 and ask you if you can tell us what that is? 37 Dr. BarGer. Yes. This is an illustration of how we attempted to achieve our best estimate of the time of the assassination. Mr. CORNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-366 admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Srokes. Without objection, it may be entered at this point. [The information follows:] DIGmU Se eee SNOILVLONNV AWIL 2 JANNWVHO 9f-ZL ve-Zt ZE:Zb O€-2L 82-eL 92-21 ara’ earal Ov-zt 8E-eL uodljeuissessy yO aw payewnsy SS.LANIW — SAWIL HOLVMdOLS ,ssedepun ejduy Buryoeoddy,, 38 «deyidsoy 0} Bulo5,,, |~<«_— Buipiooay ydesBbopny Aessd }Ud}}W9}U] JO POLS, Buipiooey ms udeiBopny Zh Aeidy snonunuog jO poled vb "SUOISSIWISUBI] OIPEY SJaIUD Add jO Sow!) Buimoys suolj}e}ouuy ew Suayojedsig Z jauUeYD O} S}4 soienbs-}seo} 39 Dr. BARGER. The data depicted in this exhibit were obtained by listening to channel 2 of the Dallas Police Dispatcher System. Channel 2 was in use on that day and at that time by, among others, the chief of police, who was in the lead car just ahead of the President. Channel 2, like channel 1, was recorded; the sounds that were carried over channel 2, like 1, were recorded. They were recorded on a Gray Audograph which unfortunately records intermittently. When a radio is broadcasting a signal, the recorder turns on and records the sounds. When no one is recording, the recorder stops. This saves recording space. As a result of that feature, we, in the laboratory, while listening to that tape recording, with a stopwatch, timed the annotations that the dispatcher read out from reading his clock. These times are plotted on the horizontal scale, each time he gave an annota- tion. | For example, if he said 12:28 and our stopwatch read 5.5 minutes we would put a dot there. If he then said 12:28 a half minute later, which was not uncom- mon—in other words, he would only annotate the tape to the nearest whole minute—we would then note the time that that was heard and plot that point. Now we have then obtained the stopwatch time, or we might say the laboratory time, plotted against the clock time that the Dallas police dispatcher on channel 2 had at that time, and the data follows this bent line. When one has data of this sort one draws a straight line through them by a mathematical procedure called the least squares fit. This straight line that you have drawn becomes your best estimate of the time correspondence between your watch in the laboratory and between the channel 2 dispatcher’s clock at the Dallas Police De- partment. At times prior to 12:30 the best estimate by the least squares procedure of the correspondence between laboratory time and Dallas police channel 2 time is a line that has a slope less than one. This indicates that on the average the recorder used to record the dispatcher’s voice was running very slowly. The reason that perception is given is that it was actually off part of the time when no one was speaking. However, at about 12:30 the voice traffic increased so much on channel 2 that the recorder operated then continuously and thereafter our estimated correspondence between laboratory time as measured on the stopwatch and Dallas dispatch- er 2 time has the slope of one. That means the recorder is on all the time. Well, that is not tremendous information. However, the purpose for doing this was to note with the stopwatch that at this time, as we listened to the tape, we hear the chief of police say, ‘““We are approaching the triple underpass.” And 19 seconds later on the stopwatch we heard him saying, “We are going to the hospital.” It has been recorded that the chief of police heard the shots and he has testified that he had heard them. It is unlikely that he would give a routine position report after having heard them, so it can be presumed or we should presume that the assassination 40 occurred sometime between those two voice transmissions by the police chief. If one then goes over horizontally from that time estimate to our estimated correspondence of channel 2 time to stopwatch time we have our best estimate for the time of assassination, which is 12 seconds past 12:30. Mr. CorNWELL. I now show you JFK exhibit F-365 and ask if you can identify that. Dr. BarGcer. This is the same kind of activity but conducted when listening to the sounds on the channel 1 tape. Mr. CorRNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-365 admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Strokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] lenbe-1Ssee7 114 O}1 1ieUuUeUy L szeudledsig ew! suonejouUuYy "S}JUSAZQ O4I]-O11JUNY JO JOS JSUI4 JO au, Bulmous ySul4 Oy!]-911jUND JUGAZ 41 yOnIS Joy}wsuel) SALNNIW — SWIL HOLVMdOLS pejewNsy Olu!) JO 1S1]4 O¥!7-O1JUND JUGAR vz:Z 92:24 Ov:ZL 82:21 ZE:Zh BE:Zb ve:2b 9E:Z1 of:21 | AWIL cog-A Lalnxy Mar IANNVHO SNOILVLO 42 Dr. BARGER. The purpose here is to determine at what time the impulsive sounds on channel 1 occurred to see if they were at the same time as the time of the assassination. Here is the time read on the stopwatch that is observed by the dispatcher on channel 1 in the Dallas Police Department, which is a different clock than that observed by the dispatcher on channel 2. This is channel 1 dispatcher time; this is laboratory time meas- ured with a stopwatch. This dispatcher was more talkative and the time annotations that he gave are more numerous—for example, he gave three time annotations at the time 12:26 and so we have more data here upon which to base a time estimate, using the least squares technique. The straight line indicates the result of that time estimate. There is nothing audible during this 54-minute period because mostly all you hear is motorcycle noise and so the channel 1 dispatcher made no time annotations there. However, before and after he did—and that gave us the possibility of forming the esti- mate for how his clock read them. We measured on the tape the time of the first impulsive sequence that we think may possibly be gunfire and we come over to our time estimate and down and find that we estimate the first impulse to have occurred at 12:30 and 47 seconds. Now, the estimate for the time of the first impulse then is about 35 seconds after the estimate of the assassination. If both dispatch- ers had been looking at the same clock, I would have had to conclude that the impulses on the tape would not pass this first screening test. In other words, the impulses occurred too late. On the other hand, each dispatcher was looking at a different clock. I have read in testimony in the Warren Commission report that the two clocks are not synchronized except once a month at the first of the month. This was the 22d. The two clocks were subsequently found by the FBI to be 1 minute off, so the variation in the times that we have discovered here is within the known accuracy of the two clocks. We have to conclude that the possibility that the impulses represent gunfire passed the first screening test; namely, that they apparently occurred at the time of the assassination. Mr. CoRNWELL. So I take it then that the question of whether the impulses occur at approximately the time the shots were fired has been answered in the affirmative using a comparison of both chan- nel 1 and channel 2. Dr. BarceER. That is right. Mr. CoRNWELL. You have referred, of course, throughout your testimony to the fact that it was a motorcycle which you believe had its button stuck and that, of course, according to the last exhibit and your previous testimony was a thing that caused the 5- minute gap or a continual transmission from the stuck button on channel 1. Is channel 1, however, the channel on which you would expect to find that type of motorcycle transmission? Dr. BarGcer. Channel 1 was the normal channel in use in Dallas. Channel 2 is used for special occasions such as the motorcade. In fact, the chief of police was speaking to the motorcycles at the head of the motorcade on channel 2. Some of those motorcycles near the limousine were known to have been switched to channel 2. 43 On the other hand, listening to the voice communications on channel 2 at times before and after 12:30, I discovered the presence of the call numbers of several motorcycle policemen in the motor- cade that were on channel 1. Mr. CORNWELL. Moving next to the second screening test that you mentioned, namely, whether the impulses were unique, I would like to ask you if you would describe what you did to determine the answer to that question. Dr. BarGER. Yes. We examined the full 234 linear feet of the waveform representing the output of the channel 1 recording when the button was stuck to see if there were any other impulsive patterns that occurred that were similar to these that we are looking at on channel 1. We found that there was one other sequence of impulsive events. It was dissimilar from the one we have looked at principally in that its timespan was less than 5 seconds. It occurred about a minute later than the period of impulses in question. We found no other impulsive patterns on the tape. Mr. CoRNWELL. So the answer to the second question is again in the affirmative? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Going into test No. 3, which was the question of whether there was a timespan of at least 5 seconds, I would like to direct your attention to JFK exhibits F-336A and B. These are exhibits that have already been admitted into evi- dence. Could you use them to illustrate your analysis with respect to the third test? Dr. Barcer. The impulsive events that we felt hypothetically might represent echo patterns began at approximately 137 seconds after the stuck button commences and continue through this por- tion at about 147 seconds. This period of impulses, this period, this period, and this period, represent four typical segments of the tape. The span between them is 10 seconds and that is more than 5. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, with respect to test 4, that the impulses were of approximately the correct shape, how did you go about resolving that question? Dr. BARGER. In this case we were familiar with the shape of transient waveforms generated by rifle fire and those were shown in the second exhibit. However, we saw that those waveforms did not appear in the tape that we were analyzing. We knew, however, that the loudness of the impulses from gun- fire so near—well, anywhere in Dealey Plaza—would be so loud as to overload the radio, to exceed its capacity to transmit without distortion of the waveforms in question. In order to test whether the Dallas radio distorted the gunfire impulses in the way, or in the approximate way, that we see in these records, Mr. Robinson found a similar Motorola FM radio in use with the MDC Police in Massachusetts. He was able to test that radio by playing sounds of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, as tape recorded, electrically into its microphone connection, through an electronic circuit that mimicked the electroacoustical behavior of the microphone. He then went back to the receiver at the police station and made a recording of the distorted sounds that were in 44 fact transmitted. The next exhibit illustrates those distorted wave- forms he measured. Mr. CorNwWELL. I show you JFK exhibit F-368. As you just noted, that is an exhibit which would help you illustrate the techniques you have just described, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. I anticipate that that will be the one. Mr. CorNweELi. May we have JFK exhibit F-368 admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into evidence at this point. [The information follows:] Muzzle Blast and Shock Waveforms Transmitted by a Police Radio Similar to the One Used by DPD Motorcycles for Several Different Loudnesses. Peak Level Peak Level at Microphone, Transmitted Transmitted Muzzle Blast Shock Waveform Muzzle Blast Waveform at Microphone, jock Waveforms at Microphone dB Wav at Microphone dB 0 Time (msec) 10 Time (msec) 10 VN creer (2 oa asa ttt} itt tt 119 119 rae ee Tl SS Gee REaEe < rN. = Py “en err peePay " GE PUI 8 OE eA Vee Tt nec 0 bea a BEABaRaw a Bite SMe a a | 2 ie 0 Time (msec) 10 ) Time (msec) 1 JFK Exuisit F-368 | 45 Dr. BARGER. This illustration shows on the left side waveforms due to muzzle blasts and on the right side waveforms generated by shock waves from the Mannlicher rifle. In this photograph we see the waveform of a muzzle blast that was measured, with a good microphone, from a Mannlicher-Car- cano. The amplitude of the muzzle blast is shown in time covering a total span on this illustration of 10 milliseconds. In this case we have the waveform, which is that sharp N shaped waveform shown that was measured from the shock wave of a bullet from a Mannlicher-Carcano, also on a scale covering 10 milliseconds. ~ In this column we show the waveform transmitted by the radio to the receiver and subsequently analyzed at the receiver, as a function of the level of the loudness of the muzzle blast that was played into the radio; 139 decibels, very loud, 129, half as loud in terms of human response, 119, half again as loud, 109, half again as loud, 99, half again as loud. We see that the relatively simple shape of the muzzle blast waveform is made more confused by the radio. It oscillates more; it lasts longer in time and its shape in fact depends on how loud it was. The radio therefore was performing nonlinear distortion and ‘compression on these waveforms at the levels indicated. Here the N wave coming in at 139 decibel level has a nice pristine N shaped waveform and comes out of the radio as a lower frequency oscillation. That is true even at a 10-decibel lower level, et cetera. But when you get down 380 decibels lower than this one, the radio now is capable of transmitting that waveform in an undistorted form. Mr. CoRNWELL. So we can see the basic distortion at different decibel levels. Do I understand that the various decibel levels are shown be- cause they would correspond perhaps to different distances that the blast might be from a receiver such as a microphone? Dr. BARGER. We have observed that the loudness of the muzzle blast waveforms during the test reconstruction in Dallas measured at the microphones closest to the rifle were 135 decibels, virtually the same as the loudest here. The loudest sounds measured at the most distant receivers were about 20 decibels lower than that, so we range of the loudest sounds is easily covered in this investiga- tion. _ It shows that one cannot hope to identify, for example, the type of rifle fired by looking at the waveform; because the waveform that is characteristic of the rifle is severely distorted by the radio because it is too loud for the radio. Mr. CorNWELL. I now would show you JFK exhibit F-369 and ask you if you can tell us what that is? Dr. BarGcer. This is a graph that quantifies, better for people who think in terms of graphs, the capacity of this radio not to accept and transmit loud sounds as efficiently as it transmits weak mes. _ Mr. Cornwe tt. Mr. Chairman, may we have JFK exhibit F-369 entered into the record? . oman SToKEs. Without objection, it may be entered at this ‘point. 41-371 O- 79 - 4 Vol. 2 46 Level of Transmitted Waveforms as a Function of Waveform Level at the Microphone. eo———® Muzzie Blast g—— Bs Shock Wave Waveform-dB Transmitted of Level 99 109 119 129 139 89 Waveform Level at the Microphone-dB JFK Exuipit F-369 Dr. Barcer. Down here in decibels on this scale, increasing to the right, are the loudness of sounds introduced into the micro- phone. On this scale reading upwards are increasing loudnesses of sounds that are transmitted by the radio. These lines up in the region of loud sounds, where I said the levels of sounds in Dealey Plaza were, 109-139 decibels, are quite flat. In other words, if the loudness of the signals that were actually heard in Dealey Plaza were 30 decibels in range from the loudest to the softest, then, the loudness of the sound transmitted by the radio would only differ by 10 decibels. This is described as ampli- tude limitation. It would indicate that all of the loud and even the softer echos in the echo patterns at Dealey Plaza would have about the same loudness on the tape that was made after transmission through the radio. It was necessary to see if the radio caused this limitation, because this removes the subjective impression of gun- fire from listening to these compressed sounds. Mr. CoRNWELL. Perhaps you could be seated at this point. I will ask you finally with respect to the final screening test No. 6. concerning the question of whether or not the number of impulse roughly corresponded, what did you do to answer that question: Dr. BARGER. We took a map of Dealey Plaza and calculated rough approximation, using the mathematics of reflected, diffract ed, and scattered sounds, the number of echoes that we though would be loud enough to be audible over the noise of a motorcycle We found there would be about 10 for a typical microphone loca tion. Then we counted the number of impulses in each pattern 0 impulses that we see in the waveform records of the tape and w saw there were about 10. We realized there was still a possibilit that these impulsive sounds that we saw in the record of the tap were in fact caused by gunfire. Mr. CorNWELL. At this point then you had devised six screenin tests, any one of which I take it might have been sufficient to rul 47 ut these impulses as being gunshots, and they in fact passed all ix tests, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Quite so. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, at this point did you have any conclusions r, on the other hand, did you feel that further testing was re- uired? Dr. BAarGErR. At this point we felt we were justified in suggesting o the committee that a matched filter detection trial was warrant- d on the tape. As I said, the patterns that formed the basis for the aatch would have to be obtained by an acoustical reconstruction. ‘the reason for suggesting the matched filter procedure for detect- ng the events was it is the most powerful method we know of with thich to do that. Mr. CoRNWELL. How about telling us in just plain, common lan- uage what you are referring to when you say an acoustical recon- truction? Dr. BARGER. The objective is to obtain echo patterns of the sort hat I described briefly before, and the purpose for having these atterns is to become the basis of the match in the matched filter etector. In order to get these echo patterns, it was necessary to esign a test that would get echo patterns that would in fact match rith the events on the tape if in fact there were events on the tape hat were gunfire. Mr. CORNWELL. In other words, you suggested to the committee ney go back to Dealey Plaza and fire a rifle there so you could ecord it and see exactly what it looked like in that urban environ- 1ent? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. Before doing so, did you seek any independent pinion or consultation on this recommendation that you had made ) the committee? Dr. BARGER. Yes, we did. I think the committee felt that it would 2 wise for them to obtain a second opinion on the wisdom of ynducting this test, and in order to do that they obtained the zreement of professors Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy of ueens College to look at the results of our six screening tests that just described and to look at our preliminary design for this echo attern test or acoustical reconstruction and to form an opinion cout whether they agreed with us that it was a reasonable and ecessary thing to do. Mr. CoRNWELL. For the record, Mr. Chairman, Prof. Mark Weiss, hom Dr. Barger has just referred to, received a bachelor of elec- ical engineering degree from the City College of New York in 352, and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Columbia in 1957. e has been a staff engineer at the Columbia University Electron- s Research Laboratories and a project engineer and vice president r Acoustics Research at the Federal Scientific Corp. Currently, he professor of computer science at the Queens College in the City niversity of New York. Mr. Weiss has written numerous scientific ticles and technical reports. He is a fellow of the Acoustical ciety of America and a member of the Institute of Electrical and -ectronics Engineering. Mr. Weiss served on a panel of experts pointed to examine the Nixon-Watergate tape recordings during € grand jury investigation. 48 - The other individual Dr. Barger just referred to, Ernest Aschken d a bachelo r of electric al enginee ring degree in 1967 asy, receive from and a master of electrical engineering degree in 1972, both of New York. He has been involve d in the analysi s the City College an for over 10 years and was and enhancement of acoustic signals of the associate professor with Professor Weiss in the examination senior White House tape recording in 1974. He is currently a of research associate in the Department of Computer Science Queens College. in Did Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy agree that testing Dealey Plaza was a necessary and proper thing to do? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. CorNWELL. After consultation with the authorities of Dallas, Tex., the committee, of course, ultimately agreed that you should this conduct the testing. What problems did you focus upon at face in designi ng and conduct ing a point in time that you would valid test? Dr. Barcer. If I may just make a comment before I answer that I question, I remember something I was going to say before, that forgot. In fact, I did not supervise the Judge Sirica panel that examined the tape recordings that President Nixon had made. Dr. Richard Bolt, of B.B. & N., did that. I happened to have been director of one of the divisions of the company in which some of that work was done. Now I remember your question, so I can answer it. The first problem that had to be solved in designing the test was the fact that we didn’t know where the motorcycle was, if, in fact, it was there at all. The second problem was, although we had evidence about the type of rifle used that was fired from the Texas School Book Depository, we had no evidence about the alleged weapon that might have been on the knoll. For example, we didn’t even know whether it was a rifle or a pistol. The allegation didn't include that information. We had to consider, also, where to put the targets at which to fire the bullets. As I have explained, the pattern of the N wave shed from the bullet is distinct, so the echo pattern at any one point depends upon the direction in which the rifle is pointing, as well as the place where it is fired from. So we need to decide where, in fact, to fire the bullets. There was evidence the bullets, of course, had hit the limousine, the occupants in the limousine. There was evidence that a bullet had struck the curb on Main Street, down by the triple underpass, and there are the other indications by the presence of the impulses in the tape that there may have been a shot fired up near the corner of Houston and Elm, so we used those results to place the targets. The next problem we had to figure out was what ammunition tc use; since the N waves are important. You have to have the muzzl velocity correct, and we needed to find ammunition that had nearly similar muzzle velocity to that used by Oswald, or alleged t have been used by him. We had to consider as a matter of practical significance th amount of time it would take to conduct the acoustical reconstruc tion. Requiring live ammunition as it did, of course people had t 49 e excluded from the area, and that can only be done for a short eriod of time. We had also to accommodate the listening tests that rere conducted by Dr. Green, and which he will describe later. Mr. CoRNWELL. I would like to show you now JFK exhibit F-337. would ask you if you could use that exhibit to illustrate how you glved some of the various problems in setting up the test you have ist mentioned. Dr. BarGeER. Yes. This exhibit illustrates the positions of the iicrophones, the targets and everything else. Mr. CoRNWELL. Mr. Chairman, may we admit into evidence at uis time JFK exhibit F-337? Chairman SToKEs. Without objection, it may be entered into the scord at this point. [The information follows:] Microphone Locations at Dealey Plaza Old occcsB JFK Exuisit F-337 Dr. BarGER. We positioned 12 microphones, as an array of micro- 10nes, in each of three positions: This group of 12; this group of ; and this group of 12. The objective here was to cover all of the ‘sitions where the motorcycle may have been, and still expect to »ar the sounds of gunfire in a dense enough way so that the echo tterns received on adjacent microphones would not be so differ- 50 cle ent that no match could ever be achieved should the motorcy have been halfway between two of them. e that The target locations that we selected, based on the evidenc here, No. 4; here is Zapruder frame location I cited earlier, were 313, target 3 at this point; and target 1 there. as evidence Rifles were fired from here [indicating the T.S.B.D.], were fired from here [indicat- indicates it was. A rifle and a pistol knoll], as allegat ions have indicat ed there may haw ing the grassy been. here,’ Mr. CorNWELL. OK, when you say “from here and from g at that point to the Texas simply for the record, you were pointin and ory as being where a rifle was fired from Schoolbook Deposit the grassy knoll where both a pistol and a rifle were fired. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. at JFK Mr. CorNWELL. I would like to ask you now to look exhibit F-344 and tell us what this shows. executec Dr. BARGER. This simply shows the sequence of shots for each microphone array positio n in turn. ed inte Mr. CorNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-344 admitt evidence, Mr. Chairman? the Chairman Srokes. Without objection, it may be entered into evidence. [The information follows:] SEQUENCE OF SHOTS Array 1 No. 1 ~Now2—-No.3., No. 4m a TSBD (Muzzle in plane of window) 1 3 6 10 TSBD (Muzzle 2 feet inside plane of window) 2 4 7 11 Knoll (Rifle) 3) Bvhuuhe Knoll (Pistol) 9 E EE JFK Exuisit F-344 _Dr. Barcer. Here are shown the four target locations. The fi | rifle position was in the depository, with the muzzle of the rifle the plane of the window. Here the rifle was in the same position, but the muzzle wi withdrawn 2 feet from the plane of the window. This was doy because we had no clear evidence about where the muzzle, in faq was relative to the plane of the window, and that small differen} makes a noticeable difference in the loudness of the muzzle blast | perceived in the plaza. 51 The third location was from the knoll, firing with the rifle. The uurth was from the knoll firing with the pistol. The shot numbers here indicate the sequence in which the shots ere fired and the absence of any number in any place indicates 1ere was no corresponding shot fired. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, the numbers across the top where it says No. 1, No. 2, No. 3,” what does those correspond to? Dr. BARGER. These correspond to the numbers of the targets, 1, 2, 4, that were fired at. Mr. CoRNWELL. And the rifles which were used both from the indow and from the grassy knoll were of what type? Dr. BARGER. I am sorry; I missed that. Mr. CoRNWELL. The rifles which were used both from the Texas choolbook Depository and from the knoll were of what type? Dr. BARGER. They were both of the Mannlicher Carcano type. Mr. CORNWELL. And the pistol was of what type? Dr. BARGER. It was a 38-caliber pistol, of what manufacture I on’t remember. Mr. CoRNWELL. But the pistol would have been a _ subsonic eapon, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. It was chosen to have a subsonic missile; that is yrrect. Mr. CORNWELL. Then, if we were to read JFK exhibits F-344 and -3837 together, would it be accurate to state that the sequence of iots in each array was pursued in numerical sequence for each ‘ray of microphones indicated on the plot of the plaza. Dr. Barcer. That is correct. The sequence indicated here was ‘ed three times in repetition, once for each array location and ich time ammunition of Norma manufacture was fired. The shot quence was then repeated a fourth time when our recording ‘uipment was recording the microphones in the third position, th Western Cartridge Co. ammunition. This type of ammunition as of the same sort thought to have been used by Oswald. Mr. CoRNWELL. Why were the first 3 arrays of 12 shots—actual- , 11 shots with a rifle; 1 with a pistol—why were they fired with Irma ammunition instead of Western Cartridge Co.? Dr. BARGER. I understand that the Western Cartridge Co. ammu- tion of this type is no longer manufactured and is hard to obtain, d the committee could only get enough to fire through the se- ence once; so Norma was used the rest of the time. Mr. CORNWELL. So at least the results could be compared to see if ere was any substantial difference between Norma and Western rtridge Co. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, I would like to direct your attention to JFK hibits F-339, F-340, F- 341, and F-342. Jr. BARGER. These are photographs that were taken during the is when we were setting up the acoustical reconstruction in as. Mr. CoRNWELL. May we have these four exhibits admitted into dence, Mr. Chairman? hairman SToKEsS. Without objection, they may be entered into ) dence ) The information follows:] JFK Exuisit F-340 53 JFK Exuisit F-341 JFK Exuisit F-342 Dr. BarcEr. This one shows a portion of Houston Street, and all of Elm Street. The yellow x’s on the street correspond to the Position of the black dots on the previous exhibit and were where the microphones were placed. These sandbags that are observable ere, barely observable here and there, are the first three of the a four targets. The total number of sandbags available was insuffi- cient to set up a fourth target simultaneously, so this pile of sandbags was transported to that location periodically. Mr. CoRNWELL. So the sandbag targets 3 and 4 were moved back and forth, and you pointed to the place. Dr. BARGER. That is right. This photograph simply shows a ground level view of the microphones used to record the sounds at array position 3, and the sandbags with sand leaking out of them. So the experiment was problably over by that time. Here is a photograph from the knoll, looking up at the micro- phones in array position 3, and the sandbags. Here the marksman and his assistants are in the position where Oswald was thought to have fired. Mr. CoRNWELL. The very last exhibit you made reference to, of course, was taken on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook De- pository before the test began, is that correct? Dr. Barcer. No; I am not sure when it was taken, but it was taken there. Mr. CoRNWELL. Let me ask you this. At least during the testing the windows were closed down to the way they were in photo- graphs taken about the time of the assassination, is that correct? Dr. BarcEr. That is a question I can testify about. It was known from the photographic evidence that during the period of the assas: sination the windows in the sixth floor were down with the excep- tion of this one through which Oswald is thought to have fired, and it was half-way down. It was important to the accuracy of the reconstruction that all those windows be in that position exactly during the shots, and they were. However, it was a hot day, anc the people in this room opened the windows between shots to ail themselves out. Mr. CoRNWELL. I now show you JFK exhibits F-358 and F-359 Dr. BARGER. These appear to be aerial photographs of Dealey Plaza that would be quite recent, because they include severa structures that were not there in 1963. Mr. CorNWELL. May we have those admitted into evidence, Mr Chairman? Chairman Stokes. Without objection, they may be entered int evidence. [The information follows:] JFK Exnuisit F-359 Ar. CORNWELL. There is simply one part of those exhibits I uld like to direct your attention to, Dr. Barger, and that is the y large new hotel structure which would appear somewhat to south of the plaza. Would you tell us whether or not that, of rse, was there the day that you did the testing? 56 ted to receive and Dr. BARGER. The echo patterns that we expec e had a maxi mum time span of 1 second. There did, in fact, receiv later times that were very weak, were other echoes that came in at matches and were not consid ered in any of the so weak that they because they could not have been represented on the DPD tape were so weak relati ve to the loud echoes . were never So, the only echo patterns we ever needed or used travel from 1 second . The time requir ed for sound to longer than more than 3 the depository to that structure and back is a little much more the interv al betwe en each test shot was seconds. Since effect ure had no than 3 seconds, the echoes from that remote struct on the match ing proces s whatso ever. structure Mr. CoRNWELL. You then have indicated that the large have been was present on the day you did the testing. It would not removed eless, it was so far present, I take it, in 1963, but, neverth the from the plaza, that it would not have affected in any manner results of the test. muck Dr. BarGer. That is correct. It did not. Its echo came in on the echo pattern s that we used later than any of the echoes Mr. CoRNWEL L. What did you obtain from the testing? Dr. Barcer. As a result of the four sequences of 12-shot firings we had 432 different test shot recordings on magnetic tape. Mr. CorNWELL. Were they of the quality that you had hoped’ Did the equipment function properly, et cetera? Dr. BARGER. We monitored the recorded signals at the time tha they were recorded to see if they were noise free and to see if the used the entire dynamic range of the recording system. In othe: words, to see that they were being recorded with the highest fidel ity possible. We observed for each of those records that we ha achieved that. We did no other analysis of the records at that time Mr. CorNWELL. I would like to now show you JFK exhibit F-338 Dr. BarcerR. This exhibit is an illustration of the test patterns and it shows six of them. Mr. CorNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-338 admitted int evidence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Strokes. Without objection. [The information follows:] ek eral Tiaitauhiiiia a2 IpMind ‘on¢ OUP DaAIaDeN 18 Abi ‘¢ seuoydoioll ‘7 ‘g pue"6 JBISBYOUIM 6 eucydoso1w @ULON JO\SOYOUIM, 8 euoydoso1W eUWON JB,SBYOUIM Z euoydoi3w BWION $0 su) (spuodss) yar LdIaxy8S6-d 58 Dr. BARGER. Here we show six echo patterns in alternate array They were generated by Western Cartridge Co. ammunition, whic! is somewhat incorrectly labeled here as Winchester ammunition th and then Norma for test shots fired from the depository with muzzle 2 feet behind the plane of the window fired at target No. é received on microphones 7, 8, and 9 in array 3, namely, halfwa down Elm Street. Time is plotted on the horizontal scale. From here to here we have the total time span of 1 second. W have the intensity of sound in decibels plotted on the vertical scal in each of the six graphs. We see initially a very loud pair ¢ impulses; if you look very closely, you see there are two of those The first of those is the shock wave of the bullet passing overheat The second of those is the reflection of the shock wave from th street just below the microphone. Then there are three rathe distinct echoes and several others here that you can see if you eyes are very good. This type of graphical data is on an ultraviolet recording, whic is hard to photograph, but here is the arrival of the muzzle blast. | comes later than the arrival of the shock wave because the bull is supersonic. Here is an echo in this case from the Records Buil ing, and here almost nine-tenths of a second later is the echo frot the Post Office Annex which is across Dealey Plaza. Now when you repeat that shot in every way except usin Norma ammunition instead of Winchester, you see the same pa tern. If you look at it in great detail, you find that the spacin between the shock wave and the muzzle blast using the Wester ammunition versus that with the Norma is 5 percent greater. I other words, the bullet is 5 percent faster, giving a shock wave thi occurs 5 percent sooner than the muzzle blast. That is an inconsequential time difference to the matching pro ess, and is certainly not evident when looking at these records ju with the eye. | The similarity between these pairs of patterns, which differ on in the types of ammunition that were used, is very great, there establishing that the substitution of Norma ammunition for We ern was an acceptable one. As one looks down farther in the street, one sees that the patterns change somewhat. For example, the strength of the P Office Annex echo is a little bit larger at microphone 8 than it is microphone 7, as an example. Mr. CorNWELL. Then, after determining that your test had go well, that you got the type of data you were looking for, and th there was no substantial differences that would affect the validi of the test, depending on whether you used Norma or Weste ammunition, what did you do next? Dr. BARGER. The next project then was to begin the comparis of the test patterns with the impulse patterns on the police ta Let me describe the process of doing this now. _ We first divided the motorcycle tape into segments, each cont ing at least one of those patterns of impulses that we were testi for the possibility that they were caused by gunfire. We then matched each of these 432 echo patterns that are exe plified by that exhibit with each of those 6 segments of the ta Those six segments that we analyzed comprised the entire part 59 ae record of the Dallas police tape that passed the six screening 2sts that I decribed. The procedure for conducting this match is a mathematical one, nd it is known as a correlation. The type of correlation that we sed is a binary correlation, and this is a description of a fairly mple process, which I will now attempt to make entirely clear. The echo patterns were each examined to find the loudest echoes 1ereon, some patterns had only 5, others as many as 17. Any one tho that was loud enough to exceed the threshold of audibility as accepted. Then each of the six segments of the tape were examined, after aving presented them in the same way, loudness in decibels on ie vertical scale, and time on the horizontal scale. Those records ere See made at a horizontal scale of 16 inches equal to 1 cond. Once those six segments of the tape had been thus prepared, ey were similarly thresholded, and I will illustrate this more aphically in a minute, to determine all of the impulses on each at exceeded a threshold. They were then numbered, and their cation in time was noted. Now the design of the test included the feature that each micro- ione was 18 feet from the next. It is possible that the motorcycle any time was halfway between two microphones, so a micro- one could at worst be 9 feet from the motorcycle if in fact there is a motorcycle present. That means that there is at least a 9-foot certainty in the location of the microphone with respect to vere the motorcycle may have been at each time that we are amining. This was accommodated in our procedure by adding an uncer- nty window 6 milliseconds on either side of each impulse found the Dallas tape. In other words, each impulse was considered to 12 milliseconds wide, so as to include any echo received by a torcycle that had been in fact anywhere it could have been with spect to the nearest microphone. daving prepared the echo pattern and the impulse pattern from > tape in that way, the correlation was performed as follows: ch of the echo patterns were compared to all impulse patterns the tape for a total of about 2,600 possible correlations. The ‘relation coefficient was calculated for each match, and this coef- ient was calculated as follows: [he number of coincidences between impulses and echoes was * numerator, and the denominator was the square root of the duct of the number of echoes by the number of impulses. If two ‘terns perfectly matched in this way, the cross-correlation coeffi- nt that you obtained would be equal to unity. If they only tched at one point and at no other, it would be 0.1 or less. The er the value of the correlation coefficient, the better the match. Ar. CORNWELL. The closer, in other words, that the number, ich would be in percentages, point something, approaches one, better the match? Jr. Barcer. That is correct. That was the procedure. ow once that was done, we had a big pail full of 2,600 numbers, l we exhibited to ourselves then for the first time on the black- rd all of those numbers that were larger than a threshold value, 60 which was set at 0.6. I will describe the reason for that in « moment. From this time on, I will mostly talk about those matches tha exceeded a correlation coefficient of 0.6. Mr. CorRNWELL. I would like to show you JFK exhibit F-347, anc ask you if you would tell us what that is. Dr. BARGER. This illustrates two types of data. Here are thre test patterns. These three test patterns were generated by a sho from the depository with the muzzle 2 feet behind the plane of thi window and fired at the target No. 1, which was located just at thy head of Elm Street in a position previously described, and it wa received by microphones 4, 5, and 6 in the second array position Those microphones were on Houston near Elm, and we see il each of these that the first sound that arrived was the muzzli blast. There is no shock wave that precedes the muzzle blast, an that is to be expected because in this case the shot is fired in thi direction, and the microphone is over here, and according to th first exhibit I showed, the shock wave would not be seen 90 laterally. As you look at the arrival of the muzzle blast, you see that i each channel it occurs progressively later in time, so that if yo connect the peaks, they slant. This is because channel 4 micr¢ phone is farther away from the rifle than is the channel 5 an channel 6 microphone. However, if you look at these peaks ou a near one second, these are the echoes from the Post Offic nnex. As the microphone moves away from the location of the rifle, 1 is moving toward the Post Office Annex. Therefore, the echo in fac comes in sooner, so when you connect the dots signifying each ¢ those echoes, they have a slope in this direction. One selects all of the significant impulses on these test pattern: We have placed dots on them. Some of the dots are obscured 1 these dark areas where the photographer has overexposed then but nevertheless, they are there. We have connected all of thos that we think are caused by the same echo-generating device b lines, to show how the time that that echo arrives is changin continuously as you move the position of the receiver. Up here is shown a portion, a segment, of the Dallas police tap that was also prepared at the same time scale, 16 inches equals second with intensity vertical on the scale in decibels. The thresl old has been made, and all of those impulses that exceeded hav been identified and numbered, and the plus or minus 6 millise onds acceptance regions have been marked, these to accommodat the uncertainty of the exact position of the motorcycle. I am prepared to show how this echo pattern matches the tes pattern—and I knew I would probably forget which one it is the matches with it, but it is quite evident. If you tried to match thi pattern with this shot, the significant impulses at this point woul not in fact match with the significant impulses in this patter! avn though with this setting the echo from the Post Office Anne oes. However, if you match it with the test impulse obtained channel 5, which is a different place, then they match quite adm rably in fact. If you count the dots signifying significant echoes 1 61 the echo pattern with the marks signifying the significant impulses in the Dallas tape, you find there are 12 matches out of 17 possible impulses, and if you count these, 15 possible echoes. The cross- correlation coefficient for that match is 0.75, above our threshold value of 0.6. Mr. CORNWELL. Given the amount of noise in the Dallas Police Department tape, would you expect that you would ever get a complete match, all 17 out of 17 in this case? Dr. BARGER. Many of the impulses on the tape, on the Dallas police tape, this segment of it in particular, that correspond to the total number that were above the threshold value of 17 are caused undoubtedly by nonacoustical events. Examples are the key tran- sients that I described when I was showing the results of the spectrographic analysis. However, none of those impulses in this particular segment of the tape have been conclusively identified as being any of those. The noise from whatever its origin that is present in the police recording tape, there is demonstrably noise there, in addition to any impulses that may be caused by gunfire, those would rise up and compete with the impulses caused by gunfire and reduce the value of the correlation coefficient to some number less than one. Mr. CoRNWELL. So in spite of the fact that the correlation coeffi- cient was not one, the match was not perfect, your words were that this was a quite adequate match. In other words, it had a correla- tion coefficient which approximated one; is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Well, it was not possible to reach that judgment by looking at one alone. We looked at 2,600 of them, and reached our conclusions from that. This was to illustrate just one. Mr. CORNWELL. Now I believe, Mr. Chairman, we forgot to ask that that last exhibit be admitted into evidence. May we do so at this time? Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the evidence at this time. (The information follows:] 41-371 O- 79 - 5 Vol. 2 Me LV 21 AY (spuosas) sw jauueyD v jouueyy S jauueyy 9 62 | "Spuodes JE} owl, je Buruuibeg — ‘Huipsooey J9}}IWWSuel |-aS: ae ula}yedg OYUDZ ul |Mi ‘9 pure ‘g ‘py sauoydoloi ‘Z Aeuy ye pealssey (, ‘ON Jobuey ‘UMeIPUIM 81ZZNIW ‘GESL) Z IOUS 10$ UE}Hed ISaL 63 Mr. CoRNWELL. I would now like to direct your attention to JFK exhibit F-367, and for your assistance ask that F-337 and F-344 be placed up there simultaneously. Dr. BARGER. Yes. This one and this one have been introduced as evidence. This is new. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you tell us what F-367 is? Dr. BARGER. It is a list of those 15 matches that—of the 2,600 approximate matches we attempted—that did in fact exhibit a correlation coefficient higher than 0.6. Mr. CoRNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-3867 admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the evidence. [The information follows:] List of All 15 Correlations Between Impulse Patterns Occurring in 6 Segments of the DPD Record and Echo Patterns from 432 Test Shots (2592 Separate Correlations) Having a Correlation Coefficient Higher than 0.5 Beginning Time of Microphone Array First Impulse on and Rifle Target Correlation Tape Segment (Channel Number) Location Location Coefficient** 136.20 sec No Correlations Higher Than.................... 0.5 : 137. 70 sec 2 (5) TSBD* 1 0.8 (1) 2 (5) TSBD* 3 0.7 7 2 (6) TSBD 3 0.8 " 2 (6) KNOLL 4 0.7 4 139. = sec 2 (6) TSBD* 3 0.8 ee 2 (6) TSBD 3 0.6 ( #! 2 (10) TSBD 3 0.6 ° 140.32 sec 2 (11) TSBD* 3 0.6 139.27 sec 3 (5) KNOLL 2 0.6 cal 145. 2 sec 3 (4) KNOLL 3 0.8 eeni 3 (7) TSBD* 2 0.7 3 (8) TSBD 3 0.7 (qe 145.61 sec 3 (5) TSBD 3 0.8 \- 3 (6) TSBD 4 0.8 Sh) 3 (8) TSBD* 2 0.7 146. 30 sec No Correlations Higher Than.................... 0.5 “Indicates Muzzle Withdrawn 2 ft from Plane of Window. Number of Echoes Matched with Impulses ** Correlation Coefficient 0) (-— soi et eee es eee ee ST S710 [Number of Echoes X Number of Impulses JFK Exnuisit F-367 Dr. BARGER. Very well. There are 15 descriptors here. Each one describes a case where an acoustical test pattern matched better than the threshold value of 0.6 with a segment of the Dallas tape. 64 The first situation where this occurred I will label with blue. There were four test patterns that corresponded with the segment of the tape that began at 137.7 seconds after the stuck button, with coefficient, correlation coefficient, larger than 0.6, and these are the four. I will note with a 1 that that is the first time in the tape that any of the test patterns correlated with any of the impulse patterns in the police tape with a score better than 0.6, and it occurred four times. Mr. CorNWELL. So at that point you are telling us that there is a segment of the Dallas police tape which very closely approximates or at least has a correlation coefficient of over 0.6 with respect to the various test shots? Dr. Barcer. Yes. This section may contain the sound of gunfire. Then going on down in the list, we have what I will label the second time, the second place on the Dallas tape where correlations or matches were achieved that were good enough to exceed the threshold value, and I will label that with red brackets to highlight it, and there were five of them. Then in the same way at a later time, around 145.15 seconds, in green, I will label and highlight the three test shot patterns that correlated with that part of the tape better than 0.6, and, finally, at 145 seconds—yellow is not the best, is it—well, the fourth part of the tape at 145.61 seconds had three different test patterns that achieved the correlation score greater than 0.6. Let me rummage through my briefcase and see if I can find another color. Black is the obvious choice. Now a feature of a detection by a receiver that was designed to detect the possibility of otherwise subaudible events by using the threshold correlation procedure is that it can give threshold exceed- ences, the threshold having been 0.6, under two circumstances. One, it exceeds the threshold when it has correctly detected the event, and the other is, it exceeds the threshold when it has incor- rectly detected the event. The latter circumstance is called a false alarm. [Laughter. ] It is the purpose of the rest of my testimony now to examine the question: Which, if any, are false alarms? Mr. CorNWELL. Before you do that, I take it that you took each of the four segments of the Dallas Police Department tape, which you have indicated with the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, and compared them with all of the test patterns, and what you have simply illustrated on the chart is a match very similar to the one that you showed us physically how you performed earlier with respect to a shot in the first time frame. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. Then would you use the exhibits which are pres- ently in place and tell us what that means in terms of the other diagrams as to the location of the microphones and the direction and location of the shots. Dr. BarGeER. I can say a few preliminary things about that with these exhibits, a few preliminary things. The results suggest that there are detections at four different times of day. If the motorcycle were in Dealey Plaza, it would only be at one place at each of those times of day and would either be standing still or moving in some reasonable pattern. 65 The correlations achieved, or the matches achieved, at the first time when any matches were achieved are either at microphone 5 or 6 in the second-array position. There are four correlations there, so that at this time on the tape, we would tentatively estimate that the motorcycle was there. Mr. CoRNWELL. Let me show you at this point then JFK exhibit F-370, and ask you if you would tell us what that is. Could we put the two exhibits, the latest one, F-370, over next to the—— Motorcycle Position as Estimated from the Microphone Locations That Produced High Correlation with Four Segments of the DPD Recording After Excluding Disjoint Locations. 260 Frame 313 240 220 200 160 120 ft x| 120 Frame 171 Distance from Motorcycle’s Estimated Postion impulse- First at ft. ie ‘Time from First impulse-Seconds JFK Exuisit F-370 Dr. BarGER. This would best be in this position I think, thank rou. We want to examine now the meaning of these detections that yassed the threshold level to see if there is any reason to believe hat they are not all false alarms, possibly. I will attempt it in this vay. The first time all day that we saw any matches was at this time vhich I have labeled in blue, and, the indication is internally fairly 66 consistent, and it indicates that the location of the microphone at that time is between microphones 5 and 6. So I put a blue dot there because that location was derived from the matches made at the first time of day at which any matches were made, and then I will begin to construct a plot. It would be best if I could draw this for you if you didn’t see what is already on there before I start, but if you will attempt to follow the pointer, I am going to plot here time of day with zero representing the time that this first occurrence was observed, and I am going to plot the distance down the motorcade route along the vertical scale as measured from the position of the motorcycle at that time. In other words, 10 feet down the motorcade route, 20, 30, 40, 50, all the way down to here would be 250 feet. I will signify that I mean zero time and zero distance here by that blue circle. Congressman Fithian, will you let me get away with that? Shall I proceed? Very well. At the second time, 1.6 seconds later, when there were correla- tions that did in fact exceed the threshold, which I have labeled red, we plot the position of each of the microphones that are correlating with that sound on the tape. In other words, at that time, 1.6 seconds, all of the microphones were not right here in one area as they were at the first time. Some of them were up the street. So I will simply mark in red the time on this scale that corre- sponds to this time of this pattern, but I can’t make a nice, little circle yet because they are all over the place. There must be some false alarms in there. All right now, at the third time we have green as an indication. Green occurs at this time 7% seconds after the time of the first one, which was indicated by blue. At the time of the green, the green part of the Dallas tape, we had three detections, three matches—one here, one here, one here. All those are not all in the same place and the motorcycle can only be at one place at the green time, as well as it can be only at one place at any other time, so there is a bit of ambiguity there, but let’s press on. At the next time, which is one-half a second later, which would be indicated by the black time, 8 seconds after the first one, we notice that the position of the microphone that gathered the test pattern that gave the correlation that passed the threshold was here, here, and here. All right, now I have explained where those 15 dots came from. Those 15 dots represent these 15 correlations that passed the threshold of 0.6, and they are illustrated as a function of the time when they occurred and the position down the street where the microphone was that picked up the test pattern that gave the correlations. Bins DEN ea May we have JFK exhibit F-370 entered into the record? Chairman Strokes. Without objection, so ordered. 67 Dr. BARGER. Now, we look at these and immediately see the motorcycle can’t be at all these places, but there is a high degree of order in this diagram. The negative hypothesis would be that the motorcycle was not in Dealey Plaza. If that were true, then this scale that describes the distance down the street of the motorcade would be meaningless in the data, and the data would occur in time and in distance down the street at random. But the eye can see that they tend to follow a sloping line. It can particularly see that because of these prior lines that I drew in. There is a lot of order in the occurrence of these 15 correlations. Now, how much order? Well, if one segments the position of microphones along the street into four bins, or four compartments, and segments the time at which they occurred into the four com- partments that are naturally the four compartments into which the data are segmented, then one can question what is the likeli- hood that this ordered pattern could have occurred by chance. In other words, was it likely this pattern would have occurred if the motorcycle wasn’t there. There is a test for that sort of thing, and it is called the Chi square test. If you segment the data into four times and four places, as I have done, it is a test done with nine degrees of freedom. The Chi squared, value, which is a measure of orderliness, is 17%. For those of you that have tables of the Chi square distri- bution, the meaning of that number is this much order would occur only 5 times out of 100 if this was caused by chance. In other words, if the motorcycle was not there and so the data were distributed at random, there is only a 5-percent chance that that would have occurred. This much order in the data suggests there is a 95-percent likelihood that the motorcycle was moving in the motorcade. That is just about at the level of statistical significance that gives a person confidence that there are correct detections in the data. On the other hand, there are demonstrably also false alarms. This can be seen by observing that if some of those correlations, in fact, indicate the position of the motorcycle, then some of them must be wrong because the motorcycle can’t be in two places at once. Mr. Cornwell, I could proceed with what I am doing now or we sould put up those other three. I think it might be easier if I oroceed. Mr. CoRNWELL. Go right ahead and proceed. Dr. BARGER. It is now the task of the committee and me to try to dentify the best we can which of these detections are false alarms and which ones are not. We have a good deal of confidence that nany of them are not. Now, in order that the motorcycle could achieve this position 130 eet down the street from the blue position in the 1.6 seconds, it vould have to go 55 miles an hour. There is no evidence to indicate that it did that, and so this darticular detection is labeled a false alarm. It couldn’t be true. It eaked through because we lowered our threshold of detection to ‘he point where we had enough correlations so we could be reason- 68 ably certain that the true answers would emerge. We wouldn't want to shut them out. | Now, if you assume that the trajectory of the motorcycle is from the blue position, at which we can be reasonably confident, through these, the slope of that line is 11 miles an hour. That is approxi- mately the speed of the motorcade. If one said, perhaps these are false alarms and that is the correct trajectory of the motorcycle, in that case the motorcycle would be going 18 miles an hour approximately. It would be going from behind the limousine—I mean, 120 feet behind the limousine and drawing close to it. I had better explain what I mean by that right now. If we assume that one of these last two occurrences represents the so-called head shot, then we know at that time where the limousine was. It was at frame 313. Frame 313 is 250 feet down the street from the blue dot, so 250 feet at that time of occurrence is here, so this must be where the limousine was at that time. It was going at about 11 miles an hour as determined by photo- graphic evidence. If one plots back at 11 miles an hour, one finds at the time of the first occurrence the limousine was somewhere 120 feet ahead of the motorcycle, which would have put it right there. Now, again, I am examining the question about whether these three or these three are candidates for false alarms. If these three are truth, then the motorcycle was going 18 miles an hour, catch- ing up with the limousine, and, in fact, having achieved a position | only 40 or 50 feet behind it at the time of the head shot. Now, if you recall the first thing we noticed on the tape was that there was a diminution of the sound due to the motorcycle 3 seconds prior to the first impulsive pattern that we originally suspected could be caused by gunfire. There was no obvious explanation for that, until one sees that at that time the motorcycle was just beginning a 110° turn, and on > the inside track apparently, and he would therefore have to slow down to execute the turn. Now, it was further observed that the motorcycle sound stayed diminished after the turn. It did not increase to the level that it had formerly had. Therefore, it would seem that it couldn’t have increased speed, which it would have had to do to achieve this position in 8 seconds. If, on the other hand, it had continued at the same speed of the motorcade, it would have achieved this position in that time. There is, therefore, the diminished sound of the motorcycle that indicates that these are false alarms. Now, that is an example of the kind of corroborating or disqualifying evidence that is of non- acoustical origin. We are inferring that the motorcycle didn’t speed up because the noise didn’t increase, this allows us to identify as false alarms some of these correlations we have accepted by lower- ing the threshold sufficiently to catch the correct detections. In other words, indications of detection that were accepted by the test, but that were shown by other reasons not to be possible, are therefore, found to be false alarms. As a result of that judgment, the estimate of the motorcycle position at the time of the second impulse, the red one, would be there, which is right there, and the estimated position then of the 69 motorcycle at the time of the third occurrence, which is here, is right there. I lost my graphical symbolism a little, and that is right there, and at the time of the last segment labeled No. 4, which at this time we would estimate it to be halfway between those two right there, and that is there, 120 feet behind the limousine at the time of the head shot, if in fact these impulses represent the sound of the head shot. There is the possibility of labeling one of these four threshold crossings as a potential false alarm because it involves firing from this place at this target at the time that the limousine was here. That is almost 180° out. It is inconceivable that anyone would do that, and on that basis one of these can be judged a false alarm. The fact that some of those are thought to be correct detections was illustrated by all of the order in the data, as I explained earlier. Mr. CoRNWELL. Dr. Barger, does that conclude your description of the analysis that you performed? Dr. BARGER. Yes, it does. Mr. CoRNWELL. Let me then ask you in sum, is it fair and accurate to state that after all of the analysis there is evidence of four shots on the Dallas Police Department tape, and that the acoustical sounds that may represent those shots are spaced as follows: between the first and second approximately 1.6 seconds, between the second and third approximately 5.9 seconds, and be- tween the third and fourth approximately 0.5 of a second? Dr. BARGER. Yes, that is a possible conclusion. Mr. CoRNWELL. I have no further questions. Thank you. Chairman SToKEs. Thank you very much. Doctor, I would just like to say you are a fascinating teacher. I -am just glad I don’t have to take a test on what you have taught us here, today. _ May I consult with the committee for just a moment regarding recessing at this time. At this time the committee will recess until 1:30 p.m. this after- noon. [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.| AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman STokEs. The committee will come to order. The procedure this afternoon will be for the Chair to, first, recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian, who will be permitted to consume such time as he may need in order to fully and extensively question the witness. After that, the Chair will operate under the 5-minute rule as to other members of the com- mittee. The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FiTHIAn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Barger, we want to thank you for your excellent, very techni- cal, and very complete testimony this morning. And as you must be 70 aware, this poses as very serious evidence for us in that it does not corroborate some other evidence that we have. And I want to go back now, so that I am clear and others in the room are clear, as to just what it was that you set out to ascertain by the tests that you ran in Dallas when you went back and sort of recreated the shot pattern. What was it that you were specifically trying to do? TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. BARGER—Resumed Dr. BARGER. Congressman Fithian, the first thing that we sought to do was to determine if there were any sounds of gunfire in Dealey Plaza that were recorded on that tape. In other words, we were seeking to determine if the motorcycle, whose stuck transmit- ter was transmitting sound, was in fact in Dealey Plaza. re FITHIAN. So you are trying to actually locate the motorcycle itself: Dr. BarcEr. It became necessary, first, to determine if the motor- cycle was in Dealey Plaza, and then to locate it therein. Mr. Firuian. And as to its location, correct me if I am wrong, you set your microphones 18 feet apart? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Frruran. And you did this from the beginning of the turn on to Houston, down Houston to the turn on Elm Street, and down Elm Street, at least as far as where the Zapruder film showed, the head shot to the President? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Firutan. Now does this mean, to those of us who are laymen, that once you locate a match of echo patterns, you have physically located the motorcycle to somewhere within that 18-foot stretch? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. The echo patterns depend for their structure on the location of the microphone that receives the sound. We sought matches of the echo patterns that were suffi- ciently precise to represent a motorcycle microphone located within approximately 9 feet of each of the microphones. Mr. Firaian. And then you presumed that the motorcycle was moving at the speed of the motorcade, or roughly that? Dr. BARGER. We presumed nothing about the location of the motorcycle or its speed or even direction of motion. The matches were made without any presumption whatsoever about the position of the motorcycle, in fact, of course, without any knowledge that the motorcycle was even there. After having made the matches, however, the position, I should say, the location of the microphones through which we found matches did in fact progress down the motorcade route at the times that the four subsequent periods on the tape showed matches. And as I indicated previously, the locations of the microphones where the matches were found at the four different times were moving down the motorcade route at approximately 11 miles an hour. Mr. Frrutan. And the number of microphones you used was determined by what? By the uncertainty of where or if the motor- cycle was there? Dr. BarcEr. We started out with no assumption about where the motorcycle was, other than the fact that it was presumed to be on the street along the motorcade route. Therefore, we ‘vished to put 71 microphones all along the route in Dealey Plaza. It was very diffi- cult for us to record through more than 12 microphones at one time, and so in fact we did record through only 12 microphones at one time. It was rather time consuming to conduct the full round of test shots considering the need for observing safety precautions and the like. And so in order to conduct the entire test within a morning, we calculated that about 36 microphone locations could be accommodated and this indicated an 18-foot spacing. The 18-foot spacing was judged adequate because it would place the motorcycle no more than 9 feet from the nearest microphone. That dimension is about half the width of the street. So if we put the microphone in the center of the street, even though the motor- cycle was at the curb, we would be within that 9 feet. The time it takes sound to travel 9 feet is 9 milliseconds. That is a fairly short period of time. We judged that small uncertainty, 9 milliseconds, to be adequately small compared with the total time over which the echoes would arrive, that being almost a thousand milliseconds or 1 second. That is the way that we decided upon the 18-foot spacing, the desire to have a small enough error, possible error, due to uncertainty of the true motorcycle location and the desire not to conduct the test all day long. Mr. FITHIAN. Then are you satisfied that the fixes, if we can use that term, of the motorcycle that you came up with, are within 8 to 10 feet, or something not much greater than half the distance between one microphone and another? Dr. BARGER. Yes, yes, I am satisfied that the 18-foot spacing was not too coarse. Mr. FirHian. Now to the layman, it would seem that if you are going to recreate a test, that you might have wanted to use instead of the most modern microphone equipment, you might have wanted to use, as nearly as you could find, microphones and trans- mitters identical to those which you believed to have been on the original motorcycle. And I would like some explanation as to why you chose not to use the motorcycle microphone, which you have indicated at one point in your testimony you had indeed used, from the Massachusetts police. Evidently that kind of a microphone or transmitter is available. Why then did you use a more sophisticated system of micro- phones? Dr. BARGER. A more sophisticated system? Mr. FITHIAN. Yes, more sophisticated than obviously was on the stuck transmitter. : Dr. BARGER. Why did we use the more sophisticated? Mr. FirHian. Why did you? Dr. Barcer. There are two reasons. In the first place, as I showed, the radio distorts and limits the amplitude of loud sounds. Each radio does that in detail in a different way. We weren’t seeking to look at the waveform of each sound echo, only the time at which it occurred. The radio does not distort the time at which it occurs, nor does the more sophisticated equipment that we used. The more sophisticated equipment that we used is known to be reliable and not to fail in times of stress in the middle of a sensitive test. Old motorcycle radios from those earlier days are known not to be very reliable, nor are they to be found in the 12 quantities that we required. Therefore we selected a system that would give us equivalent data but more reliably. Mr. Frruian. So that I understand now, the data that you were really looking for was not dependent upon the amplitude or the height of the blip, or whatever you want to call it, greater than a certain amount which would help you identify it. Rather you were trying to locate it along the time line? Dr. BarGErR. Correct. That is absolutely correct. Mr. Frru1an. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this committee employed two other specialists that Mr. Cornwell referred to this morning, Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, and you went over the plan of the test with them; is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Firuian. Did they concur in the layout of the array of microphones, the type of microphones? In other words, did they concur in your proposed test plan? Dr. BARGER. They did. Mr. FrirHAN. Tell me then something about the difference in the status of the science of acoutics from 1964, when presumably this tape was in existence and could have been analyzed and 1978 when you analyzed it, 1977-78 when you analyzed it, not in great speci- ficity. But what are the grand changes that have taken place in that 14-year period? Dr. BarcER. Well, there are two. First, the adaptive filter that we used to reduce the level of the motorcycle noise on the tape was a procedure that was not then, had not then, been worked out. It was not known. Second, the method we used to detect for the possibility, to search for the possibility of sounds, is generally called a matched filter or a matched detector. The theory of that device, that method of seeking the presence of suspected signals in loud noise, was developed principally I believe by the radar community during World War II. It was therefore known in 1963 to people who study the process of detecting expected signals imbedded in loud noise. The community that shared that knowledge in 1963 was not as wide as it is now. I don’t believe I knew about it then. Mr. Firu1an. But the filtering process that you used came in, I think you said this morning, in 1968 to 1970; is that correct? | Dr. Barcer. Well, probably more like 1966 to 1968, but, that is correct. Mr. Frru1an. Now some of the terms you used this morning I am sure must be every day terms to you, but I am not sure all of us followed those. One of the key terms seemed to be “impulsive events” or “se- quence of impulsive events” or something to that effect. What does that term mean, to those of us who don’t get along very well with this science? Dr. Barcer. I used the term “impulsive event” to describe the brief, loud bursts of noise that appeared on the Dallas police tape. Now when I listened to the tape, you hear spits and stutters and pops. Those would all be descriptors of impulsive acoustical events. When you look at the waveform as presented on the oscillographic records that I showed, then the transient events are characterized 73 by short intervals of time in which the loudness of a sound is intense, so it looks like blips or peaks in the amplitude record. Mr. FirHiAn. And another term that was used, I think, as you took that concept and tried to transfer it to the visual, was spectro- graphic analysis of this transient event. I take it that is that chart that you put up on the wall this morning? Dr. BARGER. Yes, I did put—we did have an exhibit that was a spectrographic analysis of a segment of the tape recording; that is correct. Would you like me to discuss that briefly? Mr. FITHIAN. I just wanted to make sure my understanding was correct, and, that is, that the spectrographic analysis is a sort of a visual playout of this grassy looking material that is blips and depressions. Dr. BARGER. Yes; the spectrogram itself is a visual description of the tonal content, frequency content, pitch content of sound as a function of time. In other words, if a person was raising his voice like that, you would see a diagonal line on the spectrogram, indi- cating as time progressed, the pitch of the sound was rising. Mr. FirHiaAn. And now the adaptive filtering you used, do I understand that correctly, that this is the process of filtering out noises and things that you don’t want to measure? Dr. BARGER. The adaptive filtering process, which I characterized -as a Widrow-type adaptive filter was used because it is effective in reducing repetitive noises, not impulsive noises, but repetitive ones. If you listen to a motorcycle, basically you hear the sounds of the cylinders firing, and they fire at idle for that motorcycle about once every 140 milliseconds. So, therefore, the noise as generated by that motor cycle has a tendency to resemble itself every 140 milliseconds later. | The adaptive filter studies that noise, determines what is expect- ed to occur in the future, subtracts that out from the data that is just coming in, and leaves you with the absence of that repetitive noise. But if you are looking for transient events or impulses about which the filter could have no prior knowledge, because they only occur once, then that fiter leaves you with those transients more clearly observable. The noises, in other words, the repetitive noise that was masking those transients is thus reduced. Mr. FiruHian. And one final sort of terminology question. You used the term “match filter technique,’ “matching filter techniques ’’—— Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FITHIAN [continuing]. And that means what? Dr. BARGER. That means that you have in your—you expect to receive one of many kinds of signals. By ‘many kinds,’ I mean a signal in this case that has a series of impulses that occur in a definite sequence, like, let’s say, the first one occurs at a particular time, the second one perhaps 3 milliseconds later, the third one maybe 15, the fourth one 27, the fifth one 12% after that, and so on, a definite sequence of impulses. We went to Dallas to find out what the sequence of impulses ec be that would be generated by Dealey Plaza if a gun was ired. 74 Having found out what that sequence of impulses is, you then go through the tape in question and look for sequences of impulses that match it. When you find one that matches it, you say aha, at that time something occurred that generated a pattern of transient events that just matches what we did in Dealey Plaza, and when that occurs, you judge that you have made a detection. You have :dentified a similar source of noise. The word “matched filter’’ is a technically correct or often used form, and the use of the word “match” is fairly self-evident, I believe. Mr. Firutan. Now I am sure there must have been a reason for your lengthy analysis of this bell tone. I am not sure that—I guess my question is why did you look for and analyze and worry about the bell tone, since we were looking for some kind of rifle shots or pistol shots or whatever? Dr. Barcer. There are two reasons. First, we wanted to see if in fact there were any sounds on the tape that were caused by acous- © tical signals such as a bell would generate. We found that the sound that resembled a bell was a bell. Second, we hoped to establish, we hoped to learn, where that bell really was and had thought if we could find it, we would then know where at least one microphone was that was transmitting on chan- nel 1 at that time. Mr. FirHian. So, you were trying to verify that there were trans- mittals on that tape? Dr. Barcer. That there were acoustical events as opposed to what might be called microphonics. In other words, as you take a radio transmitter and just kick it around and shake it, as a motor- cycle might do, particularly if the radio were broken, then it would transmit signals that wouldn’t have any bearing due to sounds. We just wanted to see if there were sounds on there. Mr. Frruian. Now, I am not sure, counsel, what the exhibit numbers are, but I am interested in the way you went about locating the targets; that is, physically locating the targets that you were going to fire at. I understand why you selected the two points from which you fired, but could you put up the three or four photographs of Dealey Plaza, F-367 and F-377? Mr. CoRNWELL. F-337 and F-344, I believe. Mr. FiruiaAn. While they are doing that, let me ask you sort of the central question. Is it your conclusion that you proved that there were four shots? Dr. BarGER. No. Mr. FiruiAn. With regard to the groupings of shots, what do you prove then? Dr. Barcer. As regards the grouping of the shots, we demon- strated with high confidence that if there are four shots, we dem- onstrated the times at which they occurred, and the intervals between them were described by Mr. Cornwell, 1.6 seconds, was it 5.9, and 0.5. Mr. Firuian. Would you repeat that again, please? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FrIrHIAN. The distance, the time frame between the first and the second shot is what? Dr. BARGER. 1.6 seconds. 75 Mr. FirH1An. And between the second and what you perceived to be a possible third shot? Dr. BARGER. 5.9. Mr. FiTrH1An. And between the possible third and the possible fourth shot? Dr. BARGER. 0.5. Mr. FITHIAN. 0.5? Dr. BARGER. 0.5, one-half second. Mr. FITHIAN. One-half second. So what you are saying, Doctor, is that if there were four shots fired, they came at those intervals? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FirHiAn. And let’s hypothesize for a minute. If there were only three shots fired, how do you account for the disturbance that you find at I guess it would be 5.9 after the first shot—after the second shot, I am sorry. Dr. BarGcer. I don’t have the best exhibit in front of me to answer that, but let me do it without, the first time. Of the 15 detections that our matching process achieved, 10 of them cannot be discounted as false alarms. It would be necessary for at least three of those to be correct detections, to have established the coherence in the data that led to our conclusion that the microphone was in fact in Dealey Plaza. It is therefore likely that somewhere between 3 and 6 of the remaining 10 are also false alarms. Therefore, anyone—— Mr. FiTHiAn. May I interrupt just a moment? Dr. BarGeEr. Yes, of course. | Mr. FiruHiAn. I think the staff was putting up the right pictures. I wanted the big pictures of Dealey Plaza. I think there are three or ‘four of them altogether. You had three of them out just a moment ago. Go ahead, Doctor. Dr. BARGER. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect chat approximately 5 of the remaining 10 correlations were also ‘alse alarms. That would indicate that about one-half of the detections that I lid not previously indicate to be false alarms, about one-half the remaining 10, are false alarms. This would indicate that the prob- ability that each one is a correct detection is about one-half. Mr. FiTHIAN. I am going to return to this a little bit later. I am zoing to put those microphone images up there and we are going to to through that time frame because it is very important to me, but ‘ight now I want to try to establish the location of the targets. Now, I am not at all interested in the charts right at the noment. I just want the pictures, the two pictures you have plus another one that shows some interstate signs with targets behind ‘hem. That is the particular one I want. [Exhibits F-339, F-340, F-341, and F-342 were displayed.] Dr. BARGER. Well, it is there. Mr. FirHIAn. Yes, OK. Set it up on the upper easel if you will. Thank you. Now, could you put on your Lavalier microphone, Doctor, and I vould like for you to locate for us again the locations of the targets hat they fired at. Dr. BarGcer. Yes; the target that was illustrated as target loca- jon No. 1 is this pile of sandbags right here. 76 Mr. Frruran. And let me just make sure my optical illusion isn’t ) getting away from me. That is between the Texas School Book Depository window on the left and the interstate signs overhead, is that correct? Dr. BarGER. This picture is taken from the window adjacent to the window from which Oswald is thought to have fired, so it is taken from the depository. Mr. FirHIAN. So that one you are pointing at is up the hill, if you will. It is located in the road prior—if you are going toward the underpass—prior to arriving at the interstate signs, the first target that you just had pointed at down here, just right there. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Firuian. That is physically before you get to the interstate signs. Dr. BarGER. These signs? Mr. FITHIAN. Yes. Dr. BARGER. Well, it is physically just before them, that is cor- rect. Mr. FiruiAn. And the second target is where? Dr. BarGEr. The second target is hiding behind the trees right at that point. Mr. Firutan. The third target is the one down the road? Dr. Barcer. That is the third target. Mr. FitrH1An. Now, in the location of targets, «re those, as nearly > as you can compute from the Zapruder film or otherwise, the exact | location of the President and Governor Connally in the limousine? — Dr. Barcer. No; with regard to target No. 3, which was posi- tioned to be at the same place as the limousine in frame 313, it was put in that place as well as we could determine it. Mr. Firuian. And is target No. 1 in the same location that you presumed the first shot was fired? Dr. BarceEr. Of course, I don’t know exactly where the limousine was when the first shot was fired. Mr. Firnian. I guess basically I am asking you why did you locate the target there? Dr. Barcer. As I recall, we sought to place the first target at about the position of the limousine, at about frame 158-160. The reason for that was that the preliminary screening that I described earlier of the impulses on the tape, indicated that if the first pattern of impulses that could be seen occurred prior to frame 313 by enough time to place it back at about frame 158. That is why we tried to position the target at that place. Mr. Firutan. Is target No. 2—which doesn’t really show up from here, but you pointed to it—is that at as nearly an accurate loca- tion as possible? Dr. Barcer. May I ask Mr. Cornwell a question? Mr. FITHIAN. Yes. Dr. BARGER. I forget right now which Zapruder frame we tried to} position target No. 2 at. Mr. CorNWELL. We initially attempted to place it in the vicinity of 190, which would have been slightly further down the street} from where it ultimately ended up, but the tree size is different today than it was in 1963, and the signs over the street which arej in that area were of course not there in 1963, so we had to simply 17 find the shortest point from the 190 frame that we could still shoot at sandbags. It was moved, as I recall—— Dr. BARGER. We were striving for the location of the target at the position of the limousine in frame 190, which was obscured by the new growth of the tree, and so we moved it to that position to make it—— Mr. FirH1An. Doctor, the reason that I am going into this is that in studying the data last night from your research, and going over what you find as possible matches and then eliminating those which you believe to be false signals, there seemed a dirth of any matches with the second target in your data. The question is whether or not there is anything—we have al- ready eliminated the new hotel building several blocks away as qaving been in any way altering the echo pattern. I am curious to know whether or not the location of that target, the interstate signs, the firing direction or anything like that would tend to give us the kind of data that we seem to have on arget No. 2. Dr. Barcer. Three of the matches were achieved for test pat- erns obtained by firing at target No. 2. I wouldn’t describe that as a dirth, that is to say, three out of 15 would represent. Mr. FITHIAN. But if I may come back to this a little bit later, if you want to remember the point and we will take it up then. If I ‘emember in going through the ones that you eliminate as false alarms, that reduces any match to target No. 2 either to one or to ero, | am not positive, but we will come back to that. I just was curious to know whether the intrusion of the inter- itate signs into the whole acoustical pattern does anything to the ‘esults you get. . Dr. BarGeEr. Yes; the target No. 2 was responsible for at least wo false alarms. Let me just check this a moment and make sure. (es, it contributed false alarms in each case. There was a detection nade at the second time interval when a shot was fired at target No. 2, and that one was eliminated because it was detected at nicrophone No. 5 in the third army position, and that was the one hat would have required a 55-mile-an-hour speed of the motorcycle 0 achieve, and so that was labeled as a false alarm. Target No. 2 contributed a false alarm here, which was one of he three detections made at the third time segment. That too is uled out because of improbable motorcycle speed required to chieve that position at microphone No. 7 at the time of the third ‘roup of matches. And finally, a shot at target location No. 2, ontributed a false alarm in the fourth pattern, that one having een identified as a false alarm by the improbable motion of the 10torcycle required to achieve it, so that is correct. The three detections that were achieved from test patterns ob- ained by shooting at target No. 2 appear to be false alarms. Mr. Firn1an. What impact, if any, did the firing of the bullet ‘om the school depository window between the two interstate igns, what impact would that have in altering the data, if any? Dr. BARGER. The presence of a structure such as this would have een highly irrelevant to the tests had it been over here. Mr. FirH1an. You say “highly relevant’? Dr. Barcer. Irrelevant. 78 Mr. FiruHiANn. Irrelevant. Dr. Barcer. Had it been over here. The fact that the trajectory of the bullet missed that sign by only a few feet indicates that, as the shock wave which is radiated from the bullet as it passes, would be in fact scattered by those signs, generating a new source of sound at that point. Mr. Firuian. And so then you really couldn’t expect to get a matchup; is that what you are saying? Dr. BARGER. That would introduce additional echoes in the test pattern that would not have—— Mr. Fitruian. Let me make sure I am correct. If you introduce additional echoes, or if you get additional echoes anywhere that don’t match up, that reduces the probability, re- duces it from eight to seven or seven to six or six to five or whatever. : | Dr. BarcER. It reduces the probability of detection and it in- creases the likelihood of a false alarm. Mr. FirHtAn. Thank you. Now I also looked at the pattern of shooting and noticed that you did not have as many shots from the grassy knoll toward No. 2 as at the other targets. I think No. 1 and No. 2, if I am not mistaken. Were there any reasons why you didn’t have a full round of firing? Dr. BarcEr. Yes; I think you are referring to the fact that we did not fire at target No. 1 from the knoll. Mr. FirHtAn. I am sorry, I said two. I meant one. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FITHIAN. Yes. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. When we were setting up the loca- tions of the microphones and the rifles and so on, we observed that target No. 1 was directly between the rifle on the knoll and the spectators that had been positioned behind a barricade on Elm Steet and it was judged entirely inappropriate to attempt that shot. Mr. Frruian. Now there is one other question I need to ask about what is up on the board there on the easel. When we visited Dallas, when the committee visited Dallas, and we inspected the Texas School Book Depository, we were told that, at the time that they picked up the shells, the empty cartridges on the sixth floor near the corner, I believe it would be about where the gentleman is standing or in that area, that the area was physically cased in by boxes, not quite entirely, but nearly so, and that some writers have described this as the sniper’s nest, et cetera. But in any event, to get to the acoustics of it, would those stack of boxes in the depository right around where allegedly the shots were fired have any significant impact on the echo pattern that you could expect to get outside? Dr. BarGcer. They would not have a significant impact on the} matches performed with the echo patterns. The reason is they | would introduce into the echo patterns additional signals which are reflected from the boxes you describe that occur at a time later than the muzzle blast. By the time it takes the sound to go from} the muzzle to those boxes and back out the window, that amount of 79 time would be less than 12 milliseconds, if those boxes were within 5 feet of the rifle. And we have, as I described, broadened the width in time of each impulse on the motorcycle tape by 12 milliseconds to accommodate the uncertainty of microphone position relative to the motorcycle. And the broadening of the acceptance time for 2ach impulse in the motorcycle tape solves the uncertainty caused oy the lack of precise microphone location, since we didn’t know where the motorcycle was. It also solves the problem that you just lescribed. Mr. FITHIAN. Let me see if I understand that now. What you are saying is because the little elliptical bins that you dut over these blips—I don’t use very scientific language here—but ‘hat you put over these blips in the spectrograph because they accommodated up to, what did you say, 6 feet on either side? Dr. BARGER. Yes, 12 in total. Mr. FiTHIAN. Twelve feet total, that the boxes in order to have een in any way effective would have had to have been closer? In ‘ther words, your accommodation, your allowance, took in any ulowance for the boxes being there or not being there? Dr. BARGER. Yes, providing those boxes were within 6 feet of the nuzzle. If they were significantly farther than that, then the echo oming from them and trying to get back out of the window and hereby becoming relevant to the test pattern would be so weak- ned so that it wouldn’t have had any significance either. Mr. Firuian. For practical matters, you are saying it doesn’t aake any difference whether you stack up boxes when you do the est firing or not? Dr. BARGER. Absolutely. Mr. FiruHian. Thank you. Let the record show that the question pertained to JFK exhibit '-342, the picture of the marksman. Now one thing that has been bothering me this morning is the ossibility that since more than one radio could be transmitting on hat channel 1 that the stuck microphone was on, that indeed we uight have been picking up some sounds from somewhere out of lealey Plaza or somewhere else by some microphone other than ne stuck microphone, since I believe you said that the bell tone ras off outside. The bell tone did not come in over this particular 1icrophone—— Dr. BARGER. That is right. Mr. FirHiAn [continuing]. To any way that we could locate.Then hy couldn’t we hypothesize that perhaps the third or the fourth 1ot or the first or the second shot or some other shot might indeed ave been picked up, that kind of a sound might indeed have been icked up by some other radio transmitter being keyed somewhere Se other than Dealey Plaza? Dr. BARGER. Yes; we did establish, particularly with the spectro- rams, that other microphones were keying in particularly at the mes, the later two times, according to time three in green and ur in black on that exhibit. And so during the time when those ther radios were transmitting, sounds from their microphones ould be expected to also appear in the tape recording, and, there- re, if a pattern of impulses was generated by some mechanism at 80 the location of the other microphone, then that pattern too would appear on the recorded sound. However, these patterns were quite complex. They contained no fewer than 10 echoes, as I recall, spread over total times no less than about half a minute—let me see now, half a second—and the interval of time between each of these 10 echoes over this whole period of time, half a second or more, is a very intricate pattern. The likelihood that some other mechanism that would generate a similar pattern that would match with the test patterns is ex- tremely remote. : Mr. Firuian. And if one of the other microphones were on one of the other motorcycles in Dealey Plaza, what then? Dr. Barcer. If another motorcycle in Dealey Plaza keyed in at that time, you would have a test pattern, if you will, that is to say, you would have the sound of gunfire on that one too. If it was sufficiently noise free that our detection process caught it, it would have shown a high value of correlation in the match and would have been marked as a detection. Mr. Firuian. But it would have come the same time frame, though, if it were a shot in Dealey Plaza; is that correct? | Dr. BARGER. That is correct. | Mr. Firaian. And so the only thing that would be somehow altered would be the location of the motorcycle. | Dr. Barcer. That is correct. : Mr. FirHiAn. So what you are saying is that the only way you could have gotten the pattern that matched is if over some other | transmitter that was not in Dealey Plaza, to get those 10 or 15 or. however many echo patterns matched up, there would have had to be a configuration somewhere else very much like Dealey Plaza. The transmitter would have had to have been keyed at exactly the right time, and then you would have had this—— Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Firuian. How would you classify that; very unlikely, impos- sible, remote? Dr. BARGER. Extremely unlikely. Mr. Firn1an. When you went to Dealey Plaza, you expected a certain approximation or a certain number of impulses. In general now, not referring to anything specific, but your general conclu- sion, did you get the approximate number of impulses that you anticipated? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Firutan. I want to ask this question again, and that deals wath the term you used, “correlation coefficient,’ when you got} ose. Would the correlation coefficient be altered if the motorcycle is} not at the exact location of the test microphone? In other words, you talked about a correlation coefficient of 0.8 or 0.7, 0.75, 0.6.4 Would that have been altered if the location of the microphone} were 8 or 9 feet away from where the motorcycle actually was} when the Dallas Police Department tape was made? : Dr. Barcer. I am glad you asked that because I don’t think I made this point very clear the last time. The purpose for accepting} as a match an impulse that occurred within plus or minus 6} milliseconds of an echo was to try to overcome the problem of a low 81 orrelation occurring if you by chance did not have the microphone 1 exactly the right place. If you insisted that those impulses line p with those echoes precisely, you would have to have the motor- ycle just where the microphone was. We didn’t have that many uicrophones or that much time, and so we used, as I said, the 18- »0t spacing of microphones. In order to prevent a loss, a significant loss of correlation, be- ause of the uncertainty with respect to the location of the motocy- e and the microphone, we accepted anything that came within 6 tilliseconds as a match. Now let me explain where 6 milliseconds came from. I was trying ) guard against low values of correlation, and therefore loss of iformation, just because I happened to miss the location of the otorcycle, but I couldn’t accept as a match echoes and impulses iat were half a second apart because then I would accept every- ing, so it is necessary to find a medium ground. Now here is how that was done. In the case where the micro- 10ne and the reflector that is causing the echo and the source are ] in one line, then the 9-foot uncertainty that I had with the 18- ot spacing, plus or minus 9 feet, would generate a plus or minus millisecond uncertainty in the location of the echo. Now it is also true that if the sound that generates the echo that am interested in is arriving perpendicularly to the line connect- g the microphone and the possible place of the motorcycle, then at uncertainty is of no consequence because it would arrive at th of the two places at the same time. So the error caused by this ienomenon varies between zero and 9 millionseconds. So math- aatically we said the arrival of these echo sounds from each rection is equally likely, and we determined an average of the ror that would be introduced by a 9-foot uncertainty, and it was 6 illiseconds. This is not a linear average. That would have given 4%, but ere is a cosine involved in this, and so the 6-millisecond uncer- inty was arrived at in that way, and it was designed to minimize 2 loss of correlation due to uncertainty in the microphone loca- n. However, it won’t work perfectly because in those cases where 2 error is actually 9 milliseconds, when the echo happens to be ning in in the same direction as the line connecting the motorcy- -and microphone, then it will cause a lack, a loss of correlation. 50 the answer to your question is there is a slight loss in correla- n but it is not as large as it would have been if we had not used 2 plus or minus 6-millisecond window. Mr. Firxran. Staying with the loss of correlation, because some us are bothered when you match up a shot pattern that we know ppened, and you can’t match up all the 12 blips or the 15 blips or vatever, here and there, what you have just said is that some of *m might be attributable to the fact that the motorcycle was side by 3 feet or whatever. In other words, you might get a tuction in the correlation coefficient because the motorcycle is t beyond your tolerance level. second—— Jr. BarGER. That is right. 82 Mr. Firuian. Would you get a reduction in the correlation coeffi cient if induced onto the tape by a second transmitter somewher there were noises that exceeded the threshold level that you estab lished? Dr. Barcer. Absolutely. The presence of impulses in the moto cycle tape that we counted, because we observed them to be there that are caused by nonacoustical effects, give us therefore th impossibility of achieving a match because they were caused b some entirely different phenomenon. And the way of computin the cross correlation coefficient or the correlation coefficient tha accommodates that, in other words, in the denominator is th square root of the number of impulses. If there is a lot of noise i the tape, as there is a good deal, and many of those impulses a caused by that, they can’t be matched, and they will reduce t level of the correlation coefficient just mechanically, because ther} are numbers in the denominator. So if there are lots of nois pulses, that will reduce the correlation coefficient, exactly. Mr. FirHtan. So you would not expect to get a one, or I think yo used the term “unity.” Dr. BARGER. The motorcycle tape is so noisy, not only with t sound of the motorcycle, but also keying transients and the lik from other transmitters that it would be extremely unlikely the you would have a segment of the tape so noise free that a perfed correlation would be achieved, and in fact none were. : Mr. FiruHian. From what you know about the echo pattern of th Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, what insight, if any, can you offer inf Governor Connally’s testimony, if you heard it or read it? Let me try to reconstruct. Do we have the transcript of Governor Connally? On September 6, Governor Connally testified and said that—lq me back up here a little ways. Let me take his last part of testimony first. He says, “I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a vex pronounced impact,” and at that point the Governor slapped hj hands together to demonstrate the sound that he heard. “Alm like that.” He said “It made a very, very strong sound.” Then he says: Immediately I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car a all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue * * * And he goes on. Now, as I interpret what the Governor said, after he had bee hit, and Mrs. Connally had pulled him down into her lap, he w still conscious, and he heard what sounded like a shot, and thd heard what sounded like the bullet striking the President’s heal Now, No. 1, if in fact the speed of the bullet is supersonic, y@ could not hear it in that sequence; am I correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. FiTHIAN. In other words, he would have had to have hea the bullet striking the skull first, and then the muzzle blast wouf come at some fraction of time after that? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. 83 Mr. Firutan. Well, then, obviously there has to be some other interpretation of those sounds, if in fact the Governor heard the defore the time segment marked in black. Therefore, if there are our shots, the times that they occur are shown there on that thart, the last two being a half a second apart. j Now, as I indicated, there are false alarms in this detection ‘xperiment or test that I have conducted, and so, therefore, it is he purpose of other evidence to compare to these findings to see vhich—if you can determine which of these findings are, in fact, orroborated or are discredited by other evidence. In that sense, he comment that former Governor Connally made is of some elevance because a statement that two loud sounds were heard, hat are separated only by a small period of time—I don’t remem- jer exactly what word he used—“shortly thereafter,” as I recall— jrould indicate that he heard two loud impulsive sounds at the jime of the third shot. I can’t put any significance in the fact that je may have inverted the two times. That was a traumatic period, bviously, for him. But it is interesting that he did, in fact, charac- 2rize as the sound of impact what must have been the sound of a ifle, because it would seem possible, then, that his testimony indi- ated there were two briefly separated impulsive sounds that might oth have been shots. Mr. Firutan. I agree with you obviously that it was a very ‘aumatic and almost impossible-to-imagine state of mind. But, I 2call the Governor saying very clearly, early on, that he had done nough hunting that he recognized rifle shots when he heard them, + cetera, and that is what caused him to turn his head at the ginning way back, I don’t know, frame 170 or 180, or whatever, nd he did characterize or if there are only three shots and the last 1e is the one that hit the President in the head, then he had to onfuse what would have been a bullet wound in the skull with a fle shot. Dr. Barcer. That is correct. Mr. Firutan. As an expert in acoustics, can you just help me out _ trying to distinguish what the differences in characteristics ould have been? Going back to my original premise of the question, the first thing > heard after being in Mrs. Connally’s lap could not have been a fle shot if there is only one shot fired. Dr. Barcer. That is right. ‘Mr. Firntan. The first sounded to him—if you x out our fourth ie or third one you have come out with as a possibility, prior to e head shot, then that first noise the Governor heard could not ive been a rifle shot. ‘Dr. Barcer. If he could have heard the sound of the impact at l, as he thought he did, then it could not have been the second und that he heard; it would have had to have been the first— nat he described as an impact. 84 you could help me Mr. Firuian. My question was basically if n ear would hear describe acoustically or otherwise what the huma School Book in the difference between a rifle shot from the Texas and a bullet striki ng the head of the Presi dent 6 feet Depository away or 5 feet away or whate ver. course, I have no Dr. BarGceEr. I have heard the former, and, of concept of the impact sound, I really have no opinion on that. Mr. FITHIA N. I want to return to that troubl esome shot from the comes just ahead of the obvious grassy knoll, the third one that fired as our head shot. If we are to stay with three bullets being lize final interpretation, then we have to somehow or other rationa the third a way or do away with or accept as other phenomena ; impulse that you have on your charts, is that correct? : Dr. BarGER. That is correct. isn’t a Mr. FiruHian. What might the third impulse be, then, if it shot? the Dr. Barcer. If it is a false alarm, which I described as a correct detectio n, by the very nature of a alternative to being false alarm, it cannot be very easily explained. The only reliable procedure I can conceive of for identifying it as a false alarm is by comparing the time that it had to have occurred with all other testimony that has come and will follow about the possibility of that having occurred. | Mr. FrrH1ANn. Random statistica l errors? Would that have done it? Dr. Barcer. As I indicated just before, I think there is an eve chance that about half of those remaining detections are, in fact. false alarms. Each one has an even probability of being one, includ ing the one you just cited. I guess there is a chance of randor error that that correlation occurred. Mr. Firuian. I would like to recall, Mr. Chairman, JFK exhibi F-370. Doctor, if you would proceed over there, I want to make sure before I turn you loose here that I understand that vital chart Now, starting from the lower left-hand corner, where originally on the chart you had four possible verifications, and you eliminat ed one, you are fairly certain that that is the first shot, and yo are fairly certain of the location of the motorcycle within 10 feet; i: that correct? Dr. BarGcEr. The origin of this chart represents the estimate tha the motorcycle was half-way between microphones 5 and 6 at tha time; that is correct. Mr. FirHian. Now, you use the term “false alarm.” Perhaps w should put up JFK F-367 there for you to refer to. I notice in som of those that you rule out as false alarms they are really the sam shot except that one is with the muzzle at the plane of the windo and the other is at the muzzle 2 feet inside. Isn’t that correct} i TisBarGER. There were these two which you must be referrin; Mr. Firnian. Take No. 1, for example. Dr. BARGER. This one? Mr. Firutan. Yes; which one have you eliminated—one of ther you have eliminated. But is it meant that the first shot hear} would have been from the grassy knoll and it would have bee} aimed at the target clear down by the underpass; is that correct} 85 Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Firutan. So you eliminated that just because it wasn’t very robable that the first shot would have been it was 75° away from vhere the limousine was, or whatever? Dr. BarGcer. That is correct. I used that as an example of the ack of any evidence to corroborate that someone would have done hat. Mr. Firu1an. That leaves three other matches or verifications ou came up with right in that time frame? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Firuian. As I read this chart, two of those are shots which rere fired with everything exactly the same except that the rifle 1uzzle was withdrawn 2 feet from the plane of the window. Dr. BarceEr. That is correct. Mr. Firuian. And so, in fact, all three of those matches come ‘om the microphone being in the same place and everything else eing in the same place with the exception that you fired one, ‘hich is shot No. 3, which has an 0.8 correlation coefficient, with je muzzle at the window plane, and you fired the other two, aving 0.8 and 0.7 correlation coefficients, with the muzzle of the [annlicher-Carcano withdrawn inside the window 2 feet. That is 1e only difference, isn’t it? Dr. BARGER. That is correct, apart from the fact that—— Mr. Firnian. I am trying to account for all these extra dots, 2cause to the average person looking at that, it looks like there re 15 different shots and obviously that is not the case. We are ying to match up signals from repeated tests, and your verifica- ons come up with four of those being possibly correct, and you iminate one as being highly improbable. Dr. BARGER. Yes. | Mr. Firuian. But the other three are all from a Mannlicher- arcano shot from the window into the target. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Firn1an. As you move on over about 1% seconds we see 10ther group of shots which you have marked with a red circle. Dr. Barcer. That is correct. These are marked here and listed in us table. Mr. Firuian. As I take it, there are possibly four matches in that “ea. You have ruled out the one from the knoll at the target No. The remaining four, again, are fired from the same place, the uy difference being that two of them are with the muzzle with- awn and two of them are with the muzzle at the plane of the ndow. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. ‘Mr. Firutan. So, again, then we are not really talking about a {ferent variety of shot impulses on the original tape. These are ot impulses you put on the test tape because you fired several nes, isn’t that correct? Dr. Barcer. That is correct. Mr. Firnian. And the reason they show up at that time frame atch would be because on the original tape that is when the cond shot was fired. Is that correct? 86 Dr. BARGER. That is very close to correct. These indicate where on the original tape is the pattern of impulses that looks like the test shots. Mr. Firuian. Now you are aware that the FBI test firing by the expert indicated you couldn’t fire the Mannlicher-Carcano more rapidly than 2.25 or 2.30 seconds. That much time had to separate shots. You are aware of that testimony in the Warren Commission. Dr. Barcer. As it turns out—I am aware of that and was. How- ever, I had no reason to put high reliability on that, and I could not allow that to influence the interpretation of the results. Mr. Frraran. You are saying—with your careful scientific analy- sis of this tape—saying the first two shots are 1.6 seconds apart; is that correct? Dr. Barcer. Yes; I felt confident in ruling this one out, because I was certain there was no motorcycle going 55 miles an hour. On the other hand, the fact that all of these correlations came up 1.6 seconds later is the way the test developed, and that is the result that was obtained. Mr. FiruiAn. I want to make sure I also understand, when you look down in that lower left-hand corner, near the red circle, you have two dots below and two dots roughly above the imagined track of the motorcycle, but, again, during the same time frame— from here it looks like that might not be the case—with the upper right-hand matchup in that group of four; is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Would you repeat that again? Mr. Firuian. In the vicinity of the red circle for shot No. 2—— Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Firuian [continuing]. Two shots just below represent th same time frame. Dr. BARGER. Exactly. Mr. FITHIAN. You had to space it that way. Dr. BARGER. That was artistic license; that is right. Mr. Firuian. Now, if my eyes do not deceive me, the one immedi ately above that is also on exactly the same time frame, that 1.6. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. FirH1an. The fourth shot up and to the right, does that no represent a different time frame? Dr. BARGER. This is the fourth detection, not the fourth shot Mr. FirH1An. I am sorry. The fourth detection. Dr. BARGER. Of the four we have discussed so far. Yes. That one is this one. In other words, four of the matches 1 this segment of the tape which I have listed here as occurring a this time, were one, two, three, four, those all match at exactly th same place in the tape. Mr. FirHian. And you eliminated the highest, the one clear up a the top next to the limousine, because that would make the motor cycle going 100 miles an hour? _Dr. Barcer. Yes. For a reason wholly unrelated to the evalua tion of the test. [ don’t know whether there is another question remaining. Mr. Firnian. I am wondering if any of the rest of those fou down there are clearly false alarms. pos BarGER. I don’t have any good indication that any of the 87 Mr. Firutan. If I am not mistaken, the upper right-hand one of iose four is beyond the 2-second time limit on your linear scale at ie bottom; is that correct? Dr. BarGceEr. That is correct. This particular match occurred at a fferent time than the other four. This one occurred at a slightly ter time. It achieved a rather high value above the threshold of e cross-correlation coefficient, but it did it in a way that was ilike any of the other 14. The early echoes in that particular pattern didn’t match with tything. It was all the later ones that matched. Therefore, the ‘st match that was actually achieved in the echo pattern did not rrespond with the leading edge of the echo pattern. In a sense, it conceivable the leading that edge of the echo pattern could have en obliterated at that time by transmission from another motor- cle, or whatever. That would explain why its leading edge was off d its timing was bad. I included it in the results of the tests cause objectively it had, in fact, exceeded the threshold of 0.6. Mr. Firn1an. Now, move to the third, which would be your green ot, or green matchup. That is the one that is 5.9 seconds later, or 1atever the time is Mr. Cornwell. Now, am I not correct in visualizing that all three of those atchups are exactly on the same time frame? Dr. BarGeEr. That is correct. All three of those occur at the same ae, 145.15 seconds after the microphone button is stuck. Mr. Firutan. So am I correct in assuming that if we are to card that shot altogether or that echo pattern altogether, we ve to discard all three of those despite the fact that you have ‘ee matchups on exactly the same time frame? Jr. BARGER. I am not sure I understood that. Mr. FITHIAN. Vertically. In the third verticle. Jr. BARGER. These three?: Mr. Firnian. Yes. Those matchups occur from some kind of an pulse that goes at exactly that time; is that correct? Jr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Firnian. So if we are to return to the three-shot theory, ich has been existing for 15 years, we must reject all three of ise as being false alarms of some sort; is that correct? Jr. Barcer. No; that is not correct. Or if it is true, I don’t know Mr. FirHian. If there are only three shot impulses on that tape got from the Dallas police force, and we all agree one of them lown in that blue circle and that caused all those matchups as _l, and we agree there are three matchups that are very close he red circle for No. 2, that accounts for two shots. Ir. BARGER. Yes. 4r. Firutan. Then if we are going to accept the final series as head shot—that is the one you have in black clear up the sar scale—if we are to reject an intervening shot, whatever the nber is, we have to say that all of the matchups on that time » are false alarms. ‘r. Barcer. Yes, that is correct. If that were to be rejected for “reason, then all of those at that time would have been false rms, that is correct. 88 Mr. Firuian. You said you didn’t prove we had four shots and | was trying to eliminate one. There are four time line groupings that indicate four shots, so we have to do something to eliminate one of the sets of impulses which are line up on that vertical. Am ] on the right line? Dr. BarGcer. If there were in fact three, it would be necessary tc identify either this one or both of these, or four of these, or three o1 those as false alarms. There are other possibilities. Because 0! sound we have found no evidence of more than four, but we have found there may be four and if there are they occurred with this time sequence. Mr. Firutan. Congressman Edgar calls my attention to the faci that in the third sequence, the one we just referred to now, the green sequence, that one of those is from a shot fired at target No Dr. BARGER. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Firuian. If we match up the Zapruder film, it seems rather unlikely since the limousine is on down the way a little furthe than that. Dr. BarGcer. The target location is one target location removed but that is not a very large difference. Mr. FrruiAn. I think that is all the questions I have on tha particular chart. Did you and your team reconstruct for the committee the sounc of the gunshots as they would have been heard if in fact we are t accept this final chart with four impulses? Do we have a sound re creation of that? Dr. BarGcer. Mr. Robinson has prepared a tape spliced up of th four test shots that were representative of the four possible loca tions where there might have been shots and I believe he is pre pared to play that. Mr. Firutan. If the Chair would permit, I would like to have i played. Chairman STOKES. You may proceed. Mr. CorNweELu. Mr. Chairman, we might identify it for th record as a tape recording, JFK exhibit F-353 and we would like t have it admitted into evidence. Chairman SToxeEs. It will be so identified and so ordered. [Tape recording played for the committee. ] [JFK exhibit F-353 is retained in committee files.] Dr. BarceEr. I think it would be appropriate for me to tell yo where those sounds are recorded. That was microphone 5. If we can see the exhibit that has th map of Dealey Plaza—— Mr. Firutan. I believe it is JFK exhibit F-337. I have one | question on that any way. Dr. BARGER. What you just heard were the sounds picked up this microphone of shots fired from here, the first two; one sh ined fired from here, followed half a second later by one shot fro there. Mr. FirHian. Could you point to the place on the street whe the motorcycle would have been located when the third of tho impulses or shots were recorded? 89 Dr. BARGER. Yes. The estimate of the motorcycle position that we hieved by this test placed it 120 feet behind the Presidential 10usine. Given that the Presidential limousine was just short of ime 313 at the time of the fourth shot, the position of the torcycle was then 120 feet behind it at this position. in fact that green dot represented the estimated position of the ytorcycle at the time of that third impulse that we detected that ght be the knoll shot, in fact. The black dot here represents the sition of the motorcycle where it would have been at the time of 2 fourth impulse that we identified as a possible shot. Mr. Firn1an. Thank you. I have one last question having to do th the authenticity of the tape itself that you worked with. I am re that many will want to know whether or not there is internal idence or otherwise that can attest to the fact that the tape ich you were working with—that is, the original tape you were rking with—was indeed a tape of the shootings in Dealey Plaza November 22, 1968. What information can you shed as to your st judgment as to which tape you were working with? Dr. BARGER. In the first place, the tapes that we received from > committee staff were represented as being that. However, at a ferent time we received a Dictabelt, which is a plastic continu- s blue colored belt that was marked as “Being recorded from annel 1” in a white marking pencil. Shannel 1 of the Dallas police tape on November 22, 1963. We tained a rebuilt Dictabelt recorder, newly rebuilt, and we played at Dictabelt and made our own magnetic recording of the Dicta- it. We then analyzed this middle segment around 12:30 of that ording that we had made from the Dictabelt on the same com- ter and in the same way that we had the first one and had it nt out a record, a wave form record. We compared the two and ind them to be identical in virtually every detail. Mr. FirHian. And, the appearance of the Dictabelt, was there ything there that would indicate anything to you? Jr. BARGER. It had the appearance of having been played a great al and being quite old. The margins of the belt were cracked and was necessary to tape them together to prevent further deterio- ion in the plane. Mr. FirH1an. Are you satisfied from a scientific analysis and in tt the way you have described it carefully this morning, that this rticular recording passed all of your six screening tests; that you eee working with a recording of Dealey Plaza, November Jr. BARGER. Yes. The likelihood that the shape of the patterns it we achieved correlations on having come from some other ice, seems extremely remote to us. Mr. Firu1an. I would ask staff counsel Cornwell whether or not have additional information on the chain of custody. Mr. CoRNWELL. We do have additional information, Congress- m. We had obtained the tape recording and Dictabelt originally m Mr. Paul McCaghren, who is now a retired member of the llas Police Department. We know the details of the story that received at the time we got the tape from Mr. McCarran. He is re today. I can either summarize for you the information he has 90 provided, or he is available and if the committee so desires, h could testify as to those facts himself, at your convenience. Mr. Frruian. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to interrupt th committee’s questioning of the witness now on the stand, but would ask that immediately upon conclusion of this we bring th witness forward who can attest and I think probably very briefly but certainly as to the chain of custody. I think it is very importan that we do this. Chairman Stokes. The Chair will be glad to entertain that. Mr. Frruian. Mr. Barger, I certainly want to thank you for you answers and your insight and I would appreciate your final collet tive judgment as to whether there are three or four impulses 01 that tape that could represent gunshots? . Dr. BARGER. We have endeavored, Mr. Fithian, to make as poy erful a detection test as we could devise and to lower the accept ance threshold of those matches that passed the threshold so tha all likely correct detections would emerge. In so doing, we foun that the process had sufficient noise in it that some of the detec tions that passed our threshold are false alarms. We believe that the chances are very high that we have in fac located the motorcycle and, of course, that was done by matchin sounds of gunfire. Therefore, to believe the probability that ther were at least two shots is very high because it would take at leas two to establish that pattern on the chart. You can’t draw straight line through one point. The indication is that there are probably somewhere betwee three, maybe six additional false alarms that we cannot on our OW information correctly identify as false alarms. Therefore, we thin each of the detections that we have made is about equally likelyt be a false alarm. As there is only one detection remaining for the third shot— don’t remember what color it was, but it was the knoll shot, it about equally likely that it is a false alarm. Therefore, it is abo equally likely that there were three shots. However, there is a equal likelihood that there were four, and if there were, we ha determined the time at which they occurred and, we also believ the location from which they came. Mr. Firntan. If there were four locations from which they h come, it would have been where? Dr. BARGER. They would have been those indicated in the ch that was up there a little while ago. At the first time, all of the detections that were not clearly fal alarms were fired from the Book Depository. At the second tim 1.6 seconds later, likewise those that have not been identified clearly false alarms are from the depository. At the third time, the one that is not disqualified by inapprop ate motion of the motorcycle is from the knoll. At the last tim half a second later, those two nondisqualified detections are bo from the Book Depository. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The committee will now proceed on the 5-minute rule. ahostan, I am going to ask that you replay the tape that y played a few moments ago. Prior to playing the tape, I am going } 91 k you to tell us what we ought to listen for and ask you further a us precisely what we should conclude from what we have ard. Dr. Barcer. I wouldn’t presume, Chairman Stokes, to tell you 1at you should conclude from anything. Chairman Stokes. What do you conclude from what you hear as _acoustical expert and as a scientist? Dr. BARGER. You are asking me my opinion of the sound of those ots now before they are played a second time? Chairman STOKEs. Yes. Dr. BarGeEr. I just heard them for the first time in that order. Of arse, | heard them singly several Sundays ago in Dallas. { really think my opinion about them is of no particular value. ofessor Green, who will follow me, is an expert on how sounds ect people. . am more expert in how sounds affect microphones. I must Say, en I just heard them it sounded like test shots that I heard eral Sundays ago. Why don’t we hear them again? shairman Stokes. May we have the tape played again, please? Tape replayed. ] Jr. Barcer. Let me add all of the hissing noise you hear is sessary to make the impulsive sounds sufficiently audible be- ise they are so brief that they have to be loud in order to be arly heard. shairman SToKEs. Now, you are in a better position to respond to original question. Jr. BARGER. I understand the question is, what do I think those ind like, is that correct? thairman SToKEs. In order to help me, when I listen to that tape t I come to a conclusion from what I appear to be hearing? Jr. BarGER. I think not. The microphone is a device that accepts nds from all directions with equal facility, whereas the human is not. The human can make a judgment about the directions m which the sounds arrive and this was not a stereo recording we haven’t been able to replicate the directionality of the sounds l echoes, and therefore I just don’t believe I can reach a mean- ful conclusion about how those sounds should be interpreted. ‘hairman Stokes. I am rather concerned about the 9-foot uncer- aty which you ascribe to the location of the motorcycle. I believe tis your testimony, is that right? ir. BARGER. That is correct. - ‘hairman Stokes. In order to reduce or lessen the uncertainty n reference to the placement of the motorcycles, can you tell me what degree you have studied the Zapruder film or any other is or to what degree you have studied photographs in order to and reduce the uncertainty? vr. Barcer. I think the only way that photographs would be oful would be to show where the motorcycle in fact was. I know 0 such photographs at the time of the shooting. hairman Stokes. What I have in mind, Doctor, is with refer- 2 to the placement of the motorcycle because that is where the ertainty comes. That is precisely where the motorcycle was in ‘ley Plaza at the time each of the shots were fired, is that rect, and that is where the uncertainty comes in? 92 Dr. BarcER. That is where some of the uncertainty comes frot Chairman Strokes. You make an allowance of something like feet in terms of the uncertainty, is that right? Dr. BARGER. We made an allowance in the correlation procedu to accept some uncertainty in the microphone location. Chairman Sroxes. All I am attempting to ascertain from you something to reduce or lessen that uncertainty as much as scientifically possible. To what degree did you study any available photographs or filr in order to try and make a more accurate placement of the motc cycle? Ans BARGER. Well, before we conducted the detection experimer we had absolutely no idea which motorcycle it was. We could lo at motorcycles a lot and it wouldn’t tell us anything. After we did the detection experiment and then had the positi of the motorcycle revealed to us, we found, in fact, that it appear to be about 120 feet behind the limousine. We looked at the phot graphs available to us, to see if there were any photographs tak at the time of the shooting of that part of the motorcade about 1 feet back, and we found none. We have seen some photograp taken less than 1 minute before the shooting, and there are mot cycles back there, but there is so much time elapsed between tha peas and the time of the shooting, it wouldn’t help us within eet. Chairman Stokes. My time has expired. The Chair recogniz the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. | Mr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Doctor think you are a very patient man to go through all of this in t methodical detail as you have. I have a couple questions as a nonscience layman. I would like know what is your definition of a false alarm. Dr. BarGER. A false alarm is the correct description in detecti theory for an indication from your test that an event occur when in fact it did not occur. Our test, which was a correlati detection test was set up to give an indication that an event curred whenever the correlation coefficient exceeded 0.6. Ev time that happens, there are two possible outcomes. One is, have got the indication of the gunfire event when, in fact, th was a gunfire event at that time—let’s call it a detection. other possible outcome is there was not, in fact, a gunfire event that time. That is called a false alarm. In other words, it is error, a mistake. Mr. Devine. Well, it either happened or it didn’t happen suspect, when we are talking about either sound waves or whate detection you are talking about. I was under the impression might be a convenient way to eliminate the unexplainable. Dr. BARGER. Unfortunately, there is no way to eliminate unexplainable that I can explain. False alarms don’t have to hard to find. Some of our identifications of false alarm are easy, that they would require the motorcycle to fly all over the place. the other hand, a false alarm can mimic a correct detection, an it mimics it well, it is hard to identify as a false alarm. In fac present the results of our test in this way, with the hope tha will simplify the job, in the face of uncertainty, of the commit 93 consider other testimony that potentially verifies or refutes these findings. Mr. Devine. I believe you said in your summary by your tests you have located at least two shots that were fired that were not false, and that there was an equal likelihood that there was a third or fourth shot. I mean it is likely that there was or wasn’t a third and or fourth shot. Now, in listening to the recording which I have had an opportrnity like all others here to have heard just twice it seemed to me as one who was in the past a fire-arms expert, having spent a lot of time on the range and recognizing rifle fire, my personal interpretation based on that tape that I heard that the first, the second and the fourth noises sounded to me quite a bit like a rifle shot, the third noise that immediately preceded the fourth sounding like possibly something else. I am not that sure, and I haven’t had enough time to listen and study, but it brings me back to what you said earlier—I think it was brought out in Mr. Fithian’s questioning that Secretary Connally couldn’t possibly have heard the shot that hit JFK’s head before the sound of impact when the bullet hit the head. To the contrary, he may have heard the head explosion before he heard the shot that did it. Isn’t that likely due to his immediate proximity to the President, and the distance from which the shot was fired, the muzzle velocity, and so forth. Isn’t it possible that he could have heard that head explosion prior to the sound of the shot that caused it? Dr. Barcer. If he heard the impact on the head, he would have had to hear it first. Mr. Devine. I don’t know if you were here when he testified. But, he startled the room by clapping his hands on the sound that he thought was the head hit. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PreYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up the comment of Mr. Devine about the sound of the shot hitting the President’s head, that Mr. Fithian asked you about, one thing I would like to get the record clear on: I think you stated you had no opinion as to how a bullet would sound hitting the President’s head, but can you Say one way or the other that it - Aas not be nearly as loud a sound as the sound of a rifle shot iring? Dr. Barcer. I have here the sound of rifle shots. I haven’t heard anything approximating that other event, and, therefore, what I am giving you is not an opinion based on scientific evidence; it is an off-the-wall guess. I would imagine that the sound of an impact of that sort would 10t be as loud as a rifle shot. Mr. Preyer. What I am getting at is, the last two patterns on the ape, the possible third and fourth shots could not possibly be (1) he rifle firing, and (2) the head exploding. Dr. BarGcer. Those events did not occur in that order; that is ‘orrect. Mr. Preyer. In other words, nothing on the tape could possibly ’e an indication of the headshot sound? 41-3871 O- 79-7 Vol. 2 94 Dr. Barcer. You could not interpret those sounds in that way; that is correct. Mr. Preyer. We might have some confusion on that. You mentioned at the end of your statement to Mr. Devine that the committee should view this as evidence, as I understood you to say, which potentially requires verification. Something to that effect. Earlier my notes indicated you said something like this, “Since there are false alarms, we must examine the other evidence to see whether this corroborates it or not.” My question is, did you regard the evidence of your experiments here as what we would call in the law corroborating evidence only or would you consider it as direct primary evidence? In other words, you seem to be saying that this is not like an X ray, exactly, where you can see it and know it as a physical reality and a fact. But, that this is subject to errors, and subject to false alarms and that it should be used to corroborate other evidence which should not be used in itself to prove the truth of the state- ment it makes. Dr. BarceEr. I am not certain of the question, but I think you are observing that I said that the potential of the evidence that we are presenting, the test results that we are presenting, is as a potential corroborating force toward other evidence. It is also, of course, and if I didn’t say this, I should have, a potential discrediting force when compared to other evidence. Is that what I didn’t say that you think I should have? Mr. PreYER. Well, I guess I am asking you how far the acoustic science has developed and the strength of the evidence of your test. That is, is it like a fingerprint that if it says one thing we know it is true and we disbelieve any contradictory evidence or is it a state that is still partly art and part science and that we should treat its results cautiously. Dr. BARGER. The results of the test that I presented are—I have presented as objectively as I can—I indicate that it seems quit important that we can identify here and I have some of thes detections that we achieved we can properly identify them as fals alarms. I believe that the remaining ten or so are each abou equally likely to be false alarms in themselves and I am require to say that by the uncertainty in the results and I am not sure tha I am answering any question any more, and would you kindly hel me by reminding—— Mr. Preyer. I think you have been conscientiously objective i understating rather than overstating. To put it in laymen terms. are you saying that it is about a 50-50 chance that there was third and fourth shot? Dr. Barcer. It comes down to that because the third shot indicat ed in green is supported by only one detection. Since I don’t feel can put more confidence in any single detection than I have indi cated, the possibility of the third impulse pattern actually repr senting a shot is about even. Therefore, the question of four 0 hres depends on that one detection. It comes down to what yo Chairman Strokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Th gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. 95 Mr. Dopp. I think you may have just answered my question, Doctor, in your answer to Judge Preyer’s last question to you. But, for the purpose of clarity, you have obviously made a judgment here with regard to the probabilities of certain indications on the spectrograph being what would appear to be gunshots. Could you state for us what the probabilities are as for the first, second, third, and fourth sounds being gunshots? Dr. BarGeEr. Yes, I will attempt that. Altogether I said the pat- tern of the detections that we achieved were tested statistically and found to be such that they would have arisen by chance only 5 percent of the time. So I think therefore the probability that we have found at least two is very high. Mr. Dopp. What would you mean by very high? What are you talking about? Dr. Barcer. I think I just said I meant 95 percent. The necessity that others be accepted—— Mr. Dopp. Would you try to speak into the microphone, Doctor? Dr. BARGER. The requirement that a third one be accepted would be dependent on either of two of the detections standing up in the fourth area or three standing up in the first area, for example. Those are reasonably likely in the first case, less so in the fourth case because it has only two. An estimate on my part to state the probabilities, which you have asked about—and this is hard to do because I don’t want to confuse the results of the tests as they stand. The probability that there are two that we have detected is 95 percent. The probability there are three that we have detected correctly is probably somewhere between 60 or 70 percent; the probability that there are four is lower than that, around 50 per- cent. Mr. Dopp. Thank you. Could you indicate for me what effect the location of the targets has on the waveforms produced by rifle fire? Looking at JFK F-367, there are target locations that seem to change and I was trying to follow you as you were trying to identify false alarms and what you think may not be false alarms and correlating those to target locations. Is there a significant difference and, if so, in the third area—I guess that is green over there—could you indicate to me what the target location differences would mean there? _ Dr. Barcer. I am not sure I understand that question. Mr. Dopp. Let me first of all ask you, does it make a difference? Dr. Barcer. What target gave the correlation? Mr. Dopp. Target location. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Dopp. How about the waveform produced by rifle fire? Dr. Barcer. Yes. The exact location of the target has a different 2ffect on the echo pattern depending on the location of the rifle, che target and the microphone. If the rifle is pointing approximately 90° or so away from the lirection between the rifle and the microphone, then the location of the target has very little effect because the shock wave radiated Xy the bullet which is dependent on which way the gun is firing, 1ever reaches the microphone anyway. 96 However, if the target is in such a location that the shot passes near to the microphone on its way to the target, then a change in the target location is important because in that case the sound of the shockwave is in fact a part of the pattern. Mr. Dopp. Looking at the 145.15 second block—that is the green block—— Dr. Barcer. That is correct. That is green. Mr. Dopp. We have got two separate target locations there. Do you have that before you? Can you see that? The first one as I can see it is the knoll; the second one is the School Book Depository, and the target location is 2. The third is Texas School Book Depository and that is in the first three, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. Dopp. Now, which of those did you exclude as a false alarm? Dr. BARGER. The last two were excluded as a false alarm because they were detections made in microphones 7 and 8, which are about 60 feet away from microphone 4 where the other detection was made. It would have been necessary for the motorcycle to be speeding up in order to achieve that position in the time allowed and the sound of the motorcycle was in fact diminished all throughout that time. Mr. Dopp. I am sorry to ask you to repeat. If you accept the existence of a fourth shot occurring there in the black figures, then the third shot you would have to accept as the rightful location being on the grassy knoll? Dr. BarGER. Well, under the presumption that you couldn’t fire from the same place within a half second, that would be true. I think that is what you mean. Mr. Dopp. Thank you very much. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. McKinney. As I listen to your reenactment of the tape, there is a distinct difference between the third shot fired—not just a time difference, but a sound difference—between the third shot fired and the first, second and fourth. Is my impression correct? Dr. BarGer. It does sound different to me, yes. Mr. McKinney. It does sound differently to you? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. McKinney. Since that shot sounds differently and also is much closer to any other shot in time—at least from the reenact- ment—how can you be sure that particular shot is not a false alarm? In other words, you have two shots, at least to my ear—and I know my ear is not very accurate—that sounded alike in the beginning and then you have a third shot followed almost immedi- ately by another one in the reenactment. The third shot sounds quite differently. What is it about that particular shot that had you include it, in other words might have told you that it wasn’t a false alarm or something else? Dr. Barcer. Nothing has told me it is not a false alarm. The features of that shot that caused it to have been detected in the first place was simply that the pattern generated by it at that 97 microphone matched sufficiently well with the noise on the tape at that time that it was accepted as a possible detection. I don’t know whether it is a false alarm or not. Mr. McKinney. So then could I assume that the likelihood that if any of the four shots that we heard were false alarms, that you could presume more strongly that it is third one? Dr. Barcer. I think you are looking for an indication of the power of the test to find a shot, given that one may be quite different than another, and would the different one be easier to find. Is that the question, or am I completely off? Mr. McKinney. I guess what I am really saying is that we seem to have three occurrences that are pretty similar—one, two and four. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. McKinney. And we have a third that looks differently, and sounds differently. I was just questioning as to whether or not that was the one that you could presume was most likely to have perhaps been something else, or perhaps been another occurren ce, or backfire, or something. Dr. Barcerr. I don’t have the information to answer that. I don’t know about other occurrences. Mr. McKinney. Neither do I. Dr. Barcer. But I do know about test shots fired in Dallas. All I can say is that particular sound on the tape sounded sufficien tly like one of the test shots in Dallas to have scored above the threshold. Mr. McKinney. But then if we were to accept that third shot as we heard it in the reproduction as a shot, it would have had to have come from the grassy knoll? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. If it occurred, that is where it came from. Mr. McKinney. Not to get back into the game of probabilities, which we already played down the line, would you conside r—is your probability on the third shot the lowest of the group? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. McKinney. Thank you very much. Chairman Stoxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question to you and to the staff at this point. Dr. Barger mentioned earlier, when you questioned him, that they conducted an analysis of the police tape, and the tape that was done in Dallas with the experiment. Just which tape did we hear a few minutes ago? Dr. BarGeEr. Was that my question? Mr. Forp. I was asking—maybe the staff. Yes, I will raise the question to you. Dr. BARGER. What you were hearing were the sounds of four of the test shots recorded in Dallas 3 weeks ago, or whenever. Mr. Forp. The tape that we heard a few minutes ago—— Dr. Barcer. Yes, was prepared by splicing together four of the shots that were recorded during the reconstruction. 98 Mr. Forp. So we are not talking about the tape from the police : motorcycle. Dr. BarGer. Well, we were not listening to it; that is correct. Mr. Forp. I was under the impression that we were listening to the tape from the police motorcycle of 1963, but we were not. Dr. BarcER. No, sir. If it had been that distinct, we would have followed an entirely different detection scheme that would have been much easier to explain. Mr. Forp. Let me ask you another question. From what you said earlier, are you able to distinguish from which directions the shots came? I recall your earlier testimony regarding three shots and a possible fourth shot, and different directions. Are you able to pinpoint that and, at the same time, unable to determine if there were three or four shots fired? Dr. BarGcer. Well, we can only imply the direction of the shot by the location of the target and the gun for the test shot that matched. In other words, each time we get a match between the noises, the impulsive noises on the Dallas police tape made during the assassination, and each time one of those noises correlates or matches with one of the echo patterns, we can only infer what the direction of the shot was by knowing what it was during that test shot. Otherwise—that is the procedure. Mr. Forp. All right. I was reading here that the team of scien- tists headed by you concluded that a reliable and credible conclu- sion could be determined if they could test and analyze in three crucial areas. When you appeared before this committee, however, you testified that you could not be sure whether there were three or four shots fired on November 22, 1968. So, we are not able to pinpoint that at this time; is that correct? Dr. Barcer. The results of the tests are inconclusive to the degree that I described them, I believe, when I was answering Mr. Dodd’s question, or Congressman Preyer—I am not sure whose question it was. There is uncertainty in the results, as I described it. Mr. Forp. I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that I am a little bit confused, and I would like to try to clarify some of what I have heard throughout today. Your testimony has been detailed. Let me just — ask you this question. Before you went to Dallas, before you went to Dallas to do the experimental test, you were more sure, I believe, of four impulses which you found on the original tape. That was one of the reasons why you came back to the committee to suggest that the test firings be held. It seems to me that after the Dallas trip you seemed less certain of the four-shot indications that you received though the computer- ized acoustics. Why is that? Dr. BARGER. Because the tests that I had performed at the time that I spoke to the committee previously were the screening tests oo: that I described today. These are very weak tests. It is not particu- larly difficult to pass them. You recall they had to occur at the right time of day, they had to have the total timespan of 5 seconds or more, they had to have the right kind of distorted waveforms. There were six in total. These were not very stringent tests. There were, in fact, four patterns, or four segments of the tape that had impulses on them that passed these weak, nonstringent tests. The opinion that I intended to convey at that time was that I could not rule out that the impulsive events in these segments of the tape were in fact gunfire because they had passed those six screening tests. On the other hand, I said there was no way I could be sure that they were because the data were so noisy and that there was no way I could be sure, unless I could find out what echo patterns were in fact generated by gunfire in Dallas. I described that as a test that was the best one that we could conceive to determine whether those impulse patterns were in fact shots or not. Mr. Epaar. As I remember it, you had a long roll of paper that you rolled out across the table for us. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Epcar. And you were able to indicate four patterns of blips on your computerized paper that indicated something occurred in those four timeframes. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. Epcar. Do the four timeframes that are on the weak evi- dence—that is, the pre-Dallas evidence—correspond to the timing, the minutes and seconds timing, that is listed alongside the four possible shots that you indicate in today’s testimony? Dr. BARGER. No. Of the four impulse patterns that I had original- ly described, the first three proved to give us detections in this matching test that we performed. The fourth did not. However, we got two in the third that I showed you that time. In other words, my indication of the general areas that might contain matches with gunfire sounds were approximately correct, but not in detail. Mr. Epcar. Approximately correct, but not in detail. Was there one of those weak impulse areas that, after going to Dallas, you can discount as being a gunshot? Dr. Barcer. Well, yes, I think I understand that question. I showed four segments of the tape that had patterns that I thought might be gunfire, because they passed these six screening tests, and the last of those four did not subsequently prove to contain any. Mr. Epcar. So that it was the third tentative weak gunshot that has now been divided into two possible gunshots? Dr. Barcer. That is correct. Mr. Epcar. And you say it is a 50-50 chance that the fourth gunshot described up here is just a 50-50 chance; is that correct? Dr. Barcer. That is correct. I have insufficient evidence to state anything stronger or weaker than that. Mr. Encar. Is there any test that we could make that could reduce the uncertainty? 100 Dr. BARGER. Congressman, the answer to that literally is yes. Now that the position of the motorcycle has been fixed with some confidence one would not bother with microphones all over other parts of Dealey Plaza, for example. However, I believe that the advantages to be gained from rectify- ing that problem are very marginal, and I doubt if they could reasonably be expected to improve the level of uncertainty in the test. Mr. Epaar. When I go home to explain what I have heard today to my 11-year-old son, who is in the seventh grade, what do I tell him? Dr. Barcer. How much time do you have? [Laughter. ] Mr. Epaar. I have all of the evening dinner to explain to him what I heard. I am just trying to get it into a language that I can communicate with him. Dr. BarGcER. That is a good question. I think the answer would go something like this. There was, by a considerable measure of chance, a motorcycle in the motorcade with its radio in an operating condition, but with the motorcycle policeman not speaking into it. . The motorcycle was just moving. Over that radio were heard a series of sounds, including the motorcycle, including other radios, and including the possibility of the sounds of the assassination of the President. What you were observing today was the description of a test that was made on that tape to see if it was statistically likely to have contained the sounds of gunfire. You found out that it was possible from this test to locate the position of the motorcycle with a good deal of confidence 15 years later. It turned out that the motorcycle was about 10 feet short of the corner, at the approximate time of the first gunfire, when the motorcycle noise in fact was observed then to abate, and the man slowed down. You found also that motorcycle was in a position, found to be in a position, when the first shot was heard, that corresponded to the. limousine being in the position where it was at approximately the time of the first shot. For these reasons and others that I have described, there is good confidence that the motorcycle has been found. Therefore, good confidence that some of the shots have been correctly detected. There is less confidence in questions of increasing detail, and I hope he enjoys the story. (Laughter. ] Chairman Strokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Epcar. Thank you. Chairman Stokes. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. I have been following the testimony reasonably closely, but I am somewhat perplexed. You actually caused these shots to be fired in the same environ- ment as the other shots were fired, with the same echoes and refractions and reflections and whatnot. So, you have a known— namely, your own—recording of what you knew were shots. ow, were you able then, by comparing that to your oscillo- graphic pictures of what was on that tape, to say what was on that tape were or were not shots? 101 Dr. BARGER. Was able to—— Mr. SAWYER [continuing]. Determine whether what was on that motorcycle tape originally were or were not shots, these disturbances? Dr. BARGER. We were able to determine that with considerable uncertainty that I have described. Mr. SAwyerR. You were not, then, able to determine at least to the point of forming a scientific opinion that those were shots? Dr. BarGer. It is my judgment, our judgment, the judgment of the team that did this study, that we have detected with about 95 percent likelihood, at least two of them, and on down the scale that I described for Congressman Dodd or Preyer—I still can’t remem- ber which. Mr. Sawyer. You have described now a number of times these probabilities. But let me ask you this. I am not an expert, and no one else on this panel to my knowl- edge is, certainly in this type of thing. You have had a chance now to conduct the test, to examine the tape, to examine the results. Do you have an opinion yourself, aside from any other evidence, based just on your tests of this tape, do you have an opinion as to whether there were three or four shots fired? Dr. Barcer. I have gone to some pains to present my opinion. I believe that I have presented the results of this test as clearly as I know how. Mr. Sawyer. I understand all that, but now you have explained the pros and cons of the test. But laying aside any other evidence, you have now conducted the tests, and you have looked at the oscillograph of this motorcycle tape. Now, do you as a professional in this area have an opinion as to whether or not there were three or four shots fired? Dr. BarceEr. Congressman, I can’t add any information by saying I think there are three or four. I believe the results of the test do not allow me to state with greater certainty than I have, the answer to that question. Mr. Sawyer. Well, then all I can say is I would hate to civilly sue anybody, let alone prosecute anybody, on this kind of evidence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Doctor, let me go back for a moment and try and clarify something. It appears to me that in answering both Mr. Dodd and Mr. Sawyer, when you make reference to the probabilities, that you group the four shots in terms of the probabilities. When you say that two of the shots, the probabilities are 95 percent; three, the probability is 60 to 70 percent; and that the fourth is approximate- ly 50 percent. Would you please individualize for us, and tell us which are the two where the probabilities are 95 percent, which is the one which is approximately 60 to 70 percent, and which is the one that is 50 percent. Dr. BARGER. Congressman Sawyer isn’t going to like this answer, out the probabilities that I gave you are based on not distinguish- ing which three, which two. In other words, the high confidence 102 ns, that we have is based on the high degree of order in the detectio and that can be establis hed by two, any two. Mr. Sawyer. Let me say I anticipated the answer, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Barcer. If I might indicate possible mitigating circumstances for Congressman Sawyer, I do believe that even with this level of uncertainty, it is quite important to know when they occurred, if they did. I can see that Congressman Sawyer is not convinced of that. Chairman Sroxes. Let me ask you this. I would assume, then, from your former answer, that you are unable to identify what shot or impulses represented the grassy knoll shot or impulse? Dr. BarGER. I think not. I don’t believe that is a correct interpre- tation of the results. If the shot at that time, 742 seconds, indicated in green, stands up, then it was from the grassy knoll—it would not have been from the Depository. Chairman Strokes. Now, I understand from your previous testi- mony that the shot which you simulated in Dealey Plaza from the grassy knoll was with a .32 revolver, or a .38? | Dr. Barcer. Well, the one with a pistol, yes. There was also a rifle fired from there. Chairman Strokes. Simultaneously, or separately? Dr. Barcer. No, separately. The tests included separate and distinct shots from rifles and from pistols, from the knoll. Chairman Strokes. Well, with reference to the pistol, what caliber was that? Dr. BARGER. .38. Chairman Stokes. .38. And that is a subsonic or supersonic type of sound that emanates? Dr. Barcer. The particular charge in the bullet used made it a subsonic projectile. Chairman Stokes. The composition of the bullet gave you a supersonic result. Dr. BarGceEr. I am sorry. Yes, we were firing a subsonic projectile from that pistol. Chairman SToKEs. All right. Now, is there a different type of acoustical representation that you will get depending upon whether it is subsonic or supersonic! Dr. BarGEr. Yes, there is. That is why we also fired a rifle fro the knoll because it has a supersonic projectile. _ Chairman Sroxess. I see. So that in terms of the simulation, an in the absence of any real knowledge as to whether a subsonic 0 supersonic type of firing came from the grassy knoll, you ar unable, with any real degree of certainty, of being able to say tha is in effect a real simulation, aren’t you? Dr. Barcenr. If that one should stand up, that shot from the knol matched with a rifle shot, and not a pistol shot. The mate achieved with the pistol shot was very poor. Therefore, it is possible with confidence to distinguish on tha point, and it would appear that there was not a subsonic projectil fired from the knoll. Chairman Stokes. I just have one further question. With reference to attempting to simulate the scene as you did, what degree did the lack of a crowd such as there existed on tha particular day in 1963 affect your simulation? 103 Dr. Barcer. Well, it affected it very little because the sounds that are scattered from a person are of the sort that I described earlier today, as scattered sounds. This is the weakest form of redirecting the sound from a source and into a receiver. Our thresholding procedure, which eliminated all of the weak sounds, both in the test pattern and in the police tape, was de- signed to eliminate the contribution of weak echoes such as those due to the presence of people. Chairman SToKEs. I see. My time has expired. Other members seeking recognition? The Chair recognizes counsel, Gary Cornwell. Mr. CORNWELL. We have to leave you in a few moments, I am sure, Dr. Barger. We want to take away from your presentation whatever we can of a constructive nature. You made a statement informally to me last evening which I think you mentioned previously in your testimony, but neverthe- less, it might merit further explanation for just a moment. That, as I recall, was to the effect that a scientist such as yourself can basically give us the data, and can to a limited degree provide us some insights about the probabilities of any one aspect of the data occurring by random chance, but that once you present us with the data, it is the committee’s problem then to decide how to interpret it in the end. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. From your point of view, then, all you can do to help us unscramble the chart is to tell us what a mechanical, numerical calculation of some type, how it comes out, with respect to the random chances of various events occurring. I take it there is no probability which will tell us how many shots occurred, or which were the real ones and the wrong ones in the end. Is that correct? Dr. Barcer. None that I know of beyond what I have mentioned. Mr. CorNwWELL. All right. So what we must do, then, is take the data and see what external corroboration or impeachment can be applied to it. _ Dr. Barcer. That is my view, yes. _ Mr. CornweEL.u. Just so that we understand what help you can provide us in that task, I would like very quickly to run through the chart and use it with some hypotheticals out of it. Let’s talk about the top line of each of the four time segments. In the first time segment, the top line is in microphone array 2-5, a shot from a TSBD, down toward target 1. The second shot, the motorcycle’s apparent location is moved from mike 2-5 to 2-6, slightly up the street, another shot from the ee, down to the street and the target, somewhere in the motor- cade. The next one, picked up with the microphone again slightly rer down the street, a shot from the knoll, out to the motor- zade. Finally, another shot from the TSBD, motorcycle again slightly ‘urther down the street, pointed at the motorcade. With respect to each of those four possible shots, apart from any orobabilities, independently, we might say, they each occurred at 104 the right time of the day, they each were unique in the data overall that you analyzed, they each occurred within a time span which did encompass at least 5 seconds, the shape of each of the impulses was what you would expect, the amplitude was roughly what you would expect, and the number of impulses or echo pat- terns in each were what you would expect from the geography of Dealey Plaza, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. With respect to each one, the strict probability that that one would have occurred on that tape through some random sound source would be identical, individually viewed; that is .08, .08, .08, and .08. Correct? Dr. BARGER. Well, the correlation coefficients were all .08, that is a fact. Mr. CorNWELL. The tape on which each of them appeared is, to the best of your knowledge, a genuine tape made in Dealey Plaza on November 22, or from transmissions from there on that date? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. Each of those four items appear very close, near to the line which you would expect the motorcycle to be traveling; in other words, the rate that it would travel down the street in the procession at approximately 11 miles per hour. Dr. BarGER. That is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. And independently we do know that there were shots fired in Dealey Plaza on the day at about the time that these impulses occurred on your tape. Dr. BarGER. Correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. Then it would be the committee’s job to apply independent evidence for each of those as an equal chance of being a genuine shot, to determine if it is genuine or if it is not. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. CoRNWELL. I have no further questions. Thank you. Chairman Stokes. Thank you, counsel. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. One question, Mr. Chairman. Can we say that the shots, as far as time sequence is concerned, that were fired in Dealey Plaza at any time during that stuck microphone, any time during that time frame, had to have oc- curred at the following relative sequence: The first shot as zero, the second 1.6 seconds later, the third 5.9 seconds later, or at about 7.5 seconds after the zero time frame, and the fourth .05 seconds later, or at just shy of 8 seconds in the time frame? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. FirHIAN. There is no other acoustical disturbance of the tape that could possibly be a gunshot? Dr. BARGER. We believe that the threshold that we set was low enough to accept all actual occurrences, and there were none other than those you just described, that is correct. Mr. Firntan. If, therefore, there were any shot that did not match this time sequence—well, to put it the other way around, there could not have been definitively, could not have been a shot a this time frame that did not match one of those four interrup- ions’ 105 Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. FiTHIAn. Thank you. Chairman Sroxes. Dr. Barger, at the conclusion of any witness’ testimony before this committee he is entitled to a period of 5 minutes under our rules in which to explain or amplify, any way expand upon his testimony. I would like on behalf of our committee to extend 5 minutes to you at this time. Dr. Barcer. Chairman Stokes, I thank you for that. I suspect that everyone has heard quite enough of me today, and I will respectfully decline to speak at any greater length. Chairman Stokes. You have had quite a lengthy day here with us. It has indeed been a real experience for us, in not only working with you today, but previous occasions we have had to be with you, and to discuss the matter which we assigned to you for your investigation and analysis. It has indeed been a pleasure to work with you and to have had the benefit of your testimony here today. On behalf of the commit- tee, we thank you for having appeared here with us. You are excused, sir. Dr. Barcer. Thank you, sir. Chairman Stokes. At the request of Mr. Fithian, the committee at this time calls Mr. Paul McCaghren. Mr. Buakey. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. McCaghren is interrogat- ed by the committee, it occurred to me that it might be appropriate to clarify the record on one point. Much of the emphasis of the committee’s testimony has focused on the validity of the third shot in an effort to establish whether there were three or four shots. There is a time span between the first and second shot that I believe was identified by Dr. Barger as approximately 1.6 seconds. The issue that I would like to bring to the committee’s attention is that the existence of the expert FBI testimony indicates the minimum time in which a Mannlicher-Carcano could be operated and correctly aimed was stated twice in the Warren Commission’s hearings, once by Mr. Fraser, as a minimum of 2.3 seconds. He said that was “as fast as the rifle could be operated.” Mr. Shaneyfield, at a subsequent point in the record, indicated that his study indicated that the minimum the rifle could be fired was 2.25 seconds, “for two successive well-aimed shots.” The committee staff has systematically made an effort to reexa- mine each of the underlying premises in the investigations that have preceded us, as that seemed to be the proper thing to do. When the staff learned that the time differential between the first and second shot was 1.6, and thus well below what the FBI testimony had indicated was possible for one person using the rifle, it obviously raised the specter of two gummen. Consequently, pre- liminary tests were undertaken to evaluate the validity of that FBI conclusion. I would like to report to the committee at this time the preliminary results of those tests. I would emphasize, too, that those tests are an ongoing proposition, and the final results will be given to the committee at a later point in time. 106 The staff, on a preliminary basis, conducted a series of tests at the Lorton firing range under the supervision of Cecil Kirk, of the Metropolitan Police Department. We learned that it was possible for a relatively untrained indi- vidual to operate a Mannlicher-Carcano in considerably less than the time stated by the FBI. One test resulted in one hit out of three at 150 feet in average times of 1.65 and 1.75. That is considerably under the estimate by the FBI. A second test performed by another individual, who informs the staff he has not used a rifle in 25 years, was able to hit three out of three in a human silhouette at 150 feet in 2.125 and 2. Again, considerably under the FBI data. I bring that information to the attention of the committee in order that an improper inference not be drawn from that aspect of Dr. Barger’s testimony that deals with the time span between the first and second shot. As you indicated in the beginning of this hearing, all of the evidence is not yet in. Another area where the committee will obviously have to take evidence is on the minimum time required for the operation of a Mannlicher-Carcano. If I may summarize, it would seem that the prior assumption, the one employed by the FBI as well as the Warren Commission, of a minimum of 2.25 or 2.3 is questionable, and it will have to be reexamined by the committee before a final interpretation can be made of the time span between the first two shots. Mr. Dopp. Mr. Chairman, could I address a question to Mr. Blakey. That test that we are performing now, is that being done with a Mannlicher-Carcano? Mr. Buakey. Yes. The committee is in the unique position for a congressional committee in that it now owns two Mannlicher-Car- canos. Mr. Dopp. Of the same? Mr. Buiakey. Of the same kind and style employed by Lee Harvey Oswald. I might add, Congressman—and I underline again its a preliminary judgment—the sharp difference in time may well be Laie the FBI experts were firing the rifle using the telescopic sight. One clear implication of the expert testimony that this commit- tee has received from its firearm experts is that the gun can be accurately fired using the iron sights, and the tests that were performed this last weekend used the iron sights and not the telescopic sights. Consequently, we were able, with very little effort, to sharply improve on the expert performance of the FBI. Mr. Dopp. Can you tell me whether or not the FBI used the alleged Oswald rifle? Mr. Biakey. The FBI did use Oswald’s rifle in some of its tests. Mr. Dopp. Is there some particular reason why we cannot use the same rifle? Mr. Brakey. I am told by our expert panel that there is some concern about the use of Oswald’s rifle. It has been in the Archives 107 for a considerable period of time, and it has not been given the kind of attention that a hunter might give to his favorite weapon. There may be some question as to whether that weapon may be dangerous to employ in simulated tests now. _ Mr. Sawyer. Would the gentleman yield? On the firing—and I didn’t examine closely that Mannlicher- Carcano that was here—is that scope so mounted that there is an option of using the iron sights? Mr. BLAKEY. Yes. Mr. Sawy_Er. So you can use either on it? Mr. Biakey. You can use either the iron sights or the telescopic sights. The testimony, if you will recall, Congressman, of our ballis- tics panel, was that the choice that they would have made would have been to have used the iron sights. What I might add is that the Dallas Police Department sharp- shooters who fired the two weapons in our reconstruction in Dallas in fact used open iron sights, and they were extremely accurate at that time. Again, Congressman, I emphasize these are preliminary tests and they will have to be perfected at a later point in time. It seemed to us, though, potentially not the best to introduce evidence and to simply allow the acoustics test to be considered without some clari- ‘ication being made of that time problem between shots one and [wo. Chairman Strokes. The committee calls Mr. Paul McCaghren. _ Sir, will you raise your right hand and be sworn. You solemnly swear the testimony you give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? _ Mr. McCaacuren. I do. TESTIMONY OF PAUL McCAGHREN, PAUL McCAGHREN ASSOCIATES, DALLAS, TEX. Chairman Stokes. Thank you. You may be seated. Mr. Cornwell? _ Mr. Cornwe .t. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. _ Mr. McCaghren, what is your present occupation? Mr. McCacuren. I am a private investigator and private secu- ‘ity consultant in Dallas, Tex. Mr. CorNWELL. You have your own firm, is that correct? Mr. McCacuren. Yes, I do. Mr. CorNWELL. What is the name of that firm? Mr. McCacuren. Paul McCaghren Associates. Mr. CoRNWELL. Previously you were a member of the Dallas *olice Force? ~ Mr. McCacuren. Yes, I was. _ Mr. CornweE Lt. During what period of time? Mr. McCacuren. From 1953 until 1974. te CoRNWELL. And during that period of time, what was your -ank‘ Mr. McCacuren. I worked up from patrolman to detective in 958. I was a lieutenant from 1960 to 1965 or 1966. I was a captain rom 1966 to 1968. I was the director of the intelligence division in ‘969. I was an assistant chief from 1970 to 1972. In 197 2, I began to york my way back down. I was a captain, and I retired in 1974. 108 Mr. CoRNWELL. Would you just give me a brief statement about what caused you to begin to work your way back down in 1972? Mr. McCacuren. A strong disagreement between myself and the then chief of police. Unfortunately, he was the chief of police and he busted me. If it had been the reverse, I would have busted him. (Laughter. ] Mr. CorNWELL. Directing your attention to 19638, what was the specific nature of your assignment during that time period? Mr. McCacuren. In 1973? Mr. CorNWELL. 1963. Mr. McCacuren. I was a lieutenant, burglary and theft at that particular time. Mr. CorNWELL. During 1963 or 1964, during the period of time that the Warren Commission conducted an investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, did you as a member of the Dallas Police Force also have any role in that? Mr. McCaacuren. Yes, I did. I was with a group of about four or five lieutenants; we were commissioned to conduct an investigation of the events occurring at that particular time. Mr. CorNwELL. And particularly what were you investigating? Mr. McCacuren. My particular investigation concerned the events that occurred in the basement of city hall, regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. Mr. CorNWELL. And it was sort of a small special group that was working on that investigation, is that correct? Mr. McCaGuHreNn. Yes, it was. Mr. CorNWELL. In addition to the question of Jack Ruby’s entry 2G the basement, were there other issues that that group worked on‘ Mr. McCaGHreENn. Several, yes. Mr. CoRNWELL. One of them perhaps being the shooting of Offi- cer Tippit? Mr. McCAGHREN. Yes, it was. Mr. CoRNWELL. In connection with that investigation, did the group have an occasion to gather evidence? Mr. McCaGuHren. Yes, we did. Mr. CoRNWELL. At the termination of the investigation, do you know what was done with the evidence? Mr. McCacuren. All the material in our possession was turned over to Chief Curry, who was the chief of police at that time. Mr. CorNWELL. Would you just basically tell us what types of evidence would have been contained in the package at that point? Mr. McCacuren. These reports were not in-depth investigations. We were trying to field the hundreds of calls that were coming into the police department at that time. It was a cursory type of investi- gation. It was called to an abrupt halt after about a month and a half. All of our reports were submitted to Chief Curry at that time. Mr. CoRNWELL. So the material, then, would have perhaps in- cluded such things as tape recordings of the Dallas dispatcher tapes during—— Mr. McCaGcuren. Yes. _ Mr. CorRNWELL [continuing]. November 22, 1963? I recall, for instance, there was an issue involved with the slaying of Officer 109 Tippit, of what was said that brought him into the area where he was killed; is that correct? Mr. McCacuren. I am not that familiar with that particular aspect, sir. Mr. CorNwELL. All right. At any rate, the materials would in- slude interview reports and various other things; is that correct? Mr. McCaGuren. Yes, sir. Mr. CorNWELL. Now, after the materials were gathered in the sourse of this investigation, and turned over to Chief Curry, when lid you next come in contact with them? Mr. McCacuren. I did not see the material again until approxi- nately 1969. It was in 1969. Chief Batchler was then the chief of »olice. All of this material was found in a locked filing cabinet, in a netal filing cabinet, outside of his office. He called me into his office and asked me how it got there. I did 1ot know. I had not seen the material for years and years. He was ery curious. Both of us were curious about how it got around to hat particular place. The filing cabinet had been abandoned and locked up. He had aused the lock to be broken. The filing cabinet had been designat- d to be disposed of. When he found the material, we reviewed the 1aterial. He gave the material to me. His exact words were, “Take charge of the material. Make sure aat no unauthorized person comes in contact with the material.” This is exactly what happened. I did take charge of the material. le was very concerned of the fact his predecessor had removed umerous articles from the police department—— Mr. CorNwWELL. And who is the predecessor? Mr. McCacuren [continuing]. And published this in a book. Mr. CORNWELL. The predecessor you are speaking of is Chief urry* Mr. McCacuren. Chief Curry, yes. Mr. CorNWELL. So the materials were found in a locked file abinet outside of the current chief of police’s office, which of a would have been the former chief of police, Chief Curry’s fice. Mr. McCacuren. Yes. Mr. CorNWELL. And you at that time were charged with the ‘sponsibility of safekeeping them; is that correct? Mr. McCacuren. Yes; I was the director of the intelligence divi- on at that time. Mr. CorNwELL. What did you do with the materials to discharge at assignment? Mr. McCacuren. At that particular time, I kept it in my office i approximately 1971, the latter part of 1971, early part of Mr. CorNWELL. And during that period of time, you had control the documents; is that correct? Mr. McCacuren. Yes, I did. Mr. CornwELL. Or the materials. In 197 1, what happened? Mr. McCacuren. An outside agency, a private agency under the idance of—Chief Dyson, Assistant Chief Fulgum, and Assistant lief Moore brought in an outside agency and permitted these ople to go into our intelligence files. mieS71 O - 79 - 8 Vol. 2 110 s They made pointed questions. They presented pointed question to me about the absence of any files regardi ng the assassin ation. So, I just very quietly removed the files to my own private resi- dence because I didn’t trust the people. I am talking about Fulgum, Dyson, and Moore. Mr. CoRNWELL. So you took the materials to your residence and stored them there; is that correct? Mr. McCaGHREN. Yes; that is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. And for how long a period of time did you main- tain them at your residence? Mr. McCaGcuren. Until 19—well, until this year. By chance I knew that one of your investigators had set up an appointment with a colleague of mine, and I asked to sit in on the interview. When I was satisfied that he was who he said he was, then I told him that I had some material that he would be interested in, and sure enough, he was interested in that material. Mr. CoRNWELL. You turned over a great body of material to him. That was to Jack Moriarty; is that correct? Mr. McCaGHREN. Yes; that is correct. Mr. CorNWELL. And included among the material was a tape recording and a dictabelt tape which we have been discussing here today? Mr. McCaGHRreEN. Yes. Mr. CorNwELL. Now, throughout the period of time that the materials including the tape recording and the dictabelt were in your possession—in other words, continually from 1969, at which time they were removed from the locked filing cabinet—did you or anyone else tamper with the tape recording or the dictabelt? Mr. McCacuren. No, sir. I had control of this property at all times, from 1969 until this year. No one, no one tampered with that material. Mr. CorNWELL. Thank you. No further questions. | Chairman Sroxes. Any members of the committee have any questions? Thank you very much, sir. Mr. McCaGuren. Thank you. Chairman SToKeEs. You are excused. Professor Blakey? Mr. Buakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the testimony today has indicated, the committee has exam ined motion pictures for jiggle, and a tape for sound impulses in a effort to determine the number, time, and direction of the sho fired at President Kennedy. The committee has also considered the testimony of witnesses the assassination itself. Specifically, it sought to determine th extent to which ear-witness accounts as to the number and direc tion could be relied on. For this purpose, the committee compiled all of the pertinen testimony taken soon after the assassination and had it subjecte to psychoacoustical analysis, and all the testimony of 178 witnesse extracted from FBI reports and other Warren Commission docu ments stored at the National Archives were studied, and statistical ly charted. ie In addition, the team that performed the psychoacoustical analy- ; went to Dallas to witness the live firing in Dealey Plaza de- ribed earlier here today. The purpose was to listen to the shots and get an on-the-scene eling for their possible source and their magnitude. The chief scientist in the ear-witness project is Dr. David Green. .. Green is a professor of psychophysics and chairman of the spartment of Psychology and Social Relations at Harvard Univer- y. He received a B.A. degree from the University of Chicago in 02, and from the University of Michigan he received a B.A. gree in 1954, an M.A. degree in 1955, and a Ph. D. degree in 58 He has been a professor of psychology at the University of Cali- nia and an associate professor of psychology at the University of nnsylvania, and an assistant professor of psychology at the Mas- shusetts Institute of Technology. Jr. Green is the author of numerous scientific publications, and serves on the editorial boards of several scientific journals. He is ellow of the American Psychological Association and the Acous- al Society of America. Jr. Green is the chairman of the National Research Council mmittee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics. He has eived the Acoustial Society of America’s Biennial Award and a ggenheim fellowship. He was an overseas fellow at St. John’s lege in Cambridge, and in 1978 he was elected to the National ademy of Science. 3 At this time, Mr. Chairman, it would be—— Mr. FirH1an. Would the gentleman suspend. ‘ust for clarification, Mr. Chairman, were we not going to ask 7 questions of Dr. Hartmann, or does that follow this? Ar. Buakry. My understanding is that Dr. Hartmann will be led back to the stand at the conclusion of Dr. Green’s testimony. Ar. FirH1an. Thank you. ‘yhairman SToKEs. The committee calls Dr. Green. doctor, will you raise your right hand and be sworn. 0 you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this com- tee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so p you God? ir. GREEN. I do. hairman Stokes. Thank you. You may be seated. he Chair recognizes counsel for committee, Lee Matthews. Ir. MATTHEWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 'TIMONY OF DAVID GREEN, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOPHY- (CS AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOL- GY AND SOCIAL RELATIONS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY fr. MattHews. Dr. Green, would you begin by tracing the histo- ind development of psychoacoustics in America? r, GREEN. Well, the field of psychoacoustics I think, at least lern psychoacoustics, dates from the development of electronic {pment. 112 Certainly two key events were the laboratories at the Bell Tel phone Laboratories, under Dr. Fletcher, as well as the laboratory « psychophysics at Harvard University, under Dr. Stevens. | ‘At those laboratories, various experiments were performed 1 connection with how people hear, and concerned with devices rela ed to how they hear, such as earphones, earplugs to protect the hearing, and the like. The psychoacoustics lab during the Second World War was sp cifically charged with the problem of communications in airplane and so they did a great deal of work on radio sets; microphone headsets, and so forth. Mr. Marruews. Would you give us some examples of how ps choacoustic analyses are conducted, and some of the conclusior that can be drawn from the experiments? Dr. GREEN. I think probably most relevant to this committ would be a brief discussion how we, how people, localize sound - space. or that purpose, a typical experiment would involve having tv or more sources of sound and asking the subjects to differentiate | distinguish among the sources. So, we might sound one or anoth source and ask the subject to tell us which source was actual sounded. You will note that in these tests there is an element of subjecti ity; that is, the observer or witness is obviously being asked question about what he experiences. But I hope you also note that you can score these tests objectiv ly; that is, you can actually find out whether he can distingui: between two sources located a few inches apart at a certain d tance. By varying the physical parameters of the situation—that is, t distance, between the sources; or their distance from the obser er—by varying the composition of the sources—that is, the soun they make or their loudness—you can begin to understand how t subject localizes sound in space and study the variables that effe this sort of behavior in an objective fashion; that is, in a fashi that any other experimenter could presumably repeat. Mr. MatrHews. Now, is that primarily a subjective test or there objective aspects of it? Dr. GREEN. Well, it is subjective in the sense that you use hum observers and they make judgments. But your scoring of th responses is fundamentally objective; that is, we can all agree whether the subjects get the correct or incorrect answer. So in t sense it is objective. Mr. Matrtuews. Dr. Green, I want to call your attention to J exhibit No. F-364 that has previously been entered into the rec in this case. First, are you familiar with that exhibit? Dr. GREEN. Yes, I am. I remember this morning’s presentati Mr. MATTHEWS. Can you give the committee an explanation how human beings recognize the sound of rifle fire? Dr. GREEN. May I approach the exhibit, please? Mr. Marruews. Certainly. May I also refer to JFK exhibit Real previously entered and what has been identified as J 113 Dr. GREEN. I will try not to be too repetitious, but I would like to eview just briefly several aspects of the situation that are perti- ent to how subjects localize weapon fire. As Dr. Barger pointed out this morning, this is the pressure rave, that is, this is pressure on this axis and this is time. When a reapon is fired, if it is a supersonic missile, then a shock wave is roduced. That is this little N shaped blip. And then finally the quzzle blast comes in later which is the large explosive sound aused by gases coming out of the muzzle. But the shock wave is of interest when you study the localization f sound because it causes confusion as to the locus of the sound in gace. That is best illustrated on this exhibit where we have the fle here at one instant in time. It has been fired and there is a ullet along this projectory, that has reached this point in space, as result there is a shock wave or N wave that follows the bullet. here is also a blast wave traveling at the speed of sound away om the muzzle. Now you should be familiar with roughly ‘his sort of situation 2cause if you will think of a boat traveling in still water, the irface wave is in fact or the bow wave of the boat is in fact like ie N wave. The difference here is that this is a bullet going irough air so this figure should be rotated completely around and ere is really a cone that follows the bullet that creates the N ave. Meanwhile, the shot, the blast is expanding in a circle about 1e muzzle, at least in free space. Now if you take an observer in this position on the path of the iock wave, the shock wave which is a cone in free space passes rer the observer in this direction. Therefore, the sound that yeeps over him is essentially a plane wave. For example, if he is anding in this direction, it strikes both ears at the same time. [The information follows:] 114 MARKSMAN AG “Ne, \, SPECTATOR \. A N Q a SPECTATOR BULLETY JFK EXHIBIT F-363 Dr. GREEN. Therefore, the observer in this situation will tend point at the path of the bullet and perpendicular to the N wav This is illustrated in this figure where the marksman is here a the bullet being fired in this direction and these outer lines repr sent the N wave at successive instances in time and the spectato pointing perpendicular to the N wave and at the path of the bull This is actually a fairly accurate representation of an experime carried out by Dr. Garinther at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, a in his experiment, he had a group of subjects, about 30 or subjects seated in an open field. The marksman was concealed in truck and hence the blast wave was silenced effectively. He sh through a small opening in the truck and down a path. The obser ers sat in a row and they actually pointed exactly as you wou expect from this diagram. waves hit both ears simultaneously it is awfully confusing and y can't tell whether the source is immediately ahead or immediat in back of you. Mr. MattHews. The Garinther test, and JFK exhibit No. F-3 are the exhibits you were referring to? 115 Dr. GREEN. I will have to look on the back to tell, but I think it was. Yes, it is F-363. Mr. Matruews. The other exhibit that you referred to earlier is JFK exhibit No. F-357? Dr. GREEN. That is right. Mr. MatTrHews. That exhibit contained the drawing of the shock wave and the muzzle blast wave? Dr. GREEN. That is correct. Mr. MattHEws. Now what difference does it make in the position of the observer in determining either the origin of the shot or path of the bullet? Dr. GREEN. Well, if the observer hears the blast wave as if he were located at a position here, this plane wave has an origin back here at the rifle. So he actually points at the source of the disturb- ance. If the observer does not hear the blast wave, if he localizes on the basis of the N wave, he actually points at the path of the bullet, not the origin, of the bullet, in a way dictated by this geometry, that is perpendicular to the cone of the end wave and toward the path of the bullet. So, for example, if the marksman were up here in that corner points at one corner of room] firing into that corner [the opposite corner] and we could not hear the blast of the rifle, that is, we simply heard the N wave, we would localize the source of the sound ip in the ceiling. Mr. MatruHews. You mentioned in regard to JFK No. F-363 that sarinther conducted an experiment in which the blast wave was >oncealed? | Dr. GREEN. Yes, the marksman was concealed in the truck. The dlast wave was suppressed and only the N wave was evident. Mr. MatTrHews. Were any of the observers able to accurately inpoint the point of origin for the gunman? Dr. GREEN. No, they all either pointed along the path of the yullet, 75 percent of them, and 25 percent pointed in the opposite lirection. Let me make one other point clear if I can while I am at that liagram. That is, the relative contribution of the blast and N wave lepends on where the observer is standing in space. If he is way ljlown here along the path of the bullet, the blast wave is getting veaker and weaker but he is fairly close to the path of the bullet, herefore is little diminution in the N wave as it goes by. Because 1e is way down here in space there is a great difference in time tween when the N wave passes and the blast passes so it is very ossible in certain locations especially if you are located well down he path of the bullet, you hear the N wave and a long time later it 3 followed by the blast wave. Mr. Marttuews. Is there any position that an observer can stand elative to the origin of the shot, where there is a greater possibil- }i-y of being able to locate the shooter? Dr. GREEN. Yes, if he is located here at the side, then the shock nd the end wave and the blast wave arrive at the same time and € would point at the origin of the source, that is, the rifle in this ase. 116 Mr. Marruews. Can you give us some indication of the distance that the person would be from the origin of the shot, where they would hear the end wave first and then subsequently the blast? Dr. GREEN. Well down the line of the bullet. If they are well down the line of the bullet, the N wave will sweep over them first and the blast will come in later and in that case it would be very probable that they point at the N wave and ignore the blast as an echo. If they are off to the side, they will undoubtedly point at the source of the muzzle. Mr. MarrHews. Can you give us an opinion, based upon distance in feet, that the observer would have to be standing from the origin of the shot, to recognize the N wave and then subsequently recog- nize the blast? Dr. GREEN. I can’t give you exact data on that subject because I don’t think it has been studied in that detail, but let me review the considerations that apply. The further he is from the rifle and the closer to the bullet path the more the delay between the blast and the N wave. So, for example, if he were 300 feet, down here, the blast would lag the N wave, and if he were very near the path of the bullet, the blast would lag the N wave by half that distance 150 feet or about 150 milliseconds. ) In that case, it is very probable that he would hear the blast very distinctly as a second wave. | Mr. Marruews. Mr. Chairman, at this time I move for the admis: sion of JFK F-363. Seat Sroxes. Without objection it may be entered into the record. Mr. Marruews. Dr. Green, are there distinct sounds between the sensations of the N wave that you have described as the shock wave and that of the muzzle blast? Dr. GREEN. Definitely, and you can see some indicaton of how these might sound by just looking at the exhibit on the far right The shock wave is very brief and the muzzle blast is longer in duration. Therefore, there is a great difference in pitch. The wave sounds much higher in pitch than the blast wave. We have tape recording of those two waves. It is a recording of a Man licher-Carcano firing in which we have excised from the tape exa ples of the shock wave and the muzzle blast. If I may, could I play those to the committee and let them he the difference between the two sounds? : Mr. Marruews. Yes, Mr. Chairman, at this time I would mo for the admission of JFK F-351 and JFK F-352. Chairman Stokes. Without objection they may be entered in the record at this point. {JFK exhibits F-351 and F-352 are tape recordings retained i} committee files.] Mr. Marruews. Dr. Green, would you explain to the members the committee exactly what they can expect to hear from each those exhibits? Dr. GREEN. There are three blast waves, that is the larger wa in the far right of the exhibit F-364. They are played three time They are followed after a brief pause by three examples of an wave played at the same peak overpressure. 117 Now, the intensities that you will hear in this room are nowhere ear the intensities that you would experience if you listened to tual weapons. So you should recall that they will be much lower 1 intensity than anything resembling rifle or pistol fire, but never- neless there are recordings of these two wave forms, and if we can ‘ave them at this time, you will hear three blast waves followed by ree shock waves. [Tape recordings played for the committee. ] Mr. MattHews. Dr. Green, I believe you were present when the ape recording was played of four shots that were fired in Dealey laza? Dr. GREEN. I beg your pardon? Mr. MATTHEWS. You were present in the room at the time of Dr. -arger’s testimony when the recording was played of shots fired in ie Dealey Plaza experiment? Dr. GREEN. Yes; I was. Mr. MattTHeEws. How were those shots different from the shots nat you played today on exhibit JFK F-351 and JFK F-3852? Dr. GREEN. The most noticeable difference is that nobody jumped 1 the room, and if rifle fire occurred in this room, I am sure yerybody would have left their chair, at least slightly. They are ctremely quiet compared to the shots that occurred in the plaza. ut, I played them merely to illustrate there is a quality of differ- ice in the sound produced by these two types of waves. Mr. MattTHEws. Were you able to distinguish and separate the uunds that you played on those recordings without the use of ecilal equipment? Dr. GREEN. I am unclear as to the question, I am sorry. Mr. MatrHews. How were you able to obtain simply the blast self on the recording? Dr. GREEN. They were excised from actual rifle shots. We stood | a position where there would be a sufficient time difference stween them and then cut them out of the tape and pasted them . the sequence that you heard them. So they are artifically pre- ared so that it would be clear that N wave and blasts waves could 2 distinguished. ‘Mr. MatrHews. Dr. Green, I want to call your attention to JFK -361 and ask you whether or not you recognize this exhibit? Dr. GREEN. It is an aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza. ~Mr. Matruews. On August 20 of this year you had occasion to be aeent at the time of the acoustic analysis testing in Dealey Dr. GrEEN. Yes; I and two observers went to Dallas and observed ring the sequence of shots that Dr. Barger has already described. ae two observers were Prof. Frederick Wightman, an associate *ofessor of audiology in the Department of Communicative Disor- *rs at Northwestern University. He has had considerable experi- ice in the field of sound localization and has contributed many ‘pers and literature on that topic. _ The other observer was Prof. Dennis McFadden of the Psycholo- * Department of the University of Texas at Austin. He also has a ng history of research in the field of sound localization and has ntributed many papers on that topic. 118 Mr. Marruews. Now, the purpose of the three of you all being there primarily was to determine what the witnesses heard who 22, had been spectators of the Presidential motorcade on November 1973; is that correct? Dr. GREEN. That is correct. We observed in several different locations within the Plaza and compared the apparent locus of the sound and blasts that we heard and attempted to correlate them with reports gleaned from the witnesses, after the assassination. Mr. Marruews. Dr. Green, I want to call your attention to JFK Exhibit F-344 and F-337, both of which have previously been en- tered into evidence and ask you to approach the podium and indi- cate the relative position where you and the observers stood during the experiment and the reasons why you selected that particular position. Dr. GREEN. You will recall there were three sequences of shots that were going to be fired and for the first sequence we were situated about in this position on the grassy knoll, about halfway down the slope. We decided for the first sequence that the observers would stay together, that is, I had them located about three feet from one another and as they filled out their responses to each of the test shots, I would check their responses to see to what degree they were consistent. As a result of this first sequence it was apparent that they were very consistent and that we could gain more information by sepa- rating the observers. So for later test shots we observed some of th test shots together right under the Texas Book Depository in th second sequence. For the third sequence of shots Professor Wight man and I were situated down here and Professor McFadden w situated on the railroad overpass in about this position in thi exhibit while the third sequence was fired. Mr. Marruews. During the course of the first sequence wha degree of accuracy was there between the two assistants? ) Dr. GREEN. There were 12 shots shown in the sequence, bu because there were 5 test shots that preceded the sequences tha were run off here, there was a total of 17 shots fired and th observers, Wightman and McFadden, they rated all of the 17 tes shots, they were in agreement on 94 percent of their response Their locations were the same, their reports of reverberations wer identical, and their reports of the loudness were virtually the sam Mr. MatrHews. Did you know at the time the shots were bein fired, what was the position of the rifle? Dr. GREEN. I knew the key but even I was somewhat at a loss t know where we were within the sequence. Because there were tes shots preceding the sequence and occasionally some of the shot would be refired because the recording equipment was malfunctio ing or something and I was not in communication with anybod Dr. GREEN. Well, they were seated here in the first sequence, f example, and the first shot would be out here on target one. An immediately thereafter they would write down where they thoug 119 e shot occurred, comment about any other appare nt echoes or nfusions that might have occurred, rate the loudness of the ind, and any other comments that they thought pertin ent. As I say, they agreed in that first sequence virtually 100 percent the time. There was one shot that McFadden heard, it was the ond shot No. 11 at target 3, and he localized that over at this old irthouse. If you draw the path of the bullet and point at the N ve, that would point at the old courthouse. That was the only ponse that McFadden differed from Dr. Wightman and the only > where he was inaccurate. Mir. MATTHEWS. When each of your assistants stood in the as- ned places, did it make any difference which direction they were ing at the time of the shots? Jr. GREEN. Not so much in this position, but when you lated immediately under the Texas School Book Deposi are ich was our general location for the second sequence tory, of shots, ) things are rather confusing. © ‘irst of all, the N wave comes right over your head so you localize the source directly over your head or on occasi tend on you actly localize the source in whatever direction you were facing. 1 could, for example, move your head into different directions. once looked down Elm Street in this direction fairly well con- ced that the sound came from this direction, and the other ervers did likewise, pointed their heads in different directions said that that influenced their judgments. Iso when you are in this location the sound Sweeps down the ding and the apparent source of the sound is rather large, bably because it scattered off the regular surface of the build- That was caused by the blast wave. ir. MatrHews. At any time during the testing did your assis- S confuse the sounds of the N wave and blast with any sounds choes or reverberations? r. GREEN. They certainly made some inaccurate respon ses. | Id say in the order of 10 percent, and most of those could be ee for on the basis of the confusion of the blasts and the *k wave. n other occasions, for example, in this location where we are a | distance from the sixth floor window of the Texas Book tory, and that was the source of the rifle blasts, it is fairly De- easy ' to hear both shock and blast waves. They occurred with cient delay from one another that Wightman, for example, d write down that the N wave appeared somewhere in the air the knoll and the blast would come from the Texas School ‘ Depository. r. MarrHEews. Now what is it that you had your assista aly, both the N wave and the muzzle blast or just simply nts the shot’ . GREEN. They tried to report what they heard and also ake a guess as to what was the location of the actual tried weapon, n this case it was just very easy for Wightman to distin guish wo so he kept writing down on his score sheet that the click, N wave, appeared to have a locus somewhere over the knoll. nding here the N wave was coming down and hitting targets | here, or in the case of the Main Street shots, way down here, 120 so he would localize it up in space there. Then he would comme: that in addition when the blast came in, it came from the Tex School Book Depository. Mr. Marruews. They were identifying each of the sounds th heard? Dr. GREEN. Yes. Mr. MatrHews. It may have been two sounds—the muzz blast—— Dr. GREEN. They also commented about echoes, et cetera. F example, in this position from the knoll, we were sufficiently 1 the knoll, that we heard a very strong echo off the post offi annex that came in about a second later. In this position you he a very strong echo off the triple underpass and McFadden in tk position heard the strong echo off this array of buildings alo Houston Street. Mr. Matruews. Which of the assistants did you have standing the area south of the TSBD Building, the grassy area right acro from Elm Street? Dr. GREEN. I stood there with Wightman. Mr. Marruews. And the area immediately north of that knoy as the grassy knoll? | Dr. GREEN. All three of us stood there for the first sequence shots. | Mr. Mattruews. What did they observe at that time as to t sequence of the shots? Dr. GREEN. With the exception of McFadden who we think c fused the N wave and pointed to the courthouse, they all sco 100 percent, that is, they could correctly locate the source of t sound. Any rifle shot from the Knoll was quite evident. It w very, very loud sound. You almost jumped when the rifle was fi from such a close distance. We were within probably 30 to 40 fi of the muzzle blast. The pistol was quieter and it was subsonic s did not produce an N wave. It was extremely easy to local because it was such a relatively small sound compared with massive blasts of the rifle. Mr. Matruews. Mr. Chairman, at this time I move for the ad sion of JFK F-361. Chairman Strokes. Without objection it may be entered into record at this point. (The information follows:] - ra EE *. P in *Atecinge Bo et Rita gre cect Tt ee ? yee BLELEEEE cece Ce geet fe ee : : om '~ 6# = F é ad | gag sf ™ _ZZA hei or. 361 JFK Exursir F- fr. MaTtHEws. Dr. Green, what were some of your first research | analysis in this case? 1. GREEN. The first work I did was, I looked at a statistical vey prepared by Josiah Thompson from his book, Six Seconds in las—I think that was the name of it—in which he compiled ie of the witness’ testimony as to the locus of the shots. I was htly confused concerning that analysis and somew hat doubtful t because of what I have tried to review concerning the appar- location of weapon firing. He claimed a low percen tage of his ondents’ recording anything other than the Texas Book or the ll as the potential location of the rifle. xty-six percent in his analysis reported they didn’t know, and ’ 3 percent reported that any other location other than the as Book or the knoll. r. MATTHEWs. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would move for the ission of JFK F-360, the chart that was compo sed by the mittee staff. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that it was composed d upon the number of witnesses at Dealey Plaza whose location d be pinpointed and who could give pertinent inform ation re- 1g to the number of shots and the spacing of those shots and origin of those shots. us information was taken from the official files and reports of enforcement agencies and from testimony before the Warren mission. ‘airman STokes. Without objection it may be entere d into the ed at this point. ae information follows:] 122 TABLE lil Number of Shots Reported DON’T DT Tones pes 4 KNOW TOTAL KNOLL OTHER DON'T KNOW TOTAL 17 7 132 The first entry is the obtained data. The number in parenthesis is the expected number of such judgements if the source and number of shots are independent judgements. *7 other witnesses report 1, 4-5, 5, 6 or 8 shots. JFK Exuisitr F-360 Mr. MatrHews. Dr. Green, I direct your attention to JFK exhi No. F-38360. Are you familiar with that chart? Dr. GREEN. Yes, that is a chart that I prepared based on | analysis that you provided. Along the columns of the matrix th are reports on the number of shots the witnesses heard. For example, along the top some of the witnesses, 17, repor that there were 2 shots out of a total of 178. The vast major almost 77 percent, 132 out of 178, reported that there were 3s fired. Along the rest of the matrix are the lists of the place of origin of the shots as reported by the spectators, that is, the Te School Book Depository was pointed to by 46 out of 178 respo ents. The knoll was pointed to by 20. The other response, that other than the knoll or the Texas Book, 29 spectators, and subjects, about 44 percent, reported that they did not know location of the shots. Mr. MatrHews. Would you make a comparison of the data tained in this research and the results of the information obtai 123 rom your field tests, then can you make a determination of which of these witnesses would have been correct in localizing the shots? Dr. GREEN. No; I don’t think you can, for the reasons that I tried ‘0 outline earlier because a variety of determinants actually influ- »¢ce the judgment. In some cases the way the subject was facing, n other cases whether he heard the blast or the N wave and made us localization judgment based on the former or the latter. _ What I have tried to do in the interior in that table in the actual ntries in the table is to test the assumption that there is essential- y independence between where the witnesses point as the origin of he shot and the number of shots that they report. So what I have done in that table is essentially assume that the wo judgments are completely independent and try to predict how qany subjects would fall in each cell of that matrix on the basis of hat assumption of independence. So, for example, using that assumption in the upper lefthand orner there, you see that there were three subjects that in fact ointed at the Texas School Book Depository and reported they eard two shots point under the assumption of independence you ‘ould expect 4.6 to be the number, et cetera. You can see by the close correspondence between the numbers in rackets and the bold numbers above them that you can essentially ssume independence between the two types of judgments. If you atertain the hypothesis that only people who could hear that the 10t came from the knoll might be expected to hear the fourth 10t, the three others coming from the Book Depository, you might spect that assumption of independence would be violated, but as dU can see, there is no evidence in that table to indicate that that the case. Mr. Marttuews. Now after completing the research analysis and ie field tests in this case, have you had an opportunity to confer ith your associates in this matter? Dr. GREEN. Well, after the tests, we discussed for 3 or 4 hours nat we had heard and talked about what we had heard with spect to the reports that we had seen from the witnesses. I also drafted a preliminary report which they have seen and sentially concur with. I think we are in general agreement about e results of this test. Mr. MatrtHews. Based upon that research, will you give your inion to the committee today as to final conclusions? Dr. GREEN. I think the first conclusion is that we were very rprised at the loudness of the sounds that we heard. We had read ports from the witnesses of firecracker-like sounds and the like. ‘ese gunshots were truly enormous in intensity, as you could see mm some of the numbers that Dr. Barger reported this morning, 2 peak overpressures of these waves are very large. {! might add that throughout the first and second tests we at- mpted to simulate some of the noise in the Plaza by running a }torcycle. Actually, we had three motorcycles present and we ran * motorcycles to provide masking noise during the test, but it m became apparent that the motorcycles were unnecessary. ey did not mask any of the important sounds we observed. The le blasts clearly overcame them. They simply prevented us from 124 dispensed with them it having conversation with each other so we the latter sequence of tests. n for why some 0 We are simply unable to offer any explanatio s when we kno ted these relati vely small sound the observers repor Mannlicher-Carcan¢ the intensities and loudness produced by the ted rifle blasts sses were hunte rs and they repor Several witne s to be e3 repor ted the sound but there were several others who tremely small. again about th The second conclusion would be to comment observ ers. They were extre mely consistent i consistency of the probably 1 fairly accura te, their responses. In general they were that they ar This may be due to the fact the 90 percent range. to the fac also be due well practiced in this sort of task. It may as th the rifles were going to be fired, where that they knew that be due to th spectators were caught largely unaware, or it may the first ¢ emotional response of the subjects that occurred after second shots were fired. that woul Unfortunately, I know of no research, no evidence cannt indicate how that would affect their judgments so | simply nces. But our subject s, and our witness e comment on those differe were remarkably consistent. The third thing I would mention is that there are strong reve berations and echoes present in the plaza. For the most part, thes did not cause confusion among our witnesses because they occurré sufficiently late in time so that they were clearly recognized ¢ echoes, the echo off the post office annex building for exampl arrived about nine-tenths of a second late. It was clearly heard an echo off the post office annex building. Probably a more potential source of confusion was the echo 0 the railroad underpass, especially when you are located immediat ly under the Texas School Book Depository, because the N wal coming over your head out of the Depository is very confusing | you are sort of startled and nothing makes much sense, especial if you think the sound is right up above your head. So the first sound that arrives from any object on the grout comes from the railroad underpass. I think | also commented th from the railroad itself there are strong echoes off the buildings ‘ Houston Street. A fourth thing I would comment on, that I have touched « already any sort of a knoll shot, whether it be rifle or pistol—al these were both unsilenced weapons, but I am not sure that mak a great deal of difference—any sort of knoll shot when observ: from at least several locations, particularly the knoll itself, im diately across from the knoll, and to some extent below the Te Book Depository, is a very easy place to localize sound. That i shot from the knoll is usually heard as a shot from the kn There were few errors on that. In fact, I don’t think there W any errors on that particular shot. So if there was a shot from t knoll, it is extremely easy to localize it at the knoll. _ Finally, I would like to make one observation that I think Beets with the argument that there were three shots fr the Texas Book Depository and one from the knoll. That is, if th were any shots from the Texas School Book Depository and at le s one from the knoll, one might expect, since these judgment 125 not all that difficult, that many subjects would report two sources for the locus of the shots, that is, they would report both the Texas Book Depository and the knoll as places from which weapons were fired. If you go over the statistical survey of the 178 observers who gave reports, there are exactly 4 that menti oned dual locations, that is, that say the locus of the shots came from two places. I find that a strikingly low number given the hypot hesis that the weap- ons were actually fired from two places. We found that it was comparatively easy to localize knol] shots, at least from the knoll, across from the knoll; and to some extent under the Texas School Depository, and there was little doubt in the vicinity of the Depository that a shot was fired from that building. I think that concludes it. Mr. Matruews. Did it make any difference in localizing the origin of the shot where the target was? Dr. GREEN. It changed the character of the sound somewhat eCause in various locations you would either hear N wave or not. 50 I would not say that it did not make any difference, but as to he localization response, it generally was not terribly important. Mr. MattTHews. Mr. Chairman, I have no furthe r questions. Chairman Sroxkgs. The first questioning of the witness is to be by Mr. Fithian. We have a vote on the floor. So I think we will recess or about 5 minutes and then we will resum e questioning the vitness. [A brief recess was taken. | Mr. Firian [presiding]. The committee will come to order. Mr. Matthews? Mr. Marruews. Dr. Green, you were present during the course of ’. Barger’s testimony, and if you recall, he mentioned that some f the shots fired from the TSBD building were ithin 2 or 3 feet inside the window. from a position What effect would that have had upon the witnes rigin of the shots? s’ opinion of the Dr. GREEN. The intention of that manipulati on was to suppress ) Some extent the blast wave and to make the N wave more oticeable compared to the blast wave. I would say it was margin- ly successful, but perhaps because of the sophistication of my tbjects they all reported they generally heard the blast with some inor exceptions. When Dr. McFadden was on the railroad overp stance from the Texas Book Depository, and ass the farthest the target was No. 4 nich is almost again the railroad Overpass down there on the ittom, he was often confused and heard a source directly up Main reet, he said. o I am not sure what he heard, whether he heard an N wave. 1e cone of the N wave didn’t Sweep over him but some part of the wave may have still reached him, but in any case he made that servation. But for the most part, it would be difficult to detect ta itself whether the manipulation of movin from the g the rifle muzzle ck had any effect. It was our impression that it made the N wave 1-371 O- 79 - 9 Vol. 2 126 more evident, but whether we knew that should happen and there- fore heard it or whether it actually happened I am not sure. Mr. Matruews. Thank you, Dr. Green. I have no further ques- tions, Mr. Chairman. | Mr. Frrutan. Dr. Green, with regard to the original ear wit- nesses, I had to step out for two votes and perhaps you covered | this, but I am curious to know whether or not you can tell us. anything about the probability of accuracy of those individuals. Dr. GREEN. I did comment on that while you were gone. The short answer is: I can’t contribute very much. All of the experi- ments that contribute to our knowledge about localization are done in these rather routine and repetitive tests where you essentially put two sound objects at some distance, play one or the other, and ask the subject to tell you which one occurred. So in these cases the subject is always well aware that there are a limited number of sound sources and he knows what discrimina- tion he is supposed to make and he makes it over and over repet- itively. Whereas, in the situation we are talking about here, of course, everybody was surprised by the first shot. I really can’t say what effect that would have. There is no available literature on that sort of situation and it would be largely speculation on my part. There are some experiments where the range of signal alterna- tives is not known to the subject. In this case these are detection experiments, trying to detect a weak sound in noise as a matter of fact, and the fact that the subject doesn’t know which sound to expect does not make as much difference as you might expect. The difference is about a decibel. Mr. Frrutan. There has been a great deal of testimony by indi- viduals and not a little literature indicating that a fair body of people who identified the sound indicated that the sounds came from two different directions, a very significant number as I recall, 40-some, testified that they heard shots which came from—and they pointed or otherwise indicated what came to the Texas School Depository window, and something in excess of one-half dozen iden- tified the grassy knoll and in fact some policemen apparently took off toward the grassy knoll and other eyewitnesses said they saw a puff of smoke from the grassy knoll, et cetera. What I am trying to elicit from you is any help your expertise can give us in sorting out the validity of the ear and eyewitness testimony that we have in the Warren Commission report. Dr. GREEN. Let me go back to your first statement because | think we seem to be in disagreement about facts if I heard you correctly. . There were very few subjects who reported two locations were the source of the sound. I know of only 4 in the list of 178. There were a large number of subjects who reported they didn’t know or were confused by the echo’s reverberations, et cetera. o pare tried to point out that the rifle blast particularly, because of the NN wave, creates a very confusing acoustic stimulus and you are liable to point at the N wave. Whether that makes any sense OF not is another matter. ire Scone at the sky for example, if you were down on the and the path of the bullet goes over your head and J 127 would think you would then report you don’t know the source of the sound because it is very confusing for the sound to be up in the sky. If you take a single subject out of the plaza and ask me on the basis of his report would he be likely to be more accurate than any other subject, I simply could not say there is any more likelihood that one subject would be more accurate than another. Mr. Firuian. If you will suspend for just one moment, Dr. Green, I would like to have entered into the record JFK F-362 and have it displayed on the easel for a couple of questions of the witness. [The information follows: REPORTED ORIGIN OF SOUND TOTAL IN THE awh TRIANGLE SN HONS We | AOL t : wn Bi TS Ro SO) ar a RY prety [og yO NeEPR SPAS . - Ne ed = ELM ee LER OOO) JFK Exurisir F-362 Mr. FirH1an. Now, Counsel Cornwell, in the preli minary analysis ynade of this chart there seems to be some confusion about the 1umbers. Could you first of all clarify, since the total of 90 in the ower righthand corner does not equal the total number of ear vitness accounts we have, how exactly this chart was constructed? Mr. CoRNWELL. The difference between the two charts, first, is hat the chart that Dr. Green has previously made reference to ncludes persons scattered all over the plaza. The second chart has _ more limited function. It was designed to facilitate direct focus ‘pon the reported origin of shots from those person s who stood in “he same areas of the plaza that Dr. Green and his listeners stood. aking the basic four areas that Dr. Green’ s listeners stood; amely, in the grassy triangle, on the knoll, in front of the TSBD, >. the railroad overpass, and on Elm Street , and simply selecting 710se persons who we knew were standing in those areas and 128 reporting where they said, for each of the areas, the shots originat- ed. Mr. Frrutan. Now, Dr. Green, whether we use your figures, that is, the figures in the chart already introduced, or the one just introduced, we get several people, 7 in the latter and I believe 20 in the former, who identified the grassy knoll as the source. Is that correct? Dr. GREEN. That is correct. Mr. FirHtaAn. From all you know about where the shots were fired and applying the science of your training, could that many people, wherever they were located, identify the shots as deriving from the grassy knoll in the absence of a shot from that area? Dr. GrEEN. In my opinion, easily. Certainly the long shots, espe- cially if you take those subjects that are further up Elm toward the Book, could have very easily confused the N wave. The N wave is in front of them. They make a front-back confusion and they will point to the knoll. I counted a total of something like 10 subjects that point toward the Knoll that stood in that area. I am a little more generous in my definition of knoll than this chart that has been introduced. But there are about 10 people. There are a few people scattered over the rest of the plaza that also report the knoll. There are two or three in the Book, several down in the triangle, one on the railroad tracks, a couple by the courthouse, et cetera. I don’t find it surprising that some of those people; that is, a relatively small percentage, could point at the knoll despite the fact that nothing was fired from the knoll. What I do find more surprising is what I stated as my final conclusion, that if there was somebody firing from the knoll, and anybody firing anyplace else, why more people didn’t hear both shots. As I said, only 4 out of the total of 178 heard two shots as the locus. Mr. FirHian. Thank you. Does counsel have any further questions? Mr. MAtTTHEws. I have none, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FiTHIAN. With the possibility that those who dashed out to vote on veteran’s preference might want to recall you, I think we will excuse you now. Under the rules of the committee, you are entitled to 5 addition- al minutes to clarify, amplify, and in any way modify your testimo- ny here today. Dr. GREEN. I have had plenty of time. Thank you very much. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. Dr. Green, just before you move away, I am not sure whether Congressman Dodd has any questions or not. Mr. Dopp. I don’t immediately here, but I know both the chair- man and Judge Preyer are coming right in. Mr. Firn1an. Why don’t you just remain seated there and let’s bring Dr. Hartmann up. I would like to ask the staff to put up the appropriate jiggle anaes charts that we used this morning. I think they are unnum- red. Mr. CorNWELL. I think they are No. 177. 129 Mr. Dopp. Mr. Chairman, before you move on, maybe I could address a question to our last witness, if I could. Dr. Green, as I understand it, you earlier testifi ed that with respect to any one subject, you could not say whether or not he or she would be more or less likely accurate; is that correct ? Dr. GREEN. That is correct. I think I stated if you took a single subject out of the plaza and asked me if he or she were less likely to report the correct locus of the shot, more or I would not be able to say. Mr. Dopp. Are you familiar with the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally when they testified before this commit tee several days ago? Dr. GREEN. I have read a newspaper report of it. Mr. Dopp. Just to refresh your memory, they indica ted they felt quite clearly that the shots came from their right rear. What I am asking you is: Based on the statement that I just read as what I understood to be a paraphrase of your feelings, whethe your inability to make a judgment on individual r or not accuracy pre- cludes you from aiding this committee in making a judgm the accuracy of both the Governor’s and his wife’s statem ent on ents as to the number of shots in addition to the direction. Dr. GREEN. I am glad you brought that up because I looked testimony and see I didn’t say much about the number at my of shots compared with my remarks about their locus and that is because I know of practically no literature on the topic. Experi ments on subjects, guessing the number of loud sounds are, to my knowledge, lacking. So I don’t really know what to say about the accuracy of those numbers. I have no way of giving you even a rough guess as to the accuracy. I have heard informal reports that sometimes they inaccurate. My initial impression, looking at those are very numbers, was that the high numbers were obviously confusion with echoes; that is, there was one subject who reported eight shots and I presume e simply confused some of the echoes off some of the buildings. But I could not really tell you how accurate the judgme nt of the numbers is. I know of no literature on this. Mr. Dopp. And you are stating for us as well that to your knowledge there is no body of knowledge or inform the best of we could seek out that would assist us in making ation that that kind of an 2valuation dealing with numbers now? Dr. GREEN. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Dopp. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. Does counsel have anything further? Mr. Marruews. No, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxgs. Dr. Green, at the conclusion of estimony before our committee we extend him 5 minut a witness’ es in which le may in any way explain or amplify or expand on his testimony n any way. I would like to extend 5 minutes to you at this time for at purpose. Mr. Dopp. If I may, Mr. Chairman, before you get that chance efuse that offer, I asked you about direction and to numbers. You esponded in numbers, and I also wanted to ask that same ith regard to the Governor and Mrs. Connally’s statem question lrection of shots. ent about 130 Dr. GREEN. The thing that makes my testimony uncertain is that the subjects that I took to the plaza were extremely accurate. They did not find these discriminations difficult. The question at issue is my observers were expecting the shots, they knew they were coming. They didn’t know the order but they knew they were coming from two locations. They were trained observers. If you have a subject that is unprepared for the shots, that is quite a different issue. I don’t know how to extrapolate for that situation. I have commented that there is no available data on that sort of situation. There are certain locations that are best for observing certain shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular surface of the building and it was quite evident. So I am not at all surprised at Governor and Mrs. Connally’s report, but I can also look at the charts and there were other people standing near there, and some are pointing at the knoll when that event occurred. So I can’t tell you what circumstances led to that judgment other than to suggest that this is a complicated stimulus, that it depends in that location somewhat on where your head is pointed, for example. Other factors could also enter the judgment. Mr. Dopp. Fine. Thank you. Chairman Stoxkgs. Dr. Green, you have 5 minutes. Dr. GREEN. I have already refused your kind offer once and I will do so again. Chairman STOKEs. All right. Well, thank you very much for appearing here and giving us the benefit of your testimony. You are excused. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fithian for further examination of Dr. Hartmann. _Mr. Firnian. Dr. Hartmann, I really don’t have very many ques- tions and I don’t think it will take long. 3 Are the jiggle analysis techniques used by yourself and your associates for your presentation here today common interpretation techniques? In other words, what I am asking is: Have they been used to help interpret photos and films other than those from Dealey Plaza? _Dr. Harrmann. I think the correct answer is no. In fact, I would like to emphasize that unlike much of the scientific data that you are getting such as on the acoustic work or the neutron activation analysis, this kind of technique does not have some scientific tradi- tion of routine measurements, you do the measurements this way, this way, this way, and you get such and such an answer. Here we were much more in a situation of making a common sense hypothesis at the beginning, meaning based on our common experience that a person is likely to react and the best information which | mentioned in my testimony indicates that people do react to that sort of thing and we tried to measure the film to see if there was a reaction, looked at each st t the results I showed you. SteplGbawe- went 108k aa 131 Mr. FiTHIAN. To the best of your knowledge did the Warren Commission employ this technique? Dr. HARTMANN. I believe they did not. I think that the frame 210 that they identified was identified solely on criteri a of some FBI agents estimating when a wound occurred and also that they con- strained their shot times by this tree which grew in front of the window. They tended not to want to call for a shot when the President was behind this tree. Mr. Firntan. Let’s take the Zapruder film and give estimate of your analysis. If any of the shots that me the best were fired, whether they were three or four or two, if any of those shots were closer to Zapruder than the others, would you expect the blur or the jiggle or whatever the three of you were analyzing according to your own technique to be more pronounced than the more distant shots? Dr. HARTMANN. I am not sure I can give you a firm answer on che basis of any psychological theory about how the man would lave reacted except to indicate one of my own observ ations. I think I was the only one in the group who stood on Zapruder’s vedestal. That is not far from where the others were in the se- [uence of shots as was just indicated. But I stood on Zapruder’s edestal during that whole first Sequence and the shots from the lepository, this is my framework, I am looking out at the street. I iad the sensation of a very large sound filling the street area up he street toward depository but the shots from the knoll were xtremely loud in this ear and left my right ear ringing and my 2ft ear not ringing. So I had a very strong sensation from that shot, so I would have xpected the witness to be more definite that there was something ) the right if there had been a shot fired there. Mr. FITHian. Assuming that the intensity of the unexpected oise has something to do with the amount of reaction of the ibject, which I take it is what you just said, is there anything that e can learn, looking at your chart, as to the possib ility that any of 1e shots came from the grassy knoll? Dr. Hartmann. I believe not because there are clearly reactions * jiggles. I should not even Say reactions becau se we don’t know lat every jiggle is a reaction to something. Some ay be ordinary panning areas. There are clearl of the jiggles y jiggles of differ- it magnitude on there. What we don’t know is whether there are veral kinds of stimuli initiating jiggles. By that I am trying to say that there is the classic artle reaction which is going to produce jiggles involuntary . There may be an notional reaction following that caused by what the man sees rough his viewfinder. There may be an emotional reaction caused ‘what he perceives is going on. The instant where he perceives ere is actual gunfire going on here in this plaza in front of me ay change his bodily reaction. I think it is very hard to say. Mr. Firuian. Is that a possible explanation of the fact that clear er to the righthand corner of your own chart the disturbances 2 not only greater amplitude up and down, if you want to use at okies but more pronounced from there on out to the end of 2 chart? 132 have that. I should Dr. HarTMANN. Yes, I think we definitely From 310 onward, which as ave said that earlier this morning. hand corne r of those last three charts, Mr. yu say is the right is based on his apruder has recognized what happened and that under stand it. He said that he saw the wound, wn testimony, as I violently he react ed very > saw the President’s head explode and ) that. crying out If I interpreted his testimony accurately, he began confirm the testim ony, I could not nortly after that. As I reread gh he out or speaki ng as he ran the camera , althou e was crying of the end ays he cried out something like “They killed him” at that that ne sequence. He said he reacted very strongly. I am sure ; what all that jiggle is at the end. either Mr. Fitutan. So from your scientific analysis that could by ave been started, that first major one could have been started ed shot closer at hand and therefo re louder or by what he perceiv hrough the lens. Is that what you are saying? the Dr. HARTMANN. It could have been. One can get even into of whethe r there may be other gunfire stimula e buried in roblem ll that jiggle at the end. I don’t think we can tell, but someth ing learly initiated that last sequence at 310. Mr. Frruran. Just two small points: Did you view in any of the J} ilms that you viewed any motorcycles in the parade? Dr. HarRTMANN. Are you referring to the question raised during Yr. Barger’s testimony whether a motorcycle might have caught up ff o the car? , Mr. Firu1an. No. I was asking whether you viewed any motorcy- ‘les at all. | Dr. HaRTMANN. Yes; sir, clearly at the beginning of the parade }¥ rou see the motorcycles coming around the corner alongside the} ‘ar and they stayed behind the car during much of the filmed q sequence. Mr. Firatan. During your analysis of the film did any of the nt notorcycles seem to be catching up or moving forward in their} relative position in the parade? | Dr. HARTMANN. Not by any substantial amount, no. . Mr. Firuian. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of the} witness. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may have missed some of your testimony on the vote and I mayg be asking very simple questions, but from my understanding, does your jiggle analysis, when you match it with the Zapruder filmg } indicate a corresponding peak or reaction in your tape at the } moments when President Kennedy was hit by two shots? | F Dr. Hartmann. Yes. Of course, the jiggle analysis comes only rom the frames in the film. I think the conservative interpretatiorg of that second chart from the left, which is the summary chart, id | that it shows a violent set of jiggles initiated after what we know 4 to be the fatal head shot and that we could characterize an earliey | group of jiggles around frames 190 to 200. We know that thq Hy aah apparently responded to this back wound about a second } 133 So I think we could infer that those two sets of jiggles ar connected with the two shots that caused the wounds. Mr. Firutan. If the gentleman would yield, I wonder if we migh not introduce Mr. Chairman into evidence JFK exhibit 177A whic. I think would have applied to that last question and answer, but i has not been introduced yet today. Chairman Stokes. Without objection it may be entered into th record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisit F-177A ~ Mr. Preyer. So that that exhibit indicates clearly the head shot Dr. HARTMANN. Yes. May I go over and—— Mr. PREYER. Surely. Dr. HARTMANN. If I may, to answer your question, I think I cai summarize what I perceive is the situation that we have right now Derived from the film is the fact that the photographer jiggle his camera at these times. And if we first look at it in a ver) broad-brush sense, we see there is a cluster of jiggling going or here and a cluster going on here. Those jiggles are fixed comparec to what is happening in the motorcade and with respect to some - time scale. Now, floating free in space, or in time, on an unknown time ‘scale, on a time scale which we don’t know how it is connected t that diagram, is this spacing of shots, which the acoustics people have come up with. The question is how do these fit. These shots could be anywhere along here. We can slide them along. But we cannot start this far back because then we don’t have any shots up here to cause that first one. So we have to start sliding forward. Frame 310 is right in here. So we know that there was a trigger pulled at that time. We could line up No. 3 or No. 4. No. 3 has perhaps been questioned a little bit more, and there is no medical evidence that the shot that hit the head came from the knoll. Sc perhaps No. 4 is the better lineup. Mr. Dopp. Would the gentleman yield at that point. Mr. Preyer. All right. Mr. Dopp. You are stating with a pretty definitive assertion , chere that the trigger was pulled. What you are suggesting is not n fact that a trigger was pulled, but that something caused Mr. Zapruder at that point to wiggle the camera. Dr. HarTMANN. No, sir. I think we can say that the trigger was dulled, because we see in frame 313 the matter ejected from the lead, the head explosion. And in 314 it is flying on up. So if we run t backward—314, 313, 312—the bullet is hitting the head. And i hen we have to allow about two frames flight time for the bullet. On that basis I say that the trigger was pulled, a trigger was dulled at 310 plus or minus one. So I would say there must be some ound source starting at 310 plus or minus one. 134 Now, I would like to work it all the way back to the trigger being pulled, because presumably that is a fixed point in space, as Op- posed to tying it to impacts on the motorcade which is moving so that we have a firmer fix on it. So let me say here is a time when there must have been a loud report originating from someplace. Presumably it is the depository, because that matches the acoustic evidence. Now, the correct number of milliseconds after that, a reasonable number of milliseconds after that, based on the startle reaction, psychological experiments that I quoted from the literature earlier this morning, a reasonable number of milliseconds after that the cameraman starts jiggling. So that makes sense. Now, the situation is does it make sense up at that end. And in the very broad-brush sense, or if we put on our rosy glasses or diffusing glasses or something, I think you could say yes, the acous- tic analysis says there are events up here at this end and the jiggle analysis says there are some events up here at this end, before 200, and not at 210, for example, and not between 210 and 313, which is where the Warren Commission tended to put shots. So in that sense we have got something new, and we have got some agreement that something is happening up at this end. And a final sort of broad-brush statement is that I think you will be hearing tomorrow, if I understand, in the testimony sequence quite a bit of interesting evidence, photo evidence, from other members of the photo panel, that a number of very interesting things happen up in here from about 160 or even 150 to about 200—people turning, people who were running along, stopping and looking, this kind of thing, if we watch the crowd action in the background. So in that sense we have got new results and we have got something that looks interesting and is consistent. If you now try to get into the detailed fitting of this jiggle pattern to one of these sounds, I think it gets a little bit more difficult. There probably are several things to be remembered about that. One is there is some uncertainty attaching to the fixing of these times, as I understand it. Maybe a couple of tenths of a second. That is what is meant when I drew these things as kind of fuzzy bars, that they are not just precise fixed instants. So you maybe ge to slide this a little bit. Maybe I can slide this one around our 310 fiducial mark. An the more I push it, the more unhappy the acoustic people woul get presumably. But I can push it a little bit in that direction, an Ne ae it a little bit up in front of this jiggle, and that make ree other thing that you can consider is, is it possible that eithe 1é movie camera or the tape or both are running at a slightl different time rate than what we timed them. The camera has always traditionally been timed at 18.3 frame per second. But could that be 19 or 17, something like that? as PREYER. Could it have been running at that speed that day ~ é3 HARTMANN. We don’t really know the answer to that. Bu at correction would have the effect not of shifting by the smal 135 uncertainty, but by pretending this thing was drawn on rubber and allowing you to stretch it or compress it by a small amount. We have put our heads together about this and have thought that perhaps 8 percent or something like that might not be unrea- sonable. And that would get you another 10 frames or something like that up at this end. So that you could imagine possibly stretching this thing so that these things moved another 10 frames forward. If you did that, then you could start making a case that this shot initiated this jiggle cluster, perhaps even this shot initiated this jiggle here. It pow be interesting to see. But we don’t have any data, it is not ere. I might also just make a final comment, that all of this would make people who have looked at the previous assassination materi- al I think be surprised, because no one has ever really considered very much the idea that there could be shots that early in the parade. _ And I think the basis of that is you look at: the parade and at first glance, the first 50 times you look at the Zapruder film you don’t see very much happening there. But I would ask you to listen and see what is discussed, I believe, tomorrow. __Mr. Preyer. Well, is the jiggle analysis consistent with the firing of four shots or is it inconsistent with that? Dr. HARTMANN. I would beinclined to say that it is perhaps somewhat more consistent with the firing of three shots, without his one. It would perhaps even be more consistent with the firing »f two shots, because there are two principal clusters here. I think t is rather weak evidence to answer that question right off. fe: PREYER. So it is more consistent with the firing of three ‘nots. Dr. HARTMANN. Slightly. eT PREYER. But it is most consistent of all with the firing of two ots. Dr. HarTMANN. I think it would be somewhat more consistent vith the firing of two shots. I think this whole mass of material rom today gains its credibility by being fitted together with every- hing else, rather than just being taken as evidence that proves nything on its own. Mr. Preyer. How much of the reaction is there from Mr. Za- ruder seeing President Kennedy struck and reacting, and how 1uch is his jiggling from the sound of the bullet? r. HARTMANN. I think it is impossible to say for certain because re don’t know how the human body really reacts. But Mr. Za- ruder said that he reacted to the sight of the impact, of the head ‘ound, as I understand it. And that certainly is consistent with is massive shaking that goes on after that. By psychological experiments that have been done in the past, 1e would expect that in the first few tenths of a second, though, 1ere would be a startled reaction, and that is probably what we € particularly in frame 318, the very blurred frame. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The *ntleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. 136 Mr. McKinney. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Strokes. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mr. Chairma n. You stated in response to Congressman Fithian’s question that the Warren Commission was in error in identifying frame 210 as the frame in which the first gunshot was fired. What is your explanation for the Warren Commission’s error? Dr. HARTMANN. Well, I don’t know that I said so flatly that they were in error. But I would say that that evidence does not fit very well with what we have. And again, my understanding was that the process of logic that they used was they had some testimony that it looked like the wound occurred at about 210, when the President was behind the sign, and that is marked on this little set of keys up at the top. And then the process of logic continued by saying “We think that—we know from the measurements that the car was behind the general body of the tree shortly before that.” And they felt that that was a less likely time for the assassin to have fired, although there is a gap that they commented on them- selves in the foliage of the tree that occurs at about 186. And I think those were the two key bits of testimony. I am not certain that that is all of the testimony. But I think that is basically why they concluded that. And as I mentioned before, I am not aware that they did any of this kind of analysis, nor did they look very seriously, I believe, at the early frames. And in fact if you look in your Warren volumes, they start the Zapruder sequence, it was something like 177 or somewhere in the 170’s. So that everything before here isn’t even in the final volume that was published. Mr. Dopp. Well, based on what you have been telling us here, it would seem to indicate that we place the first shot in about eight frames, at least eight frames earlier than that, around 200, 202. Dr. HartMANN. I think a shot probably even before that. If I went through the little mathematical exercise of subtracting a reasonable number of frames from the reaction time, from this cluster, the answer that I got was a shot something like 179 to 195. Mr. Dopp. To your knowledge, looking from the placing the Presidential limousine and being in the Book Depository, where is that tree in that frame? Dr. HARTMANN. You would be looking through the tree. Al- though as I mentioned there is a break in the foliage at 186. And I made kind of a quick comparison of some of the photographs that were in the Warren volume, and the foliage measurements were made on the basis of the tests that were conducted the next spring. And the point has been made, and I am—the point has been made in some of the literature, and I am inclined to believe it after looking at the pictures that were taken on the 22d of November and the pictures that were taken next spring, that there was probably less foliage on the tree on November 22. So that if any- thing the marksman might have had a larger opening at 186. So I am inclined not to think that that is a fatal objection to a shot having been made at this time and hitting the target. iso ae In response to Judge Preyer’s questions with regard to e number of shots, possible number of shots—and I realize that 137 you are not advocating that this jiggle test is necessarily the best way to corroborate that—— Dr. HARTMANN. No, I am not. Mr. Dopp. But to make the point, Dr. Barger indicated that two of the shots could have occurred within five-tenths of a second of each other. And I presume what you are telling me is that it would be impossible, based on jiggle analysis, to determine whether or not there was one or two shots within that short a frame, a time frame. Dr. HARTMANN. I think it would be very difficult to tell. You see the kind of problem that you would get into, if we just take any of this pattern of jiggle back here toward the end of the diagram, it would be hard to pick two of those spikes out and say those are related to these two noises. So I don’t know what the evidence would be. Mr. Dopp. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxgs. Mr. Fithian, anything further? Mr. Firntan. Nothing, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. OK. Dr. Hartmann, under the rules of our sommittee any witness at the conclusion of his testimony may have ) minutes in which to expand upon his testimony before the com- mittee in any way. I would like to extend to you 5 minutes if you 30 desire. | Dr. HARTMANN. Just to make the point very briefly that it has securred to me that perhaps sometimes a scientist making the neasurements of these films comes across as very coldhearted. I 7omment at least for myself, and I think many of us, that the 1orror of this thing came across many, many times in doing this. And I wish you all very much good wishes to clarify what really 1as happened here. Thank you. Chairman Sroxgs. Thank you very much, sir. There being nothing further, these hearings are adjourned to 9 i.m. tomorrow morning. [Whereupon at 6:15 p.m. the hearings were adjourned to recon- ene at 9 a.m., Tuesday, September 12, 197 8.] 138 INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY es eT eet ee TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 HOusE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The select committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:15 a.m., in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the select committee), presiding. / Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, McKinney, Sawyer, Dodd, Ford, and Fithian. Staff present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director; Michael Goldsmith, senior staff counsel; and Elizabeth L. Berning, |chief clerk. _ Chairman Stokes. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. Buiakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bullet trajectory has become a matter of considerable debate in the Kennedy assassination, for it, too, goes, as the testimony has indicated, to the heart of the issue of whether a single bullet _wounded both the President and Governor Connally. It also locates the position of the assassin or assassins whom the medical evidence indicates hit their target. The Warren Commission reasoned that an accumulation of medi- cal and ballistics evidence demonstrated that the shots were fired Boi the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Its ap- ‘proach to the line of fire issue, therefore, was simply to determine that trajectory data was consistent with their ultimate conclusion. On May 24, 1964, the FBI and Secret Service agents conducted a series of tests, reconstructing trajectories. Using the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films, they were able to fix the locations of the Presidential limousine and its occupants. An FBI agent was posi- _doned in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the “Texas School Book Depository with the Mannlicher-Carcano that “tad been identified as having belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. ounted on a tripod was a motion picture camera attached to he telescopic sight that viewed the target area precisely as the “28Sassin would have seen it had he used the telescopic sight. The dosition of the limousine, as it corresponded to each frame of the _Zapruder film, was recorded. ) (139) 140 The agents observed that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film, the President passed behind the foliage of an oak tree, and but for a fraction of a second at frame 186, he did not move into an assas- sin’s view until frame 210. This led the Commission to accept the probability that the President was not shot before frame 210. The assassin, the Commission reasoned, would have waited until after frame 210, at which point his view was again unobstructed. At frame 210, however, Abraham Zapruder’s view of the Presi- dent was blocked by a highway sign, and the President did not emerge from behind the sign until frame 225, just short of a second later. Although the Commission was unable to fix the exact time point the President was first hit, it was able to determine that it was during the period he was behind the sign. The Commission thought he showed no sign of injury before frame 210; he was obviously hit at frame 225. It should be emphasized, however, that there is no photographic evidence recording the precise instant of the first hit to the President. Still, the Commission proceeded to plot the trajectory of the first shot to hit the President by assuming the position of the limousine to be between frames 210 and 225. At each intervening frame, the FBI agent at the sixth floor window lined up the telescopic sight on the points of entry wounds marked on stand-ins for the President and Governor Connally seated in the limousine. The next step was to have a surveyor place his sighting device at the precise point of entry on the President’s upper back for each frame of the Zapruder film. The surveyor then measured the angle to the muzzle of the rifle in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The measurements were averaged, and, taking into account the downward grade of the roadway, the prob- able angle through the President’s body was calculated at 17 de- grees 43 minutes 30 seconds, assuming he was sitting in a vertical position. The Commission then concluded that this angle was consistent with the trajectory of a bullet that would have passed through both the President’s neck and struck Governor Connally in the back. The critics have decried the Commission’s trajectory for the fact that it assumes the shot came from the rear. Here are examples of their commentaries: Mark Lane in his “Rush to Judgment”: The Commission * * * employed the unproved assertion that the bullet which struck the President came from the rear as the basic premise to prove that it “probably” hit Governor Connally as well. Sylvia Meagher in her “Accessories After the Fact”: The Com- mission did not give adequate consideration to the possibility of assassins at locations other than the window or the overpass * * *. There is a considerable body of evidence suggestin that shots were fired from the grassy knoll * * * ; 7 Josiah Thompson in his “Six Seconds in Dallas” attempted a trajectory analysis and decided that there were four shots from three locations—two from the depository, one from the east side of Dealey Plaza, one from the stockade fence north on Elm Street. 141 It would seem that the critics have at least one point in their favor in attacking the Commission’s analysis. The analysis assumes che firing position of the assassin as a known, then proceeds to compute the angle to the target. The objective was to verify that she resulting trajectory was consistent with the assumed position of she gunman. The committee, however, has taken a different approach. It de- ided to take the entry wounds to the President and Governor Jonnally as the starting points in its calculations and work out- vard from there. It was hypothesized that, given a margin of error, he trajectory out from the limousine would lead tc the position of he assassin. The committee in part based its trajectory analysis on the loca- ion of the entrance and exit wounds supplied by its medical panel, nd it relied on the evidence obtained from photographic and coustical analysis. Since the trajectory study was underway well efore the acoustical analysis was complete, data on the sound of hots was available only in the latter stages of the line-of-fire urvey. It is likely, therefore, and it should be emphasized, that the inal trajectory analysis may well be modified somewhat in order hat the final results of the acoustical analysis might be acorporated. Consequently, the testimony that you will hear today is prelimi- ary in the sense that it has not yet incorporated the material om the acoustical analysis. For the photographic phase of the survey, the committee called n 15-odd-man photo scientists who served either as contractors for 1€ committee or as members of its photographic panel. At a recent conference, they reviewed the Zapruder film from vo standpoints, first: They sought to pinpoint when the President ad Governor Connally first visibly reacted to being hit by shots. cond, they tried to determine whether the relative position of the vo men at the moment Kennedy was probably first hit was con- stent with the single bullet analysis or hypothesis. The photo scientists who did the review represent a broad range “experience both academic and industrial. Their work for the mmittee has been extensive since, as the presentation on opening 1y indicated, the photographic issues in the Kennedy assassina- on are many and complex. A member of the photographic evidence panel, Mr. Calvin cCamy, is here today to testify on part of the trajectory analysis sat utilizes the Zapruder film. He will also discuss the photogram- etric technique that was used to locate precisely the position of e limousine at the time the shots that struck the President and Ivernor Connally were fired. Mr. McCamy received a BS. degree in chemical engineering and MS. degree in physics from the University of Minnesota. He has ught mathematics at the University of Minnesota and physics at emson University. He has been the Chief of Image Optics and 1otography with the National Bureau of Standards. Currently, he with the Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corp. Mr. McCamy serves as chairman of the American National andards’ Working Group on Print Quality for Optical Character ‘cognition, chairman of the American Society of Photogrammetry OF t m my an qi. 4 142 Standards Committee, and adviser to the U.S. delegation to the International Organization for Standardization Committee on Pho- tography. Mr. McCamy is a fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, and the Soci- ety of Photographic Scientists and Engineers. He serves on the editorial review boards of several technical journals and he has authored numerous papers on photography, color printing and other aspects of chemistry and physics. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. McCamy. Chairman SToKEs. The committee calls Mr. McCamy. Sir, will you stand, raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. McCamy. I do. Chairman STokKEs. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel for the committee, Mr. Michael Goldsmith. Mr. GotpsmitTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCamy, for what purposes were the photographic evidence panel and contractors asked to review the Zapruder film at its most recent conference? TESTIMONY OF CALVIN McCAMY Mr. McCamy. Our first purpose was to ascertain from the photo- graphic evidence, if possible, the first signs that the President or Governor Connally were in distress. The second objective was to ascertain from the photographic evidence, if possible, whether or not the President and the Governor were in positions in the limou- sine that would be consistent with the single bullet theory. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. How many panel members actually participated in the review of the Zapruder film, Mr. McCamy’? Mr. McCamy. There were about 20 people altogether. The films were viewed many times in many sessions. They were not all present at all times. When we voted on specific issues, about 1 people voted. Mr. GoipsmitH. And did you view any particular version of th Zapruder film? | Mr. McCamy. Yes; we had a copy, a direct copy, of the Zaprude film. We also had special films that were prepared by Mr. Groden These were rotoscoped, which means that they were slightl enlarged and stabilized. Mr. GotpsmitH. Does a rotoscope version of the Zapruder fil facilitate analysis? Mr. McCamy. Yes, it gives you a closer view, and as I said, it 1 stabilized, so, it seems to be more stable on the screen. Mr. Go.tpsmitu. Now how many times was this film viewed b the panel? Mr. McCamy. That is very hard to say, because we would look a a scene and attempt to determine what was happening, go bac look at it again, and then again and again. We have looked at it fo 143 lays. I would estimate somewhere in the neigh borhood of 100 ‘imes. Mr. Go.psmitH. As you know, Mr. McCamy, the original Za- ruder film is missing four frames between frames (hose four frames were spliced out when Time-Life 208 and 211. had possession f the film. Was the panel given an opportunity to see the four frames 08-211, showing the President as he went behind the sign when he panel reviewed the Zapruder film? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Groden had obtained the Secret Service Im that had those frames. He had copied them on 35-mm film. ‘hese were still slides, and at that point in the viewin g, 35 mm projector and looked at the slides that repres we went to ented those ‘ames. Mr. Gotpsmitu. And that Secret Service film I take it was made vailable to Mr. Groden by the committee staff? Mr. McCamy. Yes, that is correct. Mr. GotpsmirtuH. Would you state at this time, Mr. McCamy, what le panel’s conclusion was about when President Kennedy first 10wed a reaction to some severe external stimulus? Mr. McCamy. Yes. The panel generally tended to agree that lere was some sign of distress before frame 207. We took iat, and the vote was 12 to 5 that there was photog a vote on raphic evi- nce of some distress by that time. Mr. GotpsmitH. Would you indicate at this point whether frame 7 is before or after the President goes behind the sign? By “sign” am referring to the sign that obstructed Abraham Zapruder’s line sight. Mr. McCamy. The President’s head is partially obscured by the Mr. McCamy. The vote was 11 to 3 that there was some sign of tress by frame 226, which is just immediately after he comes out ‘m behind the sign. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Finally, would you indicate now what the ael’s opinion was about whether the relative alinement of the ») cn in the vehicle was consistent with the single bullet Ory’ Mr. McCamy. Yes. The positions of the men were se films just prior to the time that the limousine examined on went behind Sign, and it was agreed 15 to 1 that the men were in positions t were consistent with the single bullet theory. Ar. GotpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I might state now that we are ut to review the Zapruder film. The film that we are about to contains all of the frames that had previously been spliced out. ave a special projector here which is capable of running the 1 at a reduced speed. The normal speed I believ e is 18 frames prone. and we will be viewing it today at a somew hat reduced Ir. McCamy, would you at this point review the film Purpose of describing the actions of the limous with us for ine occupants to summarize generally the basis for the panel’ s conclusions? 144 Mr. McCamy. Yes. r Let me state first the film is taken by Mr. Zapruder, an amateu He photographer, using an amateur 8 mm motion picture camera. he had positioned himself on top of a masonry structure where see almost the entire path of the parade through Dealey could Plaza on Elm Street. For a brief time, view is obscured by a traffic sign indicating the way to the Stemmons freeway. We are going to see a 16 mm copy of the Zapruder film incorpo- rating all frames. We will first see the entire sequence photo- graphed by Zapruder. We will see it at two-thirds of its normal speed. Then we will go back and make some observations bearing on Governor Connally’s testimony that he heard a shot, turned and looked over his right shoulder. Then we will go to a _rotoscope version which we will use to study the movements of the President. Then we will again see a rotoscope view in which we will look at the positions of the two men as shown in the Zapruder film and the motions of Connally. Mr. GotpsmitH. Could we have the lights out, please? Mr. McCamy. At this point, Governor Connally is looking slight- ly to his left. He continues to look in that direction in the next frame. Here Governor Connally is looking slightly to his left. He continues to look slightly to his left. In the next frame we see him having turned quite sharply toward the front, and in the next frame even more so. He is now continuing to turn to the right. And here we:see him looking to the right and upward, confirming his testimony that he heard a shot and turned and looked over his right shoulder. We now go to a rotoscope version where we will be seeing it in very slow motion in order that we may observe the actions of the President. His hand is moving downward. He was waving to the audience. Notice that there are some frames in which there is very consider- able blur. This was part of our analysis, as you will recall. The President continuing to wave to the audience, and apparent- ly smiling on these frames. In this view we can see the President and Governor Connally. The President’s shoulders can be seen. Governor Connally is seen turned quite sharply to his right, his entire torso having been twisted somewhat as he looks that way. Between the two men we see the black upholstery, shiny black upholstery, on the seat behind President Kennedy. The two bright areas you see at the top of that upholstery are reflections of sun light. So we see a considerable amount of the rear seat of the limousine between the President and Governor Connally. There is a chrome strip that runs along the side of the limousine. The President’s arm is on or over that chrome strip, which means that he is well to the right side of the limousine. Governor Connal- ly, on the other hand, can be seen to be well inside the limousine. These facts were of course confirmed by other photographs as well, but I think they are clearly seen here. _ There is considerable blurring at this point. The President’s arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. Hi 145 head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteen th of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right sar toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking lirectly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fractio n of a second ater we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expres- ion. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been tartled. _ He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defen- ive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound. ains this attitude, turning again sharply to his wife, He main- who clearly ecognizes the situation by now. He moves toward his wife. His nfe notices Connally. The President is now moving toward his rife, turning his head toward her, leaning forward, and leaning to 1e left. His head is quite a ways down, as you can see. His wife pparently inspects the wound or the damage to his clothing at ‘ast. That is the head shot. Mr. Gotpsmitx. Mr. McCamy? Mr. McCamy. Yes, sir. Mr. Gotpsmitu. As we are about to view the rotosc ope version a -cond time, could you state the specific basis of the panel’s conclu- on that the President was hit before he went behind the sign hen we view that film a second time? Mr. McCamy. We will largely be studying the motion s of Gover- or Connally here. Here is where he is looking to the right sharpl y, while the resident still waves to the crowd. Here is the view in which you n see fairly well the positions of the men. That is a fairly clear ew right there. Governor Connally seems to be lookin g left (as en from the viewer’s perspective) as the car goes behind the sign. Now President Kennedy made this very sharp sudden turn to the t, turning about 180 degrees in something like a sixth of a ond. This was a very sharp turn. It would be whipping one’s ad around. As Connally comes out from behind the sign, he has a distressed ’k on his face. He is concerned. He is looking upward . His body is a rather taut attitude. He winces. His facial expres sion changes lically. His head position changes rapidly from moment. to ment. He grimaces. He begins to turn sharply. His cheeks are ffed. He apparently is screaming or saying someth ing, very arly in distress. He turns, looks back at the Presid ent, as he said did, recognizes that the President has been shot, recovers only eae AR to lie back down at the time of the head shot which he icribed. r. Gotpsmitu. Mr. McCamy, I would ask you to run the roto- pe version one more time, and at this time specifi cally indicate panel’s basis for concluding that Governor Connal ly is showing reaction almost immediately after emerging from in. behind the fr. McCamy. Here he is seen first. He is looking upward y is thrown back. He seems to be frowning. His . His facial expres- 1 changed very suddenly there. We can compa re those two 146 a second from that to this. frames. That is an one-eighteenth of his facial expression has Another one-eighteenth of a second later his head move s very quickly in one- changed radically, and now eighteenth of a second. turn something like 60 Now facing straight forward. There was a inth of a secon d. His facial expression seems degrees in about one-n s to turn. His now he begin to change from frame to frame, and ng back to look He opens his mouth , turni cheeks are puffed here. at the President. rather than continue Mr. Gotpsmiru. Mr. McCamy, at this point, rotoscope film, I with the end of this particular section of the two men are back to where the would ask you to move the film the panel’s and indica te the specif ic basis for behind the sign on consistent with the concluding that the men were sitting a positi single bullet theory. in a small Mr. McCamy. This is one of the clearer frames taken sign. The the limous ine went behind the fraction of a second before seated far to President’s arm is on the edge of the limousine. He is Connal ly, on the other hand, is the right in his seat. Governor His the right, and his body is twiste d toward the right. looking to consider- shoulders can be seen here, and as I indicated earlier, a rear seat of the limous ine can be seen between able expanse of the the two men at this angle. This indicates, of course, that Connally was well inside the auto- the mobile, and therefore a projectile coming from the right side of automobile could have penetrated Kennedy’s back, come out through his neck, and then gone downward through Connally’s torso, his right wrist, which was just above his thigh, and then be buried in his thigh. Mr. GotpsmitH. Does this correspond approximately with frame 193 of the Zapruder film? Mr. McCamy. Yes, that is approximately right. _ Mr. GoupsmitH. Very well. I would ask you now to finish show- ing the film at regular speed, and we will proceed with your testimony. Thank you. Can we have the lights now? Mr. McCamy, I noticed several times in your testimony that yo made references to changes in the movements of the occupants 0 the limousine within an one-eighteenth of a second. To what extent was the panel’s knowledge and understandin that the Zapruder film runs at approximately 18.3 frames pe second important in its analysis? By that I mean, to what exten did the panel attempt to quantify its analysis? : Mr. McCamy. The 18.3 frames per second was used by the pane he motion picture camera takes a photograph every 18.3—I sorry, takes a photograph 18.3 times each second. This tells us tha the movement between any two frames takes place in about on eighteenth of a second, and that timing is quite good. We saw B evidence that the camera was running in an unsteady manner 0 an such thing, so that this makes it a reasonable basis for timin a Bis aalngearH, Now at one point early in the film, you mad out wath i overnor Connally turning sharply from his left to f approximately four frames. If you were to quantl 147 that, would that come out to a turn of something like or something in excess of 720° per second? Mr. McCamy. I would describe it in this way: There was first a jerk of about 60 degrees in a one-ninth of a second, and that would be characterized as a jerk. He was looking slightly left. He jerked toward the right, paused momentarily, and then execute d another sharp turn to his right, 30° more in one-eighteenth of a second. So, it was essentially two sudden jerks, and then he began to look ‘upward. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. And that was approximately at frame 160 of the Zapruder film? Mr. McCamy. This is the first jerk from 162 to 164, and the second one, 166 to 167. Mr. GoutpsmitH. Thank you. I am going to proceed now to the next area of inquiry, Mr. McCamy. Are you familiar with the trajectory project that has been con- ducted by this committee? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Go.tpsmitH. To what extent have you been involved in this oroject? Mr. McCamy. I assisted with some of the photographic interpre ation and some of the photogrammetry. - Mr. GotpsmitH. At this time I would ask that the witness be siven an opportunity to look at what has been marked for identifi- ation as JFK F-133, a Survey Map. Mr. Chairman, this is a survey map of the Dealey Plaza area. nove for its admission into the record. I peainian STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the ecord. [The information follows:] ai herera 2cre Serine) © sac. ines SUVOSSY 8 wR 4@ O}uvddue SIAILWANISF4IIH 40 ISNOW SN SNOLLYNISSWSSY NO IFLLINMOD 193735 Od OVEN Tied Svx3L' SY7T7WO WZVId AIWH +0 NOILYOd NYIHLYON FHL JO Led Vv 40 NS L ~~ DHIVHIOIJO THI :: 148 LFIMIS 433981S wi 149 Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mrs. Downey, may I have your assistance for a moment? According to this map it indicates the position of the Presidential limousine in frames 193 and 318 of the Zapruder film. Mrs. Downey is pointing to those two positions on the map. I ask you, Mr. McCamy, do you know what method was used to place the limousine in Dealey Plaza for purposes of the trajectory analysis? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Who actually carried out this analysis for the committee? Mr. McCamy. This was done by the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Va. Mr. GotpsmituH. Would you describe now what method they used photogrammetrically to place the limousine in Dealey Plaza? _ Mr. McCamy. Yes, a map was made of Dealey Plaza by a survey firm in Dallas, Tex., and that map was provided to the Geological Survey. Enlargements of six frames of the Zapruder film were provided to the Survey. The position of the cameraman was known from his testimony and confirmed by photographs of him taken by photographers on the other side of the street. The Geological Survey found a number of points on a wall that appeared in these photographs. They located these points precisely on the map, and they could deter- mine the line of sight from the lens to each of these points. _ Now these lines made angles at the camera lens. The same angles were described inside the camera when the scene was imaged. They were able to measure the corresponding distances on the film, and knowing the angles and these corresponding dis- tances, they were able to determine the distance from the film to the lens. Once that distance was determined, it was possible to make measurements on photographs, and from those measure- ments compute angles in space. They knew the dimensions of the limousine, both from design drawings and from measurements made by the Secret Service. Knowing the dimensions of the limousine, and the angles subten- dent on the films, it was possible for them to compute the distance from the camera to the limousine. Then on these photographs they were able to pick out known points in Dealey Plaza and known points on the limousine, and, as [ said, they were able then to compute from the measurements on the photograph the angles from these known points to the points on the limousine. Knowing the distance and knowing the angles, they were able to plot these positions on the map. Hr. GOLDSMITH. Does this method have any particular name by which it is referred to? Mr. McCamy. This is analytical photogrammetry. “tr. GotpsmitH. And within what margin of error was the U.S. yeological Survey able to place the limousine in Dealey Plaza? Mr. McCamy. They made estimates of the error. Some of the frames given to them were better photographically than others, and on the three best frames, they estimated their positions to be 150 within one-half meter. For the other frames that were not as clear, they estimated their maximum error to be about 2 meters. Mr. Gotpsmitu. In your opinion, Mr. McCamy, do you regard these estimates as being conservative? Mr. McCamy. They have said that these are conservative esti- me. mates, and, yes, they sound like quite conservative estimates to Mr. GotpsmitH. Why do they sound conservative to you, sir? Mr. McCamy. Because the methods of photogrammetry are very precise. We have lines of sight, and we have quite precise methods of computation, so I would think that these are conservative values. | Mr. Gotpsmi tH. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Chairman Stokes. The Chair will at this time yield to the gentle- man from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer, after which the committee will observe the 5-minute rule. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you were making these studies on trajectory, did you make any assumptions with regard to the positions of the people in the limousine? Mr. McCamy. The positions of the people in the limousine were determined by a study of a large number of photographs. Incidentally, some of these photographs have just come to be known, so that there is some new evidence. At least one recent photograph is a very clear photograph of the side of the limousine taken by a man standing right on the curb. So we do have quite a bit of information about the positions. On that photograph that I just mentioned, I went back to the design data for the limousine and to the measurements that were taken by the Secret Service on the various parts of the limousine, and these gave quite accurate scaling, and then it was possible to make measurements of the people. Not all of the people were visible. There were times when there were areas that were simply in shadow so that you could not see everything. The determina- tions are not perfect, of course, but we were able to position them quite well, I think. Mr. Sawyer. I noticed, or as I recall it, you said that Governor Connally executed this rapid turn to his right, as I recall it, 90 degrees in one-eighteenth of a second, and then looked upward. Now this was before, that was 166 to 167 frames, whereas you said the panel agreed on a vote that about frame 207 was the first indication that the President was in distress. Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. So that I presume from listening to you, that it would be an indication at least that there had been a shot that didn’t hit anybody at that time, at about 166 to 167? Mr. McCamy. This would explain the observed facts, yes. Mr. Sawyer. And then if I follow more by inference than specifi cally what you said, it would have been a second shot that hit th President for the first time. Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. And that would have been the shot that presum ably then hit Governor Connally also. 151 Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Mr. Chairman, I will defer any questions I have at us time. Chairman Stokes. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. Any other members seeking recognition? The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. Firuian. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at some time this morn- g I might see the photo that was taken by the man on the curb. Is that evidence available? Mr. GoupsmiTH. I am not sure which photograph you are refer- 1g to. Mr. Firuian. The one that Mr. McCamy just referred to. He said was a very clear photo taken perpendicular to the limousine; is at correct? Mr. McCamy. Part of the limousine, yes. This is the Croft photo. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Yes, Mr. Fithian, that will be made available. Mr. FirHian. The only problem I have with the testimony is the ‘ation, the relative location, of Governor Connally and the Presi- nt. As I perceive it, the Zapruder angle in relationship to the side of > limousine is about what? Mr. McCamy. That is a rather sharp angle at that time. I would imate something like 20°. I have not calculated that. Mr. FirH1an. From your expertise, the photo shot, the picture cen at that angle, what does this do in terms of spreading the rceived distance between the two men? Mr. McCamy. It would appear as though the two men are very -ceptibly separated left and right, that is, that Kennedy is right ainst the edge of the limousine and—— Mr. FirHian. I understood your testimony. Let me rephrase my astion. f Zapruder had been looking directly at Connally’s nose from ' front, then the alinement of Connally and Kennedy could be dily and clearly measured as to which one was at forward ships, to speak. ‘he question is, as you swing around at an angle, where you ally get in the angle that would include Zapruder, what does t do in the perception of the two people? Presumably, if you get und at 90°, there would be no way of telling, except by distance asurements, which of the gentlemen was closer or further from | But what does it do at the Zapruder angle? That is my stion. fr. McCamy. At the Zapruder angle, the apparent displacement ‘educed, so that the displacement is actually greater than you ild compute it simply looking from that angle. fr. FirH1an. So it appears that those two bright, shiny spots and orth, it actually appears that they are further apart, that is, in fnent within the vehicle, than they are by some certain per- age. 152 Mr. McCamy. Yes; I see what you are getting at. | Connally is, of course, definitely well in front of Kennedy, anc we are seeing part of that angle as well. But as you perceive, if we were to look from the side of the vehicle, we would not get an; indication at all of the shift of Connally to the left. We would see that vector at a maximum, if we look right straight from the fron of the vehicle. That vector is reduced slightly by moving throug this 20°. The positioning of the man, however, as I have pointed ou before, was obtained from a number of photographs, not just thi one. There were other motion pictures, as well as other still photo graphs, and with reference to the apparent shift with angle, th eye is a pretty good judge, so that when you look at that and yo get an impression of how far they are, you can trust that impres sion pretty well. Mr. FitHIAN. I take it then that you are satisfied that there i room, though this jump seat is very small for Connally, a larg man, to make these what seemed to me to be almost violent gyra tions or at least very quick movements. Mr. McCamy. He made rather quick movements. I think th ama size of the jump seat would facilitate these movements actu ally. Mr. Firnian. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, a last question. It is your testimony that at frame 162 to 167 or thereabouts, bot! men make rather sharp movements, but they are not hit. That i your conclusion? | Mr. McCamy. No, sir, that was merely with reference to M1 Connally. At that time President Kennedy is happily waving to th people in the crowd. | Mr. FiITHIAN. So Connally makes a sharp movement. ) Mr. McCamy. Yes. | Mr. FirHian. You are presuming because he heard something he reacted to something. Mr. McCamy. Yes; he testified to this effect, and this would see to be consistent with what he testified. _ Mr. Frrutan. And then that the single bullet that hit them bot is just as they enter behind the sign or one frame or two ahead that; is that correct? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Firntan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. SAWYER. Yes. If we were to assume or determine as the panel did and as think we could see, that the reaction to the noise apparently Governor Connally occurred in, say, frame 166, and the visible fi reaction of any distress on the part of the President was at abo 207, and considering that the reaction times of both men probab are a wash, there would be about 2.3 seconds between the presum tive first shot that missed and the shot that hit the Preside about 2.3 seconds? Mr. McCamy. Yes, something like that, right. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you. That is all. 153 Chairman STokEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, you indicated that the distances between Gov- }rnor Connally and the President in one clear frame is approxi- jiately 1 meter, I think you said, and a blurrier frame, 2 meters, ad you said you were being conservative. Then you indicated this was an exact science. Mr. McCamy. When we were speaking of those errors, we were }ilking about the ability of the Geological Survey to place the mousine on the street in a precise position. They feel as though jieir errors are within a half meter in placing it geographically for ie better frames and within 2 meters for the poorer frames, but it jas not the distance between the President and the Governor. Jnat was surely known with much better precision than that. Mr. Dopp. One of the areas that has drawn a lot of attention jer the past few days that we have been here, in terms of the jotographic evidence and the timing of the shots, has to do with »vernor Connally’s hat. Congressman Sawyer has I think very quently pointed out how difficult it would be for him to under- and—and I think many of us, who are not as expert as he is in at area, also have difficulty understanding—how someone could Id on to a hat and be hit, as the allegations have it, hit through e wrist. What does your photographic evidence show with regard to Gov- nor Connally’s Texan Stetson hat in the photographs as you saw em in the Zapruder film? Mr. McCamy. It can be seen that he has his hat in his hand or ng somewhere in front of him. The pictures are not quite clear ough to be able to tell you exactly what he does with the hat, but does seem to have the hat in his hand. The medical evidence ‘tainly shows that the radius was broken, but that is well up on > wrist, and it seems conceivable that he could have continued to itch the hat. It is quite well known that one of the startled ictions is to clench the fists, and it just may be that he clenched very tightly. Mr. Dopp. But as a matter of photographic evidence, I am not ing to get you to comment on the medical aspects. As a matter photographic evidence, he is holding, your evidence shows or ir examination of these photographs shows, that he is holding it hat after he has been hit. ir. McCamy. Yes, it seems to be the case because the hat moves, 1 I would think this is because it was in his hand being moved. Mr. Dopp. Could you give me an indication? You moved your 1d a couple of times trying to demonstrate how Governor Con- ly moved. tow fast do you move your head in one-eighteenth of a second? 1at does it look like? fr. McCamy. I visualize Connally in that first sequence we were record at this point. ) The information follows:] 186 JFK Exuisit F-223 JFK Exuisit F-229 187 JFK Exuisir F-232 JFK Exuisitr F-236 JFK Exuisit F-240 Mr. GoupsmiTH. Thank you. I would ask at this time that the witness be shown what have been marked for identification as JFK Nos. F-144 and F-145. Those can simply be placed on top of the Zapruder frames tha we have. Mr. Canning, can you identify these two items? ; Mr. CANNING. These are scale drawings of a portion of the limo sine, and of Dealey Plaza showing the position of the structure: and the limousine at the time of Frame 190. The other exhibit the corresponding elevation view showing the same informatior seen by a person viewing it from a great distance perpendicular t the trajectory direction line. Mr. GotpsmitH. Are these two exhibits designed to show th direction and slope of the trajectory? Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of thes two exhibits. Chairman Strokes. Without objection, they may be entered in the record. [The information follows:] 189 JFK Exutsir F-144 SLOPE OF “SINGLE BULLET THEORY” TRAJECTORY JFK Exuisit F-145 Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. Canning, at this time I would like to ask you ) explain your analysis of the single bullet theory trajectory, in ght of these two exhibits. Mr. CaNnnINc. The inset is simply a replica of the drawing which e had before with the two lines established as lines of sight from lr. Betzner’s camera, with the President in the position that that 1alysis determined, the Governor in the position that that analy- s showed, and then we have indicated schematically where the Overnor’s wound would show, and where the President’s neck ound would show, to establish a line relative—again in the frame ‘reference of the limousine now, which would extend to the gun. 41-371 O- 79 - 13 Vol. 2 190 it in We then take this drawing and reduce it in size and place n and angula r orienta tion in the plaza, and take © the correct positio the tion relativ e to this same line with the same angular orienta it to show the directi on of the single bullet limousine, and extend theory trajectory. tion The side view picture using in large measure the informa the Croft photog raph illustra tes again the position of the back from not use the informa tion for the Presi- and neck wounds. We do and dent’s back wound, just the information from his neck wound, and the relative positio ns and |} for Governor Connally’s back wound relative heights are registe red in this drawing . We simply draw a straight line from Governor Connally’s inshoot jj wound through the President’s outshoot wound and extend the line jj toward the point from which the gun was thus deduced to have |} been fired. The side view of the limousine is shown as if it were on level |} ground. Therefore when we show it in the main part of the exhibit | we preserve the angular relationship between the trajectory slope line and the body of the car. When this line is extended in the| main part of the exhibit, it intercepts the face of the Texas School Book Depository as shown in exhibit JFK F-145. Mr. GotpsmitH. What is the margin of error indicated on this | particular diagram, Mr. Canning? Mr. CANNING. It is a little bit over 5 feet in radius. Mr. Gotpsmiru. How was this margin of error determined? Mr. CANNING. It was determined in the same manner as before,| simply by estimating the contributions to uncertainty contributed | at each stage of the trajectory determination. | Mr. GotpsmitH. Why is this particular margin of error so much less than the others? Mr. CANNING. This is illustrated by JFK F-145. The distance} between the two men, about 60 centimeters or 2 feet, is about five} times as great as that between the President’s back and neck wounds. Therefore there can be much larger errors in determining} relative positions of the wounds without increasing the resulting angular errors. The same contrast applies also to the accuracy 0 the single bullet trajectory relative to that of the head wounds case. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. Canning, to what extent, if any, would you results be different if you were to reconstruct the trajectory based upon the limousine’s location in Zapruder Frame 197? Mr. CanninG. Again the effect would be exactly the same as itj would be in the case of the back neck wound. The final point would ae to the east and would rise slightly by just a matter of a few eet. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Would it move to the east or to the west? Mr. CANNING. It would move to the east and up. Mr. Gotpsmitu. And would you indicate in that diagram whic direction is east? | Mr. CANNING. East is to our left in this diagram. I beg your pardon. Mr. GoLpsMiTH. Wouldn’t that be the west? Mr. CANNING. It is west. I knew I would blow that one. I saic west one time and it was almost funny. 191 Yes, that is correct. This is to the west, and I think I said east earlier as well. That should be corrected. Mr. GotpsmiTuH. Thank you. Mr. Canning, you may resume your seat now. I am going to ask Mrs. Downey to work the overlay on exhibit No. 122. Thank you. Mr. Canning, would you describe the margin of error as indicated on the overlay of exhibit 122? Mr. CANNING. That is the smallest oval which I generated this morning for the single bullet theory. It is black in the overlay. Mr. GoipsmitH. Mrs. Downey, would you point to that oval, please? Thank you. Mr. Canning, each of the three trajectories that you constructed had different slope, different direction, and a different margin of error. What consequence, if any can you attribute to these differences? Mr. CANNING. The differences may well arise simply because all measurements are imprecise, and it would simply be unrealistic to expect the slopes and directions to be identical. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Canning. I have no further questions. Chairman Strokes. The procedure at this point will be that the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer, for such time as he may consume, after which the committee will operate under the 5-minute rule. The Chair at this time recognizes Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I understand the procedure that you went through, you did not attempt to force the end of the line pointing toward the gun. You let it fall where it may, starting from the wound, in effect, the position of the limo and the assumed posture based on the best evidence you could get. | Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. Sawyer. I am still a little puzzled why the marked improve- ment in the margin of error on the last diagram. You didn’t change the angle through the President or the line of flight, presumed line of flight, of the bullet? Mr. CANNING. Yes, those two angles are different. The line of sight that one obtains by using Governor Connally’s back wound and President Kennedy’s neck wound is slightly different from the angle which is determined by using the President’s wounds alone. Mr. Sawyer. So then by taking into account then the wounds on Governor Connally forced some kind of a caused alteration in either the line of the bullet or the posture of the President? Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet’s travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor’s wound, and the President’s neck wound, that that will give us one line. The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will Zive us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply 192 ) because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found. Mr. Sawyer. If we were to start at the other end then and assume that a bullet were fired at the approximate time we have determined from the sixth floor of the depository, would it have of necessity given the wounds in the President, would it of necessity, based on what you have determined as to locations somewhat, also have hit Governor Connally? Mr. CANNING. The bullet would have had to have been substan- tially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alinements that we have found. Mr. Sawy eEnr. So that if we assume, as apparently is the fact, that this jacketed bullet did not hit anything solid in the way of bone in the President but only traversed the soft tissue of the neck, and presuming the approximate location of the limousine at the time and the posture as nearly as can be determined of the President at that time, that in your view then, absent a deflection of that bullet, it could not have missed Governor Connally. Mr. CANNING. That is my view, yes. Mr. Sawyer. I think that is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether or not you listened to the narration of Mr. Blakey with regard to the test done by the Warren Commission, a test trying to determine trajectory back in 1964. Are you familiar with the process the Warren Commission went through? Mr. CANNING. Yes, I have read the Warren Commission report, the summary volumes. Mr. Dopp. Could you comment? There has been a lot of criticism over the years on whether or not that was the best kind of an examination and test that could have been used at the time to determine trajectory. Would you care to comment on the type of test that the Warren Commission used in that year to determine trajectory? Mr. CANNING. Well, in a sense I feel that they were not testing the ability to determine a trajectory. They were testing the incon- sistency of a trajectory with a hypothesis. The hypothesis was that a bullet was in fact fired from the southeast corner of the school book depository at the sixth floor, and that they were then observ- ing the consistency of the facts with that hypothesis. Mr. Dopp. In other words, they had reached a conclusion and they were trying to determine or prove that conclusion. Mr. CANNING. That is the way I read it, yes. Mr. Dopp. And from what I understand from listening to your testimony this morning, you assumed no particular position but 193 ather took the three elements that you outlined in the beginning, ind then worked backwards to a possible location. Mr. CANNING. That is correct. To the best of my ability, I put nyself in the position of assuming that no gun was found and imply say where would I look? Mr. Dopp. Could I ask for exhibit, I think it is, No. 312? It is the enhanced enlarged photograph. Could I ask that to be placed up, as well as the—what is the rroper word you used to describe the recreation? Mr. CANNING. The calibration photograph. Mr. Dopp. Yes, the calibration photograph, the calibration photo- raph as well. Mr. Canning, could I ask you to go over there near both of these xhibits? I looked down, while you were testifying, and took a closer look t them again. I realize I am looking at them from a layman’s oint of view. But when I look at the President’s head in the nhanced photograph on the left and then at the calibrated photo- raph on the right, I get—and again I am prefacing my remarks by aying I am a layman—but I see a much more severe pitch to the resident’s head in the enhanced photograph than I see in the alibrated photograph and I wonder if you could explain. I detect what I see as an ear and an eye in the enhanced hotograph, and maybe the images are playing games with me, and ‘they are, I would like you to straighten me out. Mr. CANNING. I can assure you the images play games with you. here are many complicated details in the part of the photograph Irrounding the President’s head. For instance, the dark lapel of Irs. Kennedy’s blue blouse has a notch which is in close juxtaposi- on with the President’s nose. The notch makes it look as if the resident’s nose extends much farther than it really does. Mr. Dopp. That is correct. That is how I saw it. Mr. CANNING. On the other hand, when we account for where cher pink and blue elements are and behind the President’s face e conclude that his facial profile is well to the left of its apparent dsition when only a cursory examination is the basis. The inter- retation of these features is certainly one of the major sources of otential error in the analysis. Mr. Dopp. In your analysis? Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. Dopp. As I understood your testimony about light, you tried ' recreate the sunlight on the President’s head that day. That oks like an awfully large ear, in the enhanced photograph, but if 1at is not, obviously that is not the size of his ear. But it would opear to me that the reflection of light is giving what would »pear to be a larger image than is actually the case, and yet in dur other photograph over here, you don’t seem to indicate the a degree of light on his ear as you do in the enhanced photo- ‘aph. Mr. CANNING. That is correct. We have a problem of in the first ace spatial resolution, actually fixing the size of something. Mr. Dopp. I am sorry, I didn’t hear what you said. Mr. CANNING. We have a problem of fixing the exact size of a nall object in a blurry photograph. I might point out that frame 194 312 is one of the better ones, but it is still difficult to work with. I am getting a little bit outside of my area of expertise but I know enough about it for this purpose I think. The image of the Presi- dent’s ear is very brightly overexposed where the sunshine fell on it, and so it appears larger than it would appear if it were not overexposed; that is to say the size of this ear does not look right. On the other hand, if we were to have a print of this that was of diminished intensity, then the image of the ear would look some- what smaller. It doesn’t change its position, however. Mr. Dopp. I am tempted to ask you, just on your last statement, the fact that this is the one area that could change the conclusions that you have reached, to what degree? Did you at all try to calculate by moving around the President’s head in the enhanced photograph, allowing for a degree of error in your calibrated photo- graph, and then make a calculation as to how far off you would be? Mr. CANNING. Essentially what I did was I to take measurements of the various image features in the enhanced versions of frame 312 and compared them with those same measurements taken from the calibration photographs that were taken at adjacent angular positions. I then made an effort to find out to what degree I could have interpreted this picture wrongly. I concluded that I could be off by easily 2°, and 2° translates into quite a large change in the overall trajectory error. Mr. Dopp. Let me jump ahead. Two degrees, 2°, what does that a9 to as yellow line? That is the area I presume you are talking about: Mr. CANNING. Yes, this yellow line—— Mr. Dopp. Which exhibit number is that? Mr. Go.LpsmiTH. That is No. F-122, Congressman. Mr. Dopp. Thank you. What does that do to that yellow line? Mr. CANNING. Well, it is a major part of the size of the largest] error oval in the exhibit marked JFK-122. I do not try to recollect the precise number that I attributed to the interpretation of that} photograph, but it was a substantial fraction of the total accuracy.| Mr. Dopp. Is it possible that we would move away from the Texas School Book Depository into another building? : | Mr. CANNING. All that would happen if we were to estimate a larger potential error is that this largest circle would get bigger. The position of the center doesn’t tend to move, but it allows more} possibilities; that is, only the size of the circle is affected. You see, it is conceivable that the bullet came down from an adjacent build-} ing, if one is to take a literal interpretation of the largest area; that is, this yellow pattern. It is conceivable that it was fired from anywhere in this circle. Mr. Dopp. Thank you. Thank you very much. | Chairman STokeEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. | I will let the doctor get back to the table. I have just one} question, and it has to do with the slope. | Isn't the reason that there is a different slope because different] points are being used through which you drew the trajectory line,} that is, the back neck trajectory uses the JFK back wound as Point} 1, and the JFK neck wound as Point 2, and under the single bullet} 195 heory the trajectory uses the JFK neck wound as Point 1, and the vonnally entry wound as Point 2? Is that understanding correct? Mr. CANNING. That is exactly right. Chairman Stokes. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Canning, by your calibration, how much higher is the top of ‘resident Kennedy's head than Governor Connally’s head at the rucial time? Mr. CANNING. There have been several measurements of that 1ade. Using the Croft photograph I made one determination, but 1is is not my special field, and so we had a representative of the hotographic panel do the job. His determination was that the resident’s head was 8 centimeters above the top of the Governor’s ead relative to the limousine, and then since the limousine is oing down a slope, that increases the relative height difference ightly as well. Mr. FITHIAN. So you are saying it would be 8 centimeters plus 1e tilt of the limousine determined by the slope? Mr. CANNING. That is correct, the slope and the distance between 1e two men’s heads. Mr. FiruiaAn. And did anyone on the panel working with the athologists or X-rays or whatever, make any further analysis of hat I would call the anatomical differences of the two men, that Boner neck or larger head or whatever would throw the bullet Mr. CANNING. I accounted for those differences, and the principal ifference which will introduce an effect on the trajectory is well 2corded in the Croft photograph. The Governor’s head is quite a it taller from the top of his shoulders to the top of his head than iat of the President. At a glance this is not particularly notice- ale, but the difference is substantial, and so to that extent I did count for that. I had no input from the forensic pathology panel 1 that point. Mr. FirH1an. That was your own computation? Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. Firuian. Let me just see if I can understand one additional ting. Let’s take the head shot wound, the length of the distance, I ink you had at least one part of the measurement that was 11 ntimeters? Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. Firntan. If you are dealing with a segment of a line 11 ntimeters long, and your estimate is one inch off at one end or ie other, and you project that for 150 feet, how far off are you? Mr. CANNING. Eleven centimeters in 1 inch? May I put it, if I ere to make it 11 centimeters on 1 centimeter then I don’t have multiply by 2%. Mr. Firutan. I don’t think in centimeters. Let’s start with inches. Mr. Canninc. OK. If we had then an 11-inch baseline for a easurement—— a ee, You would have something less than that for the )ead, right? Mr. CANNING. Yes. It is on the order of 5 inches. 196 Mr. FirHIAN. Five inches, OK. Mr. CANNING. Let’s take 5 inches. Mr. Frruran. A 5-inch line. Mr. CANNING. If we were to miss by 1 inch—— Mr. Firnian. If you were to miss one end or the other 1 inch relatively. Mr. CANNING. I can give an approximate answer. This would yield an error in location of the gun equal to one-fifth of the distance between the President’s head and the gun. If that distance were 350 feet, the error would be about 70 feet. Mr. Firutan. Now let me see if I get this correctly. A 5-inch line with l-inch error at one end or the other—— Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. FirHIAN [continuing]. Projected over 150 feet. Mr. CANNING. Oh, 150 feet, I beg your pardon, that would be then 30 feet. Mr. FrruiAn. It would be a 30-foot error. Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. Firuian. And therefore the largest error that you allowed in your circles that you say was a 13-feet radius? Mr. CANNING. No, it was about 23 feet as I recall. I don’t have the numbers. | Mr. FirH1An. Twenty-some feet radius. ; Mr. CANNING. That large circle as I recall is a 23-foot radius. Mr. FirHiAn. Twenty-three feet radius. : Mr. CANNING. I think it is. Mr. Frrur1an. I am informed the distance would be about 250 feet; is that correct? Mr. Gotpsmitu. That is correct, Mr. Congressman. At the time 0 the head shot the distance between the limousine and the book depository building is about 250 feet. At the time of the back nec SBS it was approximately 170 feet or 150 feet. You are talking no about—— Mr. FirHIANn. The head shot. Mr. GOLDSMITH. The head shot wound. Mr. FirHiAn. Well, it seems to me, then that your calibrations 0 the location of the head would have to put the inshot and th outshot wound at considerably less than an inch in error. Mr. Go.LpsmiTH. That is correct. Mr. Firuian. It would have to be less than a third of an inch 1 error, which seems to me to be highly precise, highly precise Otherwise if it is 1 inch in error, it gives you a circle with an 80 feet radius or 85 feet or something of that nature. Chairman SrToxEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Canning, I am extremely impressed with your testimony, th logic, the studies you have made, particularly since you have con ducted and supervised research on the flight of trajectory an stability of high speed projectiles or missiles. I would ask one question on your margin of error that yo provided on that Texas School Book Depository that is partiall covered. 197 One has a yellow circle. One has the red circle. In all of those margins of error that you have demonstrated, the window, the key window, in the Texas Depository is always included, isn’t it? Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. Devine. So you do not exclude that in any of your—— Mr. CANNING. No. Mr. Devine. Based on—you are classified of course as an expert n your field as an engineer. And on the trajectory studies, would you say that your studies vould reveal that it is consistent that there may have been a single hot that went through the President’s neck and through the body f Governor Connally? Mr. CANNING. I am confident that that is in fact the case. Mr. DEvINE. You are positive? Mr. CANNING. Well, positive is a very strong word. Mr. Devine. I understand. But it is totally consistent with your tudies; is that correct? Mr. CANNING. Yes, it is. Mr. Devine. Thank you very much. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know that I am leaning toward the single bullet heory myself. Governor Connally was moving toward the center of the jump 2at in the limousine, and the witness before you indicated that he 1ade a sharp right turn of his head, while moving. I was wonder- 1g whether or not he would have been moving his body at the ame time toward the center. If not, why do you think he would ave been moving toward the center and not the door of the mousine? Mr. CANNING. I think that Mr. McCamy was saying that he was 10ving toward the center of the car perhaps, and that he was stating his body rather sharply to the right and turning his head ven more sharply to the right during that period. That informa- on is consistent with the observations that I have, namely, that in [r. Betzner’s picture the Governor’s shoulder is not visible at the me. Mr. Forp. So when he made that right turn of his head, he was oving his body, which carried it to the middle of the jump seat, ie center of the car. Mr. CANNING. Toward the center of the car, that is my impres- on, and it is again an impression, but take it for that, that he did t move his position on the seat but was simply rotating relative his buttocks, moving off to his left, and rotating to his right, in ‘der to look back around towards the President, but I don’t think iat he actually moved his position on the seat cushion on which > was sitting. I have no reason to believe that he did. Mr. Forp. You are saying that there was enough speed behind at bullet, to travel 60 feet from the book depository, enter the ick of President Kennedy, exit his neck, enter the back of Gover- x Connally, exit his chest, and cause damage to his wrist, and en lodge somewhere in his thigh. The speed of that bullet would ive had that much power or force behind it. 198 Mr. CANNING. I am not an expert in that kind of ballistics. On the other hand, I have heard testimony from others and also read reports which indicate that that, yes, is in fact true. Mr. Forp. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SrToxEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. McKinney. Just one question. , You said that it would be fairly easy to do a line of trajector from 197, frame 197. Wouldn’t that be difficult because of the violence of the move: ment on the part of the Governor between 190 and 197? In other words, wouldn’t your single bullet theory and everything elsé depend on where the Governor was? | Mr. CANNING. Yes, it does depend on where he was, and we dq not assume that he remained stationary. What we do is that we conclude that he made no large movements away from that genera location. We did not find it possible to describe his movementg more quantitative than that. I personally am certain that if he had moved enough to avoid the path of the bullet it would have beer obvious in the photographs. i Mr. McKinney. In other words, you have no evidence of sucH violent movement. : Mr. CANNING. He would have had to move practically against hi wife in order to have that bullet pass him, and had he done so— he had avoided the bullet which exited the President’s neck, wf have a problem of finding where did that bullet go? Mr. McKinney. One last question. In your angle or slope of bullet, I have forgotten which exhibit was, where we show the bullet going through the President ans then into the Governor in a drawing, did you positively qualify make sure that the back of the jump seat wouldn’t have gotten if the way of that slope? Mr. CanninG. The back of the jump seat shows in the photd graphs, and that portion of the Governor is slightly above the bac of the jump seat. It was quite close. Mr. McKinney. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Chairman STOKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. It is just restating a bit or turning around thy question of Mr. Devine with the observation that you confirme made by Mr. Devine. speaking of right as you are looking at the building, is the on aperture on the front of that entire building that is within a three margins of error, isn’t that correct? Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me come bac§ Following up on my colleague, Mr. Sawyer’s question with regan to the margin of errors in response to Mr. Fithian’s questions abo assuming that the entry wounds taking the farthest shot first, 199 head shot, could be off by an inch or a maximum, I guess, by the enhanced photograph, 2 inches, you allowed for a margin of error jin the calibrated photograph of 2 inches, was that—— Mr. CANNING. I was speaking in terms of degrees. Mr. Dopp. Two degrees you said. Mr. CANNING. Yes. } Mr. Dopp. Could we put up that photograph, the aerial photo- \graph of Dealey Plaza? } What I would like to get at here, if I could, and I realize this is going to be very difficult under the circumstances, but if I under- }stood your response to Mr. Fithian’s question with regard to the size of the radius that would expand, if you allowed for an addition- al margin of error in the head wound, could you approach that for ‘)me, and I realize this is going to be—maybe in fact the photograph ‘)may not be that good for our purposes. ) What I am trying to get at, I thought we were going to see the face of the School Book Depository and we really don’t. I am trying ‘):0 see if it would expand further across the street, for instance, to hat building adjacent to the Texas School Book Depository, or |}xitty corner to it, to that other building. |) Is that the kind of margin of error that would be expanded to |)nclude some of those additional possible sights, or am I taking it |)nuch further than it should go? Mr. Cannin«. I think the first part of your hypothetical exten- sion is quite reasonable, because the eastern sector of the error ‘ircle extends beyond the corner of the School Book Depository and \) herefore includes a little bit of the Dal-Tex Building—it would hen clearly be the candidate, and there would be an area on the vestern part of the Dal-Tex Building which would then have to be !)ncluded. Do you think you would also possibly include that newer looking |} uilding? \) Mr. Canntna. This is the Records Building. Mr. Dopp. Does that throw it off too much, laterally? Mr. CanninG. That would really call for a very, very large llipse, an error circle, to include it. It is conceivable, but I person- lly don’t think that that is at all likely. Mr. Dopp. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate for me at this ime to impose upon our witness, not obviously today, but to ask |) im if we couldn’t get a photograph that would include the Dal-Tex ‘uilding, and draw an additional radius line that would allow for a 1argin of error of 2°, in the enhanced photograph? I would just like to see specifically what that would include in at building or other possible sites. Is that appropriate? Mr. CANNING. Two degrees yields roughly a 3-percent error, at a ange of 250 feet; this is about 8 feet; another 2° would enlarge the llipse only about 8 feet radially. It is not a major increase. In describing these error circles, I think it is honest to say that I ave done my very best to quote the highest accuracy—that is to j2y, the smallest circles—that I think at all justifiable. The natural j#-nservatism of people who have worked in forensic pathology and pjallistics, their natural conservatism, which I do not share, would ield considerably larger ellipses than I have shown. Allowing for 200 larger errors would not change the positions of the ellipses. All it would do is make them larger. Mr. Dopp. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Srokgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Firutan. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxkes. Does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. Firuian. I thought I was trying to help you with your diet, Mr. Chairman, keeping you away from lunch. Chairman SToKEs. Mr. Fithian. Mr. Firuian. Mr. Canning, were you able to project the path of the bullet or the major fragments of the bullet that struck the President’s head, that is, on into where they would be imbedded or wherever they were actually located in the car? Mr. CANNING. I made no attempt to do anything exact along those lines. I noted qualitatively that damage to the windshield of the car appeared to be in reasonable directional alinement but did not appear to be particularly in good slope alinement. But I did no quantitative work in that line. Mr. Firu1an. And the other part of that similar question is, someone, somewhere along the line before this committee, has made the statement that when the bullet exited the President's throat, it was rising. I am not sure who it was. But I take it from your testimony that you believe the bullet entered the President's back when he was tilted forward 18°, or something like that, from the perpendicular? Mr. CaNnniNG. The 18° figure was roughly the maximum that I thought was justified by the photograph of Croft. Mr. Fitut1an. And given that zero to 18° tiit, and the path of the bullet unobstructed by any bone, you have no problem then putting it in Governor Connally’s back at the place where it was located? Mr. CANNING. The zero degree or slightly upward that you refer to is in relationship to the body in the autopsy position. But when we start making the adjustments in the autopsy, in the body confir- mation, the hunching of the shoulders, the inclination, bringing the chin down, all of those tend to yield a dropping projectile as o posed to one that is traveling horizontal. My estimates of th inclination of his torso, ‘“hunching” if you will, extended fro about 11° to 18°. What we would call hunching—there is an addi tional effect resulting from the original observation of wound posi tions with the President’s head “upturned.” Mr. Frruran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Counsel for the committee, Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. GoupsmiTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions ask for purposes of clarification. First, may I ask Mrs. Downey to remove the exhibit showing th aerial view? Mr. Canning, a question has arisen concerning the three exhibi that have been studied today that show the direction of the bullet This is one of those three exhibits. Drawing your attention to this exhibit, the lower right-han section of it shows the President, and it has a line going from th President outward. Then moving up a bit toward the center of th 201 »xhibit, there is the limousine itself and a line going from the imousine to the book depository. What is the relationship between those two lines? Should they be yarallel or is the appropriate thing to focus on the relationship pimveen the line from the President in relationship to the limou- ine’ Mr. CANNING. The latter is correct. In order to fit in the largest easonable illustration in the inset in at least one of the drawings, ve allowed ourselves to rotate the position of the limousine rela- ive to the position of the limousine in the street. Mr. GotpsmiTu. So in those three exhibits I take it then there is io need for those two lines to be parallel to each other. Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. GouLpsmiTH. Fine. Now one other question about the matter f the margin of error. Drawing your attention to JFK F-122, that shows the three ircles or ellipses drawn around different portions of the book epository. When you determined the margin of error specifically now for he head shot trajectory as is depicted there, it is the yellow ellipse, id you take into consideration the possibility that you would have een off in determining the orientation of the President’s head by s much as 2°? Mr. CANNING. That was included in the analysis. Mr. GotpsmitTu. So if that is correct, I take it that that yellow llipse includes that possibility. Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. GotpsmitH. And it would not follow then that the ellipse ould be moved, for example, to the right. Mr. CANNING. No. If the error were estimated to be larger, it ‘ould move the right-hand side of the ellipse and the left-hand side f the ellipse outward relative to the center. Mr. GoLpDsMITH. Fine. So in response to the questions that were posed to you by Con- ressman Dodd, I take it then when you said that the ellipse would ove, you were talking about if there were additional error beyond 1e margin of error that you have estimated. Mr. CANNING. It simply means the ellipse gets bigger. Mr. GotpsmiTu. I understand, but please respond to the question am addressing to you. Mr. CANNING. I am sorry. Mr. GoLpsmMiTH. Congressman Dodd asked you whether the el- pse would move to the right, for example, if the orientation of the 2ad was—if your estimation of the orientation of the head was off 7 2°. I believe your answer was, yes, it would move to the right. My question to you is, when you determined that margin of error ' begin with, did you take into consideration the possibility that Be cetimation of the orientation of the head was off by as much Mr. CANNING. Yes, I did. Mr. Go.psmiTH. So there would not be a movement then, would ere? Mr. CANNING. There would be no movement of the ellipse, that is orrect. 202 estima- Mr. GotpsMitH. The ellipse as I see it would move if your tion of the margin of error was incorre ct. I Mr. CANNING. Well, the ellipse—if my estimate—I am not sure follow you. Mr. Go.psmitH. In other words, the response to Congressman Dodd, if your estimate of the margin of error was incorrect, was greater than you estimated it to be, then the ellipse would move. Mr. CANNING. The ellipse gets bigger. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Gets bigger. Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. GotpsmitH. And if your estimation of the margin of error is correct, it would stay in exactly the same place. Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. Dopp. Would counsel yield on just that one point, since you are following that line of questioning, would you also take into consideration the questions by Mr. Fithian? You relied pretty much on the exact location of the entry wounds as reported by the pathologist. Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Mr. Dopp. Did you allow for any margin of error there? Mr. CANNING. There was a small allowance for that. It was a couple of millimeters. That was quite well determined. Mr. Dopp. Did counsel want to pursue that same line of question- ing with regard to that? Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. Canning, I am not attempting to suggest any particular testimony on your part. I am only trying to clarify here. Mr. CANNING. Yes. Mr. Go.psmiTH. That ellipse as it is presently drawn, does tha reflect the margin of error as you determined it to be? Mr. CANNING. That is my estimate of the margin of error. Mr. Go.tpsmiTH. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. Firnian. If the gentleman would yield, the reason the small blue circle is so much smaller is primarily because of the addition- al length of the line between the exit wound of the President and the entrance wound in Connally; is that correct? Mr. CANNING. That is correct. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Professor Blakey. Mr. Braxey. Mr. Chairman, it may be useful for those who have only tuned in today to recognize that additional evidence will have to be considered in evaluating the possibility raised by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Dodd that the gunshots could have come from another building; that evidence already in the record might include the following: the neutron activation analysis that indicated that the pieces of lead found in the car came from two and only two bullets; the ballistics evidence that indicated that both of those bullets — be traced back to the gun allegedly found in the sixth floor of the depository. Consequently, it ought to be noted that there is no additional evidence in this record that could be correlated with the hypothesis of a shot hitting the President not coming from the depository. Chairman Sroxes. Mr. Canning, at the conclusion of the witness’ testimony before our committee, that witness is entitled to 5 min- 203 utes under the rules of the House to explain his testimony or make any statement he cares to make relative to his testimony before shis committee. I extend to you such time, if you desire it, at this time. Mr. CANNING. Thank you. I would like to make just one point that has occurred to me that }may not have been amply clear, and, that is, in the case of the single bullet theory, we established with high reliability and preci- sion, I believe, the rightmost position which Governor Connally ould have been sitting in at the time that he was wounded. We did 10t establish how far to the left he could, with comparable of juantitative certainty. And with that in mind, there may be some small change that might come about in where the error circle for his case would lie if we were able to determine, for instance, that 1e was several centimeters to the left of where I placed him in that }lrawing, and what that would do is, that it would move the left- 1and margin of the smallest ellipse, of that black ellipse, it would ynove it somewhat to the left, as we see it. It would move it to the )vest. But that change is not in my view an important change in he overall result. ) Chairman Stoxes. Thank you very much, Mr. Canning. ) I certainly want to thank you for the testimony you have given ynere today, and I think I can say on behalf of the entire committee, rou have certainly given some very impressive testimony, and we ‘ippreciate your appearance. Thank you very much, and you are excused. Mr. CANNING. Thank you. Chairman Stokes. There are no further witnesses to come before he committee today. Therefore, at this time the Chair would ad- ourn these hearings until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the select committee was adjourned, 0 reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday, September 13, 1978.] ©|a Mrs pactah=La heat : eittone rat 9rae. aa hy Jn ti stiash wor sontid dose x % ‘tee, he Beene was, Cia anbvetinee-acd irl isdog' aco agitsoon eels coltLeb ded (bene ynanler dae syn -fiig baw siamo itght ditivy ‘barleildsize ow qrooild Joilud ens Wiseaisd:: cena emake: aK iJizog Jevartdgit odd jevetied Tf ne ,) Hie ishobandViaew od gecks omit orl Je ni A ehoneed sved blu Fei etdaegns ditiwd bigeareddtsl ors of omeortimiatidases (anges pd yoogarrads Boimoatistatlt dtr hiverginishes ovitssiins: “Peelisiesmas Bd crectwrefitveds soo) idgios deri? eyaado Hat dhe Sonate cei) eoimateh cit vicig exowh aw “te ait ‘Hhitow wentet seed Di attiet beoades deracivw iowa! set: ohereteninss lemoteamsw' ondet athewoteebigewg tite (47 cBvbluov) tacit tadw bas .grtiwe fissqwe ih sete atveleh te? Ro sani loxteslisat edt tov igpesce Bar weshhe08te. aren hissow Uh teete tw ae fiel sdt 0} tadwomoe ti eve } rik ets! or ete ‘way td:re wer wee ai jon ai syando Jads toG Ja 2 Nig ‘see wl af ocrow ties? IIptevo's et dosent bs, doneent ey orpvoad? cena adardaty Mavig sya Con eRe: Pita att su) vewediodeléeeitasw yinisrso _ Stina eine. od2 Wo dlartod: yo. ee cited waked B ders|, Sh ved Sv Aila yqcoriiiiacd- oviesong: mi wre omou novin yininéses estes ye Lanting. 1+ 4 i taat Ly Oppeeee*e-ets powhabdve wy ctanitens: Yew uov Ane , APRCE OIG) = senshi “ecliius OM Bigs nie rob: biaow 2 rae offt, gontt, niNt da asoterandt . bel a Rdveihe i (a,Bnherreunt, wcrormeton: Jere sew cotttionmes Japiee arts... Ob:mies 2 bia bow. “uatee eed Teccanges (ubasnbo te : ™. «vS ae ie Fo fre er leon a waiuid yeti, cre Oftheade bunk viele ie se oak seston ws ves tareeeysty holes Shiength: of (is otthe =) Rae Terie. Cade exit vround of vine égtrance reward eC gaadlive What connecys! > phe eae peer: mS Seal oO Ante” Cee. ahs Mire. Caxnn 7 ira Gaimmen Brome Vhe time of the gonthijaunn nas ¢ rae Professor * akey. Bisne’. Mr. Chairmen, it imey be useful for tk uilyfined: at toc! vy te Peoogalize that eed SVIGEAOS © (Ge comiciared ni ewatonitny the baahtbibares ie Goid- that the dana: sta “ould Ae come:ro om maoe a oad ie that evidome aivendy in the record nm nclacet Aj Lone PESTO suotrantivis, aridiyms that — vegto re focal py Cae tak wane Trom two and, 1: net Ue BFipscnryn a: awihented. that both’ oftia per © See eritytao Sak ‘le winter fo. ns 4 0m apaors Api Bh ern wer va zh; eon oe eo ae INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 HOousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The select committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:15 a.m., in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the select committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, Fauntroy, Thone, Sawyer, Ford, Fithian, and Edgar. Staff present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director; at McDonald, staff counsel, and Elizabeth L. Berning, chief clerk. Chairman Stokes. The quorum being present, the committee will come to order. At the outset of today’s hearing, I would like to make a couple of observations. During the course of our hearings, on two occasions we have had individuals who have attempted to disrupt the proceedings, and on those occasions, it has been necessary for the Chair to order those persons to be removed from the room. The Chair would like to make it clear that these are congression- al hearings. First, they are to be conducted with a certain amount of dignity, and accordingly the Chair will not tolerate any disrup- tion whatsoever of these hearings. We hope that all individuals observe the practices of the House and not cause this type of action to have to be taken during the course of these hearings. Second, this morning’s witness, at the time the witness is brought into the room, I will ask that all individuals remain seated until after the witness has been brought into the room and seated at the witness table, and then again when the witness leaves the room, we will ask that all persons remain in their seats until the witness has been escorted from the room. Mr. Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. Biakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Marina Prusakova was born on July 17, 1941 in the Russian Village of Molotovsk near the White Sea. She was raised, for the ‘Most part, by her grandmother. In August 1959, Marina moved to the city of Minsk, and in March 1961, at a dance, she met a young American who called himself Alik. Six weeks later, Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald were (205) Ail.a71 ~™ "Tn = ‘a 206 married. It is fair, therefore, to presume that in the succeeding years Marina was the closest person to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswalds remained in Russia until June 1962, at which time they moved to the United States. They went to Dallas, the home of Lee’s mother and a brother. In the spring of 1963, they moved to New Orleans, then back to Dallas in September. After Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy and then shot to death by Jack Ruby, Mrs. Oswald testified a total of four times before the Warren Commission. All of her testimony was in closed session. In 1965, Marina Oswald married Kenneth Porter. In October of 1977, Priscilla Johnson McMillan published her “Marina and Lee,” a book in which Marina cooperated so as “‘to speak, through her more capable words, the things the people should know.”’ There will be four general areas of questioning of Mrs. Porter this morning: First, Russia; second, Dallas from June 1962 through April 1963; third, New Orleans from April 1963 to September 1963; fourth, Dallas from September 1963 to November 1963. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Mrs. Porter. Chairman Stokes. The committee calls Mrs. Porter. Mrs. Porter, would you please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mrs. Porter. I do. Chairman Stokgs. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel for the committee, Mr. James Mc- Donald. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, would you please state your full name? TESTIMONY OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER Mrs. Porter. Marina Nikolaevna Porter. Mr. McDonatp. And were you one time known as Marina Oswald? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. McDona tp. Mrs. Porter, are you accompanied today by an attorney? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona_p. And would you please have your attorney identi fy himself for the record? _ Mr. Hamitton. My name is James Hamilton, and I practice la in the District of Columbia. Mr. McDona tp. Thank you. Mrs. Porter, when and where were you born? Mrs. Porter. I was born in Soviet Union in city of Molotovsk o July 17, 1941. Mr. McDona.p. And with whom di i : ear! childhood years? whom did you live during your Mrs. Porter. With my mother, stepfather, and my grandmother 207 Mr. McDona.p. Mrs. Porter, could you move the microphone a ittle closer to you ? Mrs. Porter. OK. Mr. McDona pn. Thank you. And where were these early years spent, what city? Mrs. Porter. Archangel. Mr. McDona.p. When did you move to Minsk? Mrs. Porter. When I was 19 years old, I believe. Mr. McDona.p. And why did you go there? Mrs. Porter. I went to live with my aunt and uncle in order to vork in the city. Mr. McDonatp. And what were their names, your aunt and incle? Mrs. Porter. It was Ilya and Valentina Prusakova. Mr. McDona_p. And your uncle, was he known to you as Uncle Tanya? Mrs. Porter. No, Uncle Ilya. Mr. McDona.p. And where was he employed? Mrs. Porter. He was working for MVD in the city of Minsk. Mr. McDona.p. And what is that, the MVD? | Mrs. Porter. It is the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Mr. McDona.p. And what did he do at the MVD? Mrs. Porter. I do not know what he exactly did, except I know e has a profession as an engineer. Mr. McDona p. Did he ever discuss his job with you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona_p. Did he ever discuss his job at home? Mrs. Porter. No. fe. SONAL And he was stationed in Minsk or worked in insk‘? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona_p. Did you ever study English in the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. Me? No. Mr. McDonaL.p. You never studied in school? Mrs. Porter. No. ae sheesh Mrs. Porter, when did you first meet Lee Harvey swald? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall the exact month, and the day of the onth, but it was in 1961. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall whether it was in March of 1961? Mrs. Porter. February or March. Mr. McDona tp. And how were you introduced to him? Mrs. Porter. By some mutual friends, a group of students that I 10ow, I knew. Mr. McDona p. Can you recall who introduced you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDonatp. And where were you when this introduction ok place? Mrs. Porter. It was at the city dance hall in Minsk. ‘Mr. McDona.p. Can you describe for us, as best you can, your collection of when you did meet him, what you were doing and ho brought you together? ‘Mrs. Porter. Well, I was invited by a friend of mine, a medical udent who attended, medical students’ dance, ball, and when I 208 came there, it was a group of students, and one of them was Lee, and some mutual friend introduced me to him. . Mr. McDona.p . Can you recall who that mutual friend was? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall what you talked about at this first meeting? Mrs. Porter. Just typical young people everyday talk, routine talk, about the weather. I do not really recall what it was about. Mr. McDonap. Do you recall how long this initial meeting lasted? Mrs. Porter. About 2 or 3 hours. Mr. McDonaALp. In other words, you continued to talk with Lee Oswald for 2 to 3 hours? Mrs. Porter. No, I didn’t. When he asked to dance, we just talked very little. Mr. McDona .p. Did he tell you he was an American? Mrs. Porter. No, not at that—not during the dancing, no. Mr. McDona.p. At this time you were speaking in Russian to- gether? Mrs. Porter. Yes. He spoke with accent so I assumed he was maybe from another state, which is customary in Russia. People from other states do speak with accents because they do not speak Russian. They speak different languages. Mr. McDona.p. So when you say another state, you mean an- other Russian state? Mrs. Porter. Yes, like Estonia, Lithuania, something like that. Mr. McDona .p. Did you suspect at all that he was an American? Mrs. Porter. No, not at all. Mr. McDona Lp. Did he tell you where he worked? Mrs. Porter. Not at that moment. Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall the first time when you and Lee Oswald had a discussion when he told you about himself? In other words, when was the first time you had a discussion with Oswald when he told you where he was from, told you something about himself? | Mrs. Porter. Well, after the dance, we had been invited for tea or whatever, for a little gathering at somebody’s house, one of the friends, and a majority of the group went there, and then I found out that Lee was from America, and of course it was lots of curious people asking questions about his country, and I was one of them. Mr. McDona.p. Did he say why he left the United States? Did he tell you or anyone in your presence? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall that. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall asking him why he was in Russia? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember if I asked him at that particular evening. Mr. McDona.p. Did he tell you where in the United States he was from? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall when he first expressed any political views to you? Mrs. Porter. Not really. The politics really weren’t discussed in the sense comparing two countries, which one is better. Mr. McDonatp. Did he ever tell you he was a Communist? 209 Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDonNaALp. Or a Marxist? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona cp. Or a Trotskyite? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDonanp. Before or after you got married, can you recall vhat political views he was expressing to you then? Mrs. Porter. Well, the political views never have been empha- ized in the relationship at all. Mr. McDona tp. After you got married, and you got married at he end of April in 1962? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona_p. Again I will ask you when did he first tell you ne reason why he left the United States and came to Russia? Mrs. Porter. Well, I cannot pinpoint the exact date, but if I 2call, way back in one conversation or all together, it came clear- 7—pardon me, I lost the question. Mr. McDona.p. When do you recall he first told you why he left ie United States to come to Russia? Mrs. Porter. So anyway he said that being young, he just ‘anted to see—I mean he read something about Soviet Union and e wanted to see for himself what life looked like in Soviet Union. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall him expressing dissatisfaction ith the United States? Mrs. Porter. No, I do not recall, not at that moment, I mean not ; the beginning of the relationship, if he was saying something for - against the United States. Mr. McDona.p. You are saying at the beginning of your rela- onship you don’t recall him saying anything for or against the nited States? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. When do you recall him first expressing opin- ns against the United States? Mrs. Porter. A few months after the marriage when I found out iat he is wishing to return to his homeland. Then he started mplaining about the bad weather in Russia and how eager he ill be to go back. Mr. McDona_p. Can you recall Oswald expressing at this time, on after your marriage but prior to the return, prior to your turn to the United States, do you recall him expressing any ews about the United States and its political system, either pro con, for or against—— Mrs. Porter. No. ‘Mr. Agere [continuing]. And specifically regarding John 2nnedy? ‘Mrs. Porter. What I learned about John Kennedy it was only rough Lee practically, and he always spoke very complimentary out the President. He was very happy when John Kennedy was 2cted. Mr. McDona.p. And you are saying while you were still in the viet Union he was very complimentary about John Kennedy? Mrs. Porter. Yes, it seemed like he was talking about how young d attractive the President of the United States is. 210 Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall during this time when he ever expressed any contrary views about Kennedy? Mrs. Porter. Never. Mr. McDona.p. Did you ever ask him directly why did you come to the U.S.S.R.? Mrs. Porter. I probably did. Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall what his answer was? Mrs. Porter. Well, he said that he was always curious about} Soviet Union, and he bought tourist visa. I asked him how did he got in the United States, I mean to Soviet Union, I am sorry. He} said that he bought visa or whatever you call it, asked for permit} to enter the country through Finland as a tourist, and then he} asked to stay. Mr. McDonatp. Did he ever talk about defecting from the United States to the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. What do you mean by that? Mr. McDona.p. Defect, in other words, renouncing or at least ostensibly renouncing the U.S. citizenship to come to the Soviet} Union. Mrs. Porter. Well, during the marriage I found out about that, that he did give up his American citizenship, and was afraid it will] be very difficult to come back for that reason, or they would not} permit him to come back. Mr. McDona.p. And how did you find out about this? Mrs. Porter. I do believe that he told me. | Mr. McDonap. Before you married him, were you aware of thi defection situation? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember if I knew that. Oh, you mean before we were married? Mr. McDONALD. Yes. Mrs. Porter. No. _ Mr. McDonatp. Did Lee Oswald ever discuss with you the var ious trips he made to the American Embassy when he was trying to defect? This would have been before you even met. But did he ever tell you about the different times he went to the U.S. Embassy} in Moscow? Mrs. Porter. No, he did not. Mr. McDona.p. What was your first impression of Lee Oswald) when you met him? | Mrs. Porter. He was polite, neatly dressed, very courteous, well} mannered, and he was quite attractive. Mr. McDona p. Did you notice whether he was in the company of other individuals, any friends, the night of the dance? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he was. Mr. McDonap. In the book “Marina and Lee” by Priscilla John} son, it says that you first met him, met Lee, on March 17, 1961} and on March 25th, a few days later, you received a call to visit him at the hospital because he was sick. Would you comment on that? Why did you go? You had only met him at a dance. _ Mrs. PORTER. Well, my aunt took the message, and she said ther¢ 1s somebody with the accent calling and they left a message for yoy ~ come over. So, of course, I had sympathy for person being in th ospital, why not pay a visit. It was just a courteous thing to do} | | 211 _ Mr. McDona p. Even though he was only a casual acquaintance at that time? Mrs. Porter. Yes. I did like him. Mr. McDona pn. Pardon? Mrs. Porter. I did like him, so—— Mr. McDona_p. And what did you talk about on this occasion in the hospital and in the hall? Mrs. Porter. Well, what do you talk about in a hospital? Mr. McDona p. Well, can you recall? Mrs. Porter. Just asked how you feel, and what has been done for him over there, and if he has plenty of food to eat and what- ever. Mr. McDona.p. You knew him for briefly 6 weeks, and you got married on April 30, 1961. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDonatp. Would you consider that a—well, wasn’t that a rather hasty move, hasty decision, after 6 weeks of knowing an individual? Mrs. Porter. Not when you are age that I was, you don’t think it is. Mr. McDona tp. At that time did you know anything about him, about his background? Mrs. Porter. Not very much, except that he is American. Mr. McDona.p. Did you know whether he had a family in the United States? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall when I found out that he have brother and mother. Mr. McDonatp. At that time when you married him, did you know whether his mother was alive? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Again referring to the book “Marina and Lee,” in that book it is stated that you didn’t know that Oswald had been in contact with the American Embassy since February of 1961, 2 months, 2% months prior to your getting married, when he ex- oressed a desire to return to the United States, starting back in february 1961. Is that true, that you did not have any idea that he had been in ouch with the American Embassy? Mrs. Porter. No, that was the condition of me accepting his *roposal, because I asked him before marriage if you ever be able or will come back to United States, and he said no, so I assumed ‘hat he will be living in Soviet Union all the time. Mr. McDona.p. At that time what was your attitude toward the Jnited States? Mrs. Porter. Well, I did not know that much about United States, but I was curious to find out about. I did not have any rostility toward United States. }. Mr. McDonatp. When was the first time you learned that )swald wanted to return to the United States? Mrs. Porter. Some time after we were married, a few months ter maybe. Mr. McDona.p. You say a few months? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall how you learned? 212 Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. Please do not forget, it was so many years ago. | Mr. McDona.p. I understand. But can you try to remember? That would be, you are a Russian citizen, and the very first time that you learned that your husband wants to leave and take you to the United States, that would be a significant event. I would assume it might have even been a shocking event to you—— Mrs. Porter. Yes. | Mr. McDonatp [continuing]. To think that you might leave your homeland. Mrs. Porter. Yes, it was. It wasn’t very easy decision for me to make. What should I do? Should I follow him or should I stay at, home? Mr. McDona.Lp. But the question was, as best you can recall how you learned that he, that Oswald, wanted to go back to the United States? | Mrs. Porter. Well, as far as I remember right now, I think he just asked me one day or one evening what would I think if he come back to United States? Would I go with him? Of course I tole him wherever he go, I should too, and I will back him up. Mr. McDonatp. And right around the time when you first learned that he wanted to go back to the United States, can yo recall whether there was any change in his attitude toward the United States politically? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember. I don’t think it was, because he just wanted to go back home, and that was the main concern of his Mr. McDona.p. During your time in Russia together, what were Lee Oswald’s political views? Mrs. Porter. To tell you the truth, I do not know, because I dc not ever—I wasn’t interested in politics. I did not discuss this as 4 fact. I maybe overheard conversation between him and somebod else, an article in newspaper, what they think about certain events at this time. | Mr. McDona bp. Did he discuss politics with you? Mrs. Porter. Not much, but every time something aroused, like somebody maybe will be unfair, make an unfair statement towarc the United States, he will defend United States. Mr. McDona.p. Where did Oswald work? Mes Porter. He worked at the radio factory nearby our apa ment. Mr. McDona.p. And what did he do there? Mrs. Porter. I do believe maybe he was some kind of mechanic. § really don’t know what kind of job exactly he did. Mr. McDonanp. Did he ever discuss his job? Mrs. Porter. Only thing he said that he did not like it ve much, it was manual labor. | Mr. McDona.p. It was manual labor? | Mrs. Porter. Yes. :7 Mr. McDonatp. Did he come home in the evening with dirt} hands, dirty clothes? : Mrs. Porter. The first time he did after he came home he wenf and took a shower right away, so—not really dirty, no. : Mr. McDona.p. On subsequent nights I mean, do you recé whether he would come home—you said he did manual labor. Wer 213 uis hands rough, dirt under the fingernails and generally did it ook like he was doing that kind of work? Mrs. Porter. Well, not really. Mr. McDona_p. How about his clothes? Did he have a special set if work clothes? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I think he did, but I would not ecall exactly. Mr. McDona.p. Who were his friends during this time in Minsk? Mrs. Porter. Lee did not have very many friends. I do recall one oung man working with him. His name was Pavel Golovachev, nd he was around our house quite a lot and they spoke English. 0 for this young gentleman it was a good practice. Mr. McDona .p. Was this individual Pavel Golovachev? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Would you consider him Lee’s closest friend? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. McDona_p. When was the first time you met him? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember if I met him before we were iarried or shortly after he came by the house. Mr. McDona.tp. Did he work with Lee at the radio factory? Mrs. Porter. I even doubt that—he was invited to the wedding s a friend of Lee. Mr. McDona .p. Do you recall when you first met him? Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. McDona.p. When did you first meet him, Pavel Golovachev? Mrs. Porter. Like I said earlier, I don’t remember. Maybe it was hen he was invited to the wedding on April 30. Mr. McDona_p. That was the the first time you met him? Mrs. Porter. I assume by now. Mr. McDonabp. Did you get to know him well? Mrs. Porter. Fairly well. Mr. McDona p. Did he come over to your apartment? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he was a very nice boy. Mr. McDona.p. Do you know where he lived? Did he live in the ‘neral vicinity of your apartment? Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so. I think he lived somewhere in wn but I don’t know where. Not very far away. ) Mr. McDona tp. Do you know whether Oswald and Mr. Golova- ev ever talked about politics together? | Mrs. Porter. I really don’t know because they spoke in English. Mr. McDona p. They spoke in English? Mrs. Porter. Yes. ) Mr. McDona.p. And why did they do that? ‘Mrs. Porter. Because Pavel Golovachev was studying English nguage and not very many people you can speak the language th, so he said it was a good practice for him being around Lee. ‘Mr. McDona.p. Do you think this was one of the reasons that he friended Oswald, to perfect his language ability? Mrs. Porter. It could be, and he was interested about United ates I feel sure and talked about, compared the life. )Mr. McDona.p. Do you know how they met, how these two dividuals met? ’Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. 214 Mr. McDona.p. Have you ever heard from this individual since you left Minsk, Mr. Golovachev? States, Mrs. Porter. I do believe when we moved back to United I do not remem- we did receive some letters from Soviet Union, but ber exactly from whom. That is possibl e. he, Mr. Mr. McDonap. Generally what kind of person was Golovachev? Mrs. Porter. He was quite bright and honest and fun person. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I am finished with this line of questioning for this hase. ; Chairman Stoxgs. Thank you, Counsel. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Judge Preyer, for such time as he may consume. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, your English now seems to be very good. Mrs. Porter. Thank you. Mr. Preyer. But if you have any trouble in understanding me or understanding the question, please ask and I shall try to put it in another form which you can understand better. I would like to continue with a few questions in the period ot your early life in Russia with Lee Harvey Oswald. I might say for the record at this time that Mrs. Porter has given several depositions to the committee, and they will be made a part of the final report, and I think that may explain why we will not ask every conceivable question about this period in your life that we might think of. When you first married Lee Harvey Oswald, he had his owr apartment. Did you consider that unusual, that a single person in the Sovie' Union, who had a menial job, would have his own. apartment: Mrs. Porter. Yes, it is kind of unusual, but foreigners in Sovie Union usually are treated a little bit better than their own citizens Mr. Preyer. In other words, it would have been unusual for ¢ Soviet citizen in his situation to have a single apartment. Mrs. Porter. Yes, but he had more privileges as a foreigner Mr. PrEYER. Were the type of privileges he had and the type o apartment he had like those that other foreigners would have had Mrs. Porter. I do not know because I cannot compare to othe foreigners. _ Mr. Preyer. Was it the practice that foreigners had better hous ing accommodations—— Mrs. Porter. That is what I heard. Mr. PREYER [continuing]. Than Soviet citizens? When you were living in the apartment, did Lee ever hav visitors whose identity was unknown to you, that is, did anyon visit you, apart from your normal friends, someone who was | stranger to you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Was Lee secretive during this time? Mrs. Porter. I think so. For example, he would be writing some thing on a piece of paper and it will be in English, and if I ask hir what it was, he would not talk about. 215 Mr. Preyer. Was he devious? By that I mean, would he say, for xample, that he was going one place and you learned later that he ad gone to another place? Mrs. Porter. I do not understand the question what “devious” ieans. I don’t know. Mr. PreyYeER. Perhaps the word “deceptive.” Was he deceptive to you? Did he say to you he would do one ling and you later learned he did another thing? ce Porter. Not that I know of, not at that particular period of y life. Mr. Preyer. At this period of your life, did he ever act violently . front of you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Did he ever mention to you that he had contact ith the KGB, the Soviet intelligence agency? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. In your deposition, one of the depositions you gave ie committee, I believe you stated that you both assumed that the GB was observing you. What is the basis for that conclusion? Mrs. Porter. Well, from Russian newspaper you assume that ey don’t print exactly what is going on in United States, and I ean act like they maybe mistrust them, so it wasn’t surprising for em to keep eye on a foreigner. Mr. Preyer. Have you personally ever had any contact with the GB or the MVD? Mrs. Porter. I lived in apartment with lots of people. The neigh- rs were working for the same, how you call it, same not organiza- m, but they worked for MVD. They were different professions, ctors and whatever, and of course I know them as neighbors. Mr. Preyer. But as far as you know, you had no contact with the 3B or the MVD on any sort of official business basis. Mrs. Porter. Did you say “official’’? Would you please repeat your question? Did you say “official’’? Mr. Preyer. As I understood your answer, you stated that some a neighbors may have been connected with the KGB or the Mrs. Porter. I know they work for it. Mr. Preyer. Worked for them, but that your contact with them 18S as neighbors? Mrs. Porter. Yes, and sometime in my life I had to go over there d talk to the men at MVD when I was applying for a visa to ter, to leave Soviet Union. ee Seven. Did you and Lee think that your apartment was Sged: Mrs. Porter. Yes, we did. Mr. Preyer. Why did you expect the bug in your apartment? Mrs. Porter. Well, because like I do not even know if bug will se any electricity, but our electric needle would be running when 1 turn all electrical appliances off. It would still be moving. So did not know what the reason for that was, except we assumed had been watched. Another assumption is that this is quite customary in Soviet ion to keep eye on somebody. 216 Mr. Preyer. So that you say it was quite customary to bu foreigners in this situation. Mrs. Porter. I am not really making that exact statement. might have heard gossip about it, and I knew that they do watc foreigners. Mr. Preyer. Did Lee ever tell you why he thought he was a lowed to stay in the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall if he said why. I do not recall rigl now. Mr. PRreyER. Why did you think he was allowed to stay ther since he was uneducated and was not a scientist or not in thi category of foreigners who would normally be welcomed to tk Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. When I found out later and during the marriag that he give up his American citizenship and asked for—I mea anyone ask Russia for political asylum, so that was my thinking : the time for the reason. Mr. Preyer. Did Lee have a rifle, a gun, a rifle, while he wi living in Minsk? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he did. Mr. Preyer. Did he hunt with it? If so, how often did he } hunting? Mrs. Porter. Not during our marriage he didn’t, but he d belong to hunting club, and he said that he did previous to ol marriage. Mr. Preyer. And did I understand you to say that after yon marriage, he did not go hunting? Mrs. Porter. Not that I know of or remember right now. I dor recall that at all. Mr. Preyer. Did he often take the rifle out and clean it or lo at it or examine it? Mrs. PorTER. Occasionally he did that. ) Mr. Preyer. How were you employed when you first met Le Mrs. Porter. I did not hear you, sir. Mr. Preyer. What was your work? How were you employ when you first met Lee Oswald? Mrs. Porter. I was a pharmacist and working at the drugstore nearby hospital. Mr. Preyer. You mentioned earlier that after you were marrieé you and Lee thought the apartment was bugged. Did you think that your mail or Lee’s mail was being opene Mrs. Porter. We assumed that it was. Letters are censored th come from foreign countries. Mr. PREYER. Did Lee ever say anything about his mail bei tampered with, that is, that an envelope had been opened a! resealed, for example? Mrs. Porter. I believe he did. Mr. Preyer. Can you recall anything about that occasion? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. But since you mentioned it, it does rij a bell that maybe it did happen on one or a few occasions. Mr. Preyer. Did you feel that you and Lee were being watche that is, did you see any strange men outside of your apartme who appeared to be loitering near your apartment? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember right now. 217 Mr. PREYER. Were you a member of the Komsomol? Do I pronounce that right, the Communist youth movement? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I was. Mr. PREYER. How long were you active in this? Mrs. Porter. May I explain myself? I really wasn’t active, al- nough it is very customary in Soviet Union when people at the job elong to this organization. It is the patriotic thing to do, and I ave been not exactly forced but have been reminded that it would e more ethical if I do belong to this organization. So I kept ofusing it. So finally they said you don’t have to do anything if ou just pay your dues. So that is what I did for many months. But never attended meetings at all, except at the end when they nally discharged me from the organization, I had to attend that leeting. Mr. Preyer. So that if I understand you, you are Saying it was istomary to join this organization at your place of work. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. And that it was social pressure which compelled ou. Mrs. Porter. Yes, you have to kind of go with the crowd. Mr. Preyer. And you did, members did pay their dues regularly, nd you paid your dues regularly. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. PreEyYeER. Did Lee ever talk about United States politics after JU were married, that is, did he talk about officials of the United sates, such as the President or the Secretary of State or, did he Ik about policies of the U.S. Government? Mrs. Porter. If he did, he wasn’t talking to me about it, because wasn't really interested in his political view or anybody’s political ew. Mr. Preyer. Specifically did he ever talk about President ennedy? Mrs. Porter. Whatever he said about President Kennedy, it was ily good, always. Mr. Preyer. What was your attitude about the United States at is time? Mrs. Porter. In Russia you mean? Mr. Preyer. Yes, when you were first living in Russia. Mrs. Porter. Well, seeing few American tourists in city of Lenin- ad, I learned that the life is not as bad in United States as it is inted in newspaper. So, of course, every Russian is very curious, it every Russian, but majority of young people, very curious out Western World. Mr. Preyer. From Lee’s conversation, did you think he wanted to come a citizen of the Soviet Union at this time? Mrs. Porter. Once Lee, I believe he applied for, he sent a letter university in Moscow, and he was very, very disappointed when was refused to become a student of this university, and I think at maybe was a changing point about him staying or leaving finitely Soviet Union. He was very disappointed. I do assume at he might have stayed longer, or maybe forever, if he was anted permission to become a student. r. PREYER. When he was not given that permission, his attitude 2n changed toward becoming a Soviet citizen? 218 Mrs. Porter. If I may speculate right now, that was the reason. At least I assumed that he did want to come to Soviet Union to get education. Mr. Preyer. Were you surprised when Lee said he wanted to leave the Soviet Union and come to the United States? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I was, because he told me that he would not be able to or really wanted to. Mr. Preyer. Were you pleased that he wanted to come to the United States? Mrs. Porter. Not really, nothing against United States, but it was a very major decision for me to make. I did not know that much about United States. So to leave everything behind was quite hard. Mr. Preyer. Did you ever suspect that Lee might be a spy of some sort for either the Soviet KGB or for the U.S. CIA? Mrs. Porter. Well, it crossed my mind sometime. I am sorry to admit that. | Mr. PREYER. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. It did cross my mind sometime during our life in Russia; yes, because he will be sitting with those papers and writ ing something in English, and I don’t know. Maybe he was making reports to somebody and didn’t want me to know. Mr. Preyer. When it crossed your mind, did you think he was 2 spy for the United States or for the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. For United States. | Mr. Preyer. And you based that on the fact that he often was writing notes in English which you did not understand. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Did you ever learn later what those notes were, 01 the writing he was doing? Mrs. Porter. I learned about that after Lee died. That is what they call Lee Harvey Oswald diary, or something like that. That is what it was. Mr. PREYER. So that all of the writing on which you based you thought that he could have been a spy later turned out to be thé diary that he was writing. Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. Preyer. I mentioned earlier the Komsomol, the Communis: Ae organization. I believe you were expelled from that organiza ion. Could you explain to us why that happened? : Mrs. Porter. Excuse me, I do not understand end of your queg ion. | Mr. Preyer. The Communist youth organization, Komsomol, if | pronounce it correctly, which you joined when you were working af your place of employment, later you were expelled, that is, re moved from that organization, kicked out we might say in thif country. and the pressure at work was put, since I felt like I was a traitor, | married foreigner, I should not belong to this organization. 219 Mr. Preyer. So that the fact that you were married to a foreign- er was the principal reason that you left the organization. Mrs. Porter. I believe so: Mr. Preyer. When you were in the Soviet Union at this period, did you ever hear President Kennedy speak over the radio? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Did you ask me if I heard or Lee did? Mr. Preyer. First, I will ask if you heard. Mrs. Porter. Yes, I did, but of course I could not understand what he was talking about. Mr. Dopp. Will the gentleman suspend for just 1 second? I just thought it might be worthwhile, Mrs. Porter, we have a recorded vote on, and if you saw everyone leave here all at once, they are just going over to vote and will be coming right back. Mrs. Porter. OK. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Was Lee with you when you heard President Kennedy speak over the radio? Mrs. Porter. As far as IJ recall right now, I think he was, because 1e is the one who tuned the radio on the right station. I believe it was BBC or Voice of America, something like that. It wasn’t broad- sast through Moscow or any Russian channels. Mr. PREYER. So that Lee was the one who turned the radio to the ‘yhannel to hear the President. Mrs. Porter. We had a shortwave radio, I believe that is what 7ou call, when you can listen to the foreign stations. Mr. Preyer. What was your reaction and what was Lee’s reac- lon to hearing the President speak over the radio? Mrs. Porter. Well, I kept bugging him what is he saying, what is 1e saying, and he just told me to hush up, you know, not to nterrupt him. Mr. PREYER. So he told you to hush up. _ Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Did he ever make any comment about the Presi- ent’s speech? Mrs. Porter. I do believe that Pavel Golovachev might have een present at this time, so they really discussed it between the wo of them, and of course Lee’s attitude maybe was that, you now, me being a woman, what do you know about politics, you now. So I really do not recall what the comments were. Mr. Preyer. When did you first learn that Lee wanted to leave ne Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. A few months after we were married. I do not am exact month. It could be May or June, June probably, more ely. tt PREYER. And I believe you testified that you were surprised t that. When you left Russia, did you expect to return to Russia? Mrs. Porter. No; I burned all my bridges behind me. Mr. Preyer. So that you did not expect that you would return ther with Lee or alone. ‘Mrs. Porter. No. ‘Mr. Preyer. What was the reaction of your family to your leav- g the Soviet Union? 220 Mrs. Porter. Well, they were very, very upset for me making decision of leaving country. My uncle was worried about welfare o his family, and he was even afraid that he might lose his job on that account, being related to me. Mr. Preyer. When you arrived in New York from the Soviet) Union, did Lee bring his rifle with him? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I don’t think it can go through the customs with the rifle. Mr. Preyer. You did go through the customs in New York? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. Preyer. And as far as you know, no rifle was found, no comment was made about a rifle at that time. Mrs. Porter. Not that I know of. Mr. Preyer. Did Lee seem pleased to be back in the Unite States? Mrs. Porter. I think so. He was a little bit disappointed when noc reporters show up to greet him at the airport, because he told me there is going to be a whole bunch of them. Mr. Preyer. Before you left Russia, did Lee say where you would be going in the United States? Mrs. Porter. Yes; he said that he has a brother living in Texas| in Dallas, or Fort Worth. Mr. PreyER. Was that why you were going to Texas—— Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. PReEYER [continuing]. Because of his relatives living there Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Did he mention any other place in the United States where he might like to live? Mrs. Porter. Oh, he also told me he has relatives in New Or leans. We might live there sometime. Mr. Preyer. When you arrived in Texas, who met you at the airport? Mrs. Porter. Robert Oswald and his family. Mr. Preyer. Did you meet any of Lee’s friends in Fort Wort apart from his brother? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall. I don’t think so. Mr. Preyer. Where were you staying at Fort Worth? Mrs. Porter. We stayed for a while with his brother. Mr. Preyer. While you were there, did any friends call Lee o the telephone? Mrs. Porter. Not that I know of. Mr. Preyer. Do you recall whether he called anyone to say he was back in the United States? Mrs. Porter. Well, I did not speak English at the time, so if h used the phone, if somebody called for somebody, I wouldn’t know about that, unless he told me. _ Mr. Preyer. At that time you and Lee conversed, discussed onl in Russian? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. At this time when he first returned in Texas, did h taleeau politics or did he mention President Kennedy again ¢ ny time’ Mrs. Porter. Off and on, but it was always complimenta something good. 221 Mr. Preyer. Did he talk in general about any other politicians or public figures in the United States at this time? Mrs. Porter. Not that I recall; no. Mr. Preyer. Thank you. I will yield at this time, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. McDonald for the next area of questions. Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, I would just like to backtrack for a couple of ques- tions in the Russian phase of our questioning. You mentioned earlier because of the way he was writing in English in a book that you might have suspected perhaps he was a spy or something of that nature. Did he ever act suspiciously in any other way? In other words, did he ever go out at night and meet individuals unknown to yourself, did he act in any other suspicious manner? Mrs. Porter. No. It is customary in Russia to go for a walk after dinner, and if I want to, I can go along, or he might go visit some friends, and I took his word for it. If he said he goes see Pavel for a while, that is just fine with me. Mr. McDona .p. Mrs. Porter, did you and your husband have any Cuban friends in Minsk? Mrs. Porter. Not friends, but I think Lee met some Cuban students that were going to university in Minsk. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall their names? Mrs. Porter. I do believe he mentioned some names, but I do not recall them at all. Mr. McDona.p. And how well did you know them? Mrs. Porter. I did not know them at all. Mr. McDona .p. How well did your husband know them? Mrs. Porter. Oh, they might just walk in the street and talk about something, that is what he said. Mr. McDona.p. You say they came over to your apartment? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona .p. Did they ever? Mrs. Porter. Not that I recall. Mr. McDona.p. Do you know how often Lee met with them? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. Mr. McDona.p. You say they were students at the university? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. And Lee worked in a radio plant? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona tp. How did they come to meet? Mrs. Porter. Well, the city is not that big. Its population is only one-half million people, and it had a main street where people meet sometimes, you know, for a cup of coffee, in the square or a park or something like that. Mr. McDonapn. Did Lee tell you that he had met some Cuban students? Mrs. Porter. I think he did. Mr. McDona.p. How did he say? What did he say? Mrs. Porter. Well, please do forgive me for saying I do not remember, but it was 15 years ago. It was a long time ago. I do not remember the details, really, right now. 41-371 O- 79 = 15 Vol. 2 222 Mr. McDona.p. Can you recall the first time he mentioned meeting some Cuban students, whether he seemed pleased by the | fact that he had met some? Mrs. Porter. Well, he would make comment, for example, like, well, “I did not like Russian winter. So that those Cuban students, they are freezing too,” you know, or maybe mention that they weren't very happy to study there. They had been sent by govern- ment. They don’t have the freedom that they used to in their own homeland. Mr. McDonatp. At this time did he speak of Cuba? Did Lee speak of Cuba in favorable terms? Did he talk about Cuba at all? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. What did he say? Mrs. Porter. He did like Fidel Castro, and at the time so did I, because he was presented to Russian public as a very good fellow. So at the time all Soviets, I mean all young people were curious about new government in Cuba and how they will do it, and so he was very appealing at the time. Mr. McDona.p. What did Lee say about Fidel? Mrs. Porter. He said that he did like him as a leader very well. Mr. McDonatp. Do you know how often, after Lee met the Cuban students, do you recall whether he met with them frequent- ly or met with them at all? Mrs. Porter. Let’s assume maybe once a week, sometime. Maybe he doesn’t see them for 2 weeks and stumble over or maybe they have special date and they go to the movie or whatever. Mr. McDona.p. Where were they meeting, do you know? Mrs. Porter. Usually in the street or in the park somewhere, or main street. Bs McDona.p. Do you know in what language they were speak- ing! Mrs. Porter. Well, I really don’t know how did they communi- cate. It never occurred to me. Maybe the students spoke English. Mr. McDona pb. Is it your testimony—— Mrs. Porter. Lee did not speak Spanish, as far as I know, so I! assume maybe they spoke English. I hate to speculate on that. Mr. McDona.p. Just so we are clear on the point—— Mrs. Porter. Yes. . au McDona_p [continuing]. Did you ever meet the Cuban stu- ents’ Mrs. Porter. No, so I do not know how they communicate with each other. Mr. McDona.p. And over how long a period of time did Lee mee with these students? Mrs. Porter. Maybe a few months. Mr. McDona.p. And your testimony is that as far as you know4 they met maybe once a week? | : Mrs. Porter. I assume because when Lee left, he said he going see somebody, and he stumble over them or see them, maybeg sometime he tell me and sometime he does not, so I do not know Mr. McDona.p. During this time in the Soviet Union, did Harvey Oswald ever demonstrate any violent tendencies, any anti social tendencies, either to you personally or in general? 223 Mrs. PorTER. Well, he would lose temper a few times, but he was pretty good at controlling it. You know naturally during the mar- riage husband and wife do fuss sometimes. Mr. McDona_p. But it is your testimony that his behavior was not—— Mrs. Porter. He wasn’t really violent, no. Mr. McDonatp. And you are saying not out of the ordinary? Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. McDona pn. Nothing unusual about—— Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona_p [continuing]. His behavior at that time. Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona cp. Mrs. Porter, going back again to your first few days and weeks in Texas in 1962, when did you first—this may not apply just to them—when did you first learn about Oswald’s mother, Marguerite? Mrs. Porter. I learned about her in Soviet Union, because Lee was corresponding with her. Mr. McDonabp. I am sorry, I didn’t—— Mrs. Porter. After we were married, Lee and his mother corre- spond with each other. . Mr. McDona.p. And you were not aware of her before you got married? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. And what was your reaction when Lee told you that his mother was in fact alive? Mrs. Porter. What was my reaction? Well, I really didn’t have any reaction. It is wonderful that he had a mother. Mr. McDona pn. Except wasn’t there a point when he completely covered up the fact that he had a mother? Mrs. Porter. Well, I really do not recall what my reaction was at the time. Mr. McDona_p. Did you think him to be devious at that time? In other words, you found out after you got married that his mother was alive and he never mentioned her beforehand to you? Bre PorTER. Well, it was kind of strange, you know, behavior, really. Mr. McDona.p. When did you first meet her? Mrs. Porter. After we arrived at Fort Worth. When, you said? Mr. McDonaLp. Yes, when. Mrs. Porter. In June I believe of 1962. Mr. McDona_p. And was Lee present? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall the circumstances of the meeting. Mr. McDona_p. Did you know George DeMohrenschildt? Mrs. Porter. Did I know him? Yes. Mr. McDona .p. How did you know him? Mrs. Porter. He was one of Russian friends that we have right 1ere, Russian emigrants. Mr. McDona_p. When did you first meet him? Mrs. Porter. I do believe in 1962 shortly after arrival to United States. 224 Mr. McDona.p. And what were the circumstances of your first meeting with George DeMohrenschildt? First of all, where were you? Mrs. Porter. I assume right now, as I remember right now, ie think we have been invited for lunch or dinner at some Russian friends’ house and lots of Russian people did come, and that is how — we met. Mr. McDonatp. Do you recall whose home you were visiting? Mrs. Porter. I do believe Anna Miller. Mr. McDona.p. Anna Miller? Mrs. Porter. Anna Miller. That is how I remember right now as I met George DeMohrenschildt. Maybe I met him, maybe he came to our house. I do not recall right now exactly. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall on the first occasion you met him, was his wife present with him? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDona.p. Was Lee present when you met? Mrs. Porter. Probably was. Mr. McDona.p. Was that also the first time that Lee ever met DeMohrenschildt? | Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember really if we met him together or he met him previously. I do not recall right now at all. 2 et McDona.p. What did Lee say about George DeMohrens- | childt? Mrs. Porter. He did like him very much. So did I. Mr. McDona.p. Did he like him from the first time you met him? In other words, in remembering back, did it appear that the first time you met him was the first time Lee had met him as well? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember how we met him, together or somehow separate, but I know for a fact we both liked the man very well. Mr. McDona.p. What did Lee say about him? Mrs. Porter. Good fellow, George, I guess. Mr. McDona.p. Why did Lee like him so much? | Mrs. Porter. Well, most people who knew George, liked him. He has a very vivacious personality, always cheerful and joking. He } was very pleasant to be around. Mr. McDona tp. Did he like Lee? Mrs. Porter. Well, I assume at the time that he did. _ Mr. McDona tp. When they spoke, did they speak in Russian or in English? Mrs. Porter. In Russian and English both. _ Mr. McDona tp. Did Lee and DeMohrenschildt ever talk politics in your presence? Mrs. Porter. They probably have. Mr. McDona pn. Can you recall any such conversations? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona .p. Can you recall in your presence whether George DeMohrenschildt and Lee ever spoke about President Kennedy? Mrs. Porter. If I say right now that, yes, I do, they probably talked about, and then you ask me about the details which I cannot remember, but, yes, the name John Kennedy was mentioned in their conversation. 225 Mr. McDona _p. Can you recall in what context? In other words, were they speaking favorably of Kennedy? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Well, I recall that George DeMohrens- childt told me once that when he was younger, I mean he knew Jackie Kennedy before she was married to John Kennedy when she was a young lady and spoke very nicely about her. Mr. McDonatp. And how about Lee’s views at the time? Do you recall whether they were ever engaged in argument? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall ever hearing Lee talking badly about John Kennedy or Kennedy family. Mr. McDonatp. In some of these discussions Lee had with De- )Mohrenschildt—— Well, do you recall what DeMohrenschildt’s opinion of the Soviet )Union was? ) Mrs. Porter. Well, George DeMohrenschildt always joked a lot, jand you really don’t know if that was his real opinion or just a jioke, so, of course, he was curious how things changed since he—I mean I didn’t really know if he was living there or was born there. [ do not remember, but he was curious about life in Soviet Union; yes. Mr. McDona tp. After Lee got back to the United States, what was his opinion then of the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. After he come back to United States? Well, he was very glad that he was back home, at least at the eginning. I do not recall him saying that he was sorry he left Soviet Union. | Mr. McDona_p. Do you recall that he was sorry or that he was jnot sorry that he left? Mrs. Porter. He was not sorry. Mr. McDona_p. When Lee first got to Fort Worth, you first went there when you went back to Texas, was he contacted by the FBI? Mrs. Porter. That is what he told me, that the gentleman who ie to talk to him, came along, was FBI agent. That is what he old me. Mr. McDona tp. When did he tell you about this? Mrs. Porter. After living with Robert for a while we moved in tur home and Lee on the job and one afternoon some gentleman ‘ame knocking on the door. Mr. McDona_p. This is Robert Oswald, his brother? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. You are saying living with Robert? Mrs. Porter. Oh, yes, and Lee went outside and talk with this nan, and when he come back, he told me that it was the FBI who Ae pugging him, asking questions about the Soviet Union, things 1ke that. Mr. McDona.p. What was Lee’s reaction? How did he appear to ‘ou when he came back in? Mrs. Porter. Well, he was very knot up—quite angry about it. de told me that it would be very difficult for him to find a job or ‘eep a job if they keep bugging him. Mr. McDona tp. How many agents came to the house? Mrs. Porter. I do not really recall. Maybe one or two. Mr. McDona.p. You were home at the time? You were there? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I was busy in the kitchen. 226 Mr. McDona.p. Did they come to the door and ring the doorbell or knock? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall right now. They probably have. Mr. McDona.p. Were they requested to come inside or did they ask to speak to Lee outside? Mrs. Porter. I do not know what they said, because I do not speak English, so whose initiative it was about going outside or speaking in the house, I do not know. Mr. McDona.p. And where did they speak? Mrs. Porter. Outside. Mr. McDona Lb. In a driveway, a sidewalk, front yard? Mrs. Porter. On the sidewalk, I believe. , Mr. McDona.p. And about how long did this meeting take place? | Mrs. Porter. It was quite long time. I assume by now maybe 30 or 40 minutes, maybe an hour. , Mr. McDona.p. You subsequently moved out of Robert Oswald’s — house to an apartment on West Seventh Street in Fort Worth? | Mrs. Porter. Well, I don’t remember the address, but you do- about it, more than I do. | Mr. McDonaALp. Yes, and did Lee’s mother live with you at that time? | Mrs. Porter. I do believe after Robert, we move with his mother. , Mr. McDona .p. Did you have any visitors when you lived in this apartment with his mother? ‘Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I don’t think so. Mr. McDona.p. Did Lee Oswald’s personality—— What was his personality like upon getting back to the United States, comparing it with as you knew him in the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. Well, he had a hard time to find a job at the beginning, and little by little he became a little bit more sour. Mr. Hamitton. Mr. Chairman, could we break for 5 minutes, please? Chairman SToKEs. We certainly may take a 5-minute recess at this time. | Everyone is requested to remain seated until the witness has left the hearing room. [Recess. | Chairman SToKEs. The committee will come to order. Everyone is requested to please take their seats. Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, the last question I asked you was, did you notice any changes in personality, a change in Lee, once you got back in the United States, comparing him as to how you knew him in the Soviet Union? os PorTER. Well, little by little he became gloomier, or disillu- sioned. Mr. McDona .p. Gloomier. And do you know why? _ Mrs. Porter. At the time I assume because it was like holding a job or finding a job that he liked to do. It seemed to me that he was shh the time passing, he was dissatisfied with the job that he was ing. Mr. McDona.p. He got a job in Fort Worth; is that correct? 227 Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. McDona.p. And where was that job? Mrs. Porter. I do not really know the name of the firm he work or. Mr. McDonap. What was he doing? Mrs. Porter. It was some kind of mechanical job. Mr. McDona.p. It was within walking distance of where you ived? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. McDona tp. Did he ever discuss his job, this job, with you? Mrs. Porter. Only thing he said, that he did not like it very auch. Mr. McDona .p. Did not like it? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. During this time when you lived in Fort Worth, r any time for that matter within the first month or so after you ot back from the Soviet Union, did you ever have occasion to meet ny of Lee’s friends, friends from Texas? Mrs. Porter. No. We met a few Russian people, and they were ur friends at the time we lived there. ) Mr. McDona.p. How about non-Russian people? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Did Lee ever talk about friends or associates hat he had in Texas before he went to Russia? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Never mentioned any? Mrs. Porter. Not to my knowledge right now. I don’t recall any ames, faces. Mr. McDonabp. Did you ever have visitors at your apartment on Vest Seventh Street, the one that you shared with Marguerite? Mrs. Porter. Marguerite? No. Mr. McDona.p. You had no visitors to the apartment? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall any visitors. Mr. McDona.p. Did Lee read books often? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDonatp. Did he read a lot when he was in the Soviet Jnion? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. What kind of books did he read there? Mrs. Porter. Novels mostly. Mr. McDona.p. What kind of novels? Mrs. Porter. What you call maybe as classical novels, some ‘ussian classic writers. Mr. McDona.p. The novels or the books that he read in the oviet Union, were they in Russian? Mrs. Porter. They were in Russian; yes. Mr. McDona.p. How about when he returned to Texas, did he ontinue his interest in reading? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. What kind of books was he reading when he eturned? Mrs. Porter. Well, he has access to the library, and whatever ooks he brought, they were in the English language. I don’t know 228 the titles of them, but he brought some Russian books for me to read too. Mr. McDonaLp. Did he read any books of a political nature? Mrs. Porter. If he did, I do not know about. Mr. McDona_p. Did Oswald talk about politics very much during this time in Fort Worth? | Mrs. Porter. Lee really did not discuss politics with me. If I overheard some conversation with somebody else, just bits and pieces, I have to place them in my memory right now to give you the tone of the conversation. Mr. McDona.p. Who did he talk politics with? You mentioned earlier George DeMohrenschildt. Mrs. Porter. Many were with George, about latest events in the newspapers, something like that, in that matter. Mr. McDona.p. Up to this time, and we are only talking up to this time in Fort Worth, on your early arrival, had you ever heard Lee ever mention in discussion or did you ever overhear him talking with anyone about assassination as a political act? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Did you ever hear him talk at all about assassi- nation up to this point? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. What was Lee’s relationship with the Soviet— excuse me—the Russian group of individuals in the Dallas-Fort Worth area? What was Lee’s relationship with them? Mrs. Porter. It seemed to me at the beginning he was quite eager to meet Russian people living in Fort Worth or in Dallas, but little by little he felt like withdraw from it. He felt like they have too much influence on me, or I don’t think that he felt very comfortable around. Mr. McDona.p. Was it your understanding that he knew any of these individuals before he went to the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t think he knew them before. Mr. McDona .p. But he met them after he returned? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Mrs. Porter, you testified earlier that when in Russia you recall that Lee owned a rifle. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Or some kind of weapon. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDonaLp. Do you remember whether it was a rifle as opposed to a shotgun? Lie Porter. What the difference between shotgun? Is it size or what? Mr. McDona cp. It is a different kind of bullet or projectile that comes out. Do you know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona .p. OK. When do you first recall seeing Lee with a rifle in the United States? Mrs. Porter. I cannot pinpoint exact month, you know, date 0 any kind. Mr. McDona.p. Where did you first see it? 229 Mrs. Porter. I do not remember where or when, but I can say shat Lee did have a rifle during life in the United States. Mr. McDona_p. Do you know whether it was the same rifle that 1e had in the Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. Well, logically it cannot be, because you cannot go hrough the customs without declaring the rifle. I would not really cnow. Mr. McDona.p. Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect that Mrs. -orter was unable to identify Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle, which was narked CE-139 before the Warren Commission. She was unable to dentify it in 1964 when she testified before the Warren Commis- ion, and consequently we will not show it to her today since such | showing would serve no useful purpose. Mrs. Porter. Thank you. Mr. McDonatp. When you first saw the rifle in the United ‘tates, did you ask him what it was for? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember what I asked him about. I know I vasn’t pleased of having a rifle in the house. Mr. McDona.p. What did he say about it? Mrs. Porter. Well, in a matter of, that it’s a manly thing to like r something like that. Most men do like to hunt or do like to play rith the rifle. Mr. McDona tp. Do you recall seeing him taking it out frequent- y from wherever he kept it, either to handle it or to clean it, to 90k at it, do whatever? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I did see him cleaning the rifle. That is true. Mr. McDona.p. How often? Mrs. Porter. Maybe once a week. Mr. McDona.p. Where did he keep this rifle? Mrs. Porter. In his closet. Mr. McDona.p. When you refer to the “closet,’’ what apartment re you referring to? At what apartment are we talking about? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall any apartment, but maybe one in lallas. Mr. McDona.p. The one on Neely Street? Mrs. Porter. Neely Street; yes. Mr. McDona p. And you say he kept it in the closet? Mrs. PorTER. Yes, because in New Orleans he had the rifle, the ume rifle, and he kept it in the closet there too. Every apartment as a closet. 3 Mr. McDona.p. Did you notice any change in his personality ter he obtained this rifle? Mrs. Porter. Well, Lee liked to be alone by himself quite often. hat was a part of his personality, so that wasn’t really anything 2w. But his behavior pattern toward me changed. He was very inoyed by me. It seemed like I felt out of place. Mr. McDona tp. Did you ever see him—you said that you would him taking it out and cleaning it. Did you ever see him while he was in the apartment pick up the fle and to aim it like he would be practicing shooting? Mrs. Porter. He would do that in New Orleans in apartment, va know the screened porch. He would sit there in the dark with 230 bring it Mr. McDona.p. He would sit in a chair; and he would | up to his shoulde r? sitting on, but I knew it Mrs. Porter. I don’t know what he was , was in front of his face or whatever. in you first saw this rifle Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall when Texas, whether it had a scope on it? Mrs. Porter. I would not remember that at all. Mr. McDona.p. Do you know what a scope is? Mrs. Porter. Well, I learned later, since all this happened, what is. I don’t know that much about rifles, nothing at all, a scope really. Mr. McDona.p. Thinking back, can you recall whether the rifle had a scope on it? It would be attached to the rifle. Can you recall? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. Mr. McDona.p. When did you learn the difference between rifles with and without scopes? Mrs. Porter. I really did not learn the difference. I just know what the scope more or less is right now, that it 1s attachment that | make target more visible. | Mr. McDona_p. But did you know then what a scope was? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDonatp. Did he keep, did Oswald keep, ammunition, cartridges around the apartment? Mrs. Porter. He kept rifle and I guess ammunition, what you call, all together, and I wasn’t fascinated by rifles, so I never took | any interest to look at it or see what it looks like, so I just simply ignored it most of the time. Mr. McDona .p. Do you recall these times when he had the rifle out whether—— You say in New Orleans he would sit on the screened porch? Mrs. PortTER. Yes. Mr. McDonatp. And we are referring to the Magazine Street apartment? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Do you remember what he would do? I mean you say you don’t know whether he was sitting. Is that your testimony? Mrs. Porter. Well, it was usually after dark, so if I go over there, you know, just see that he is there, and I come back in the apartment, so I just knew he was there with the rifle. He always,} most of the time, he said “Just leave me alone,” you know. That is} what I will do. Mr. McDonatp. Can you recall overhearing the sound of Lee§ handling the rifle? In other words, do you recall when he would be sitting on the porch, do you recall loud sounds of what would be moving the bolt or the action on the rifle? | Mrs. Porter. I do not recall right now. Mr. McDona pb. If you think about it for a minute, do you recal | met te of sound, the sound of metal on metal, sort of a clacking} und? Mrs. Porter. Not that I remember it; no. | Se McDona.p. Did you ever see him move the action of the 231 Mrs. Porter. I told you I did not pay attention to what he was doing that much, to give you the descriptions, if he changed the positions or was it any sounds, because I wasn’t listening for it. ~ Mr. McDona.p. Do you know or do you remember any time when he would handle the rifle when it seemed like he would be shooting at something, an imaginary object? Mrs. Porter. No, I cannot. Mr. McDonabp. Pulling the trigger? Mrs. Porter. No, I cannot tell you that. It seemed to me that most of the time he picked out the time to be with his rifle, when I was busy with something else. At the time I did not pay any - attention. Whether it was deliberate or not, I do not know. Mr. McDona tp. Did you ever handle the rifle? Did you ever hold it? Mrs. Porter. I might have touched it sometime to move the place if you clean the closet. Mr. McDona.p. Did you ask him where he obtained this rifle? Mrs. Porter. No, I didn’t. Mr. McDonaA Lp. Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he did. Mr. McDona.p. And what did he do? Mrs. Porter. He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle under- neath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or some- thing like that. Mr. McDonaLp. This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat? Mrs. Porter. It is several occasions, maybe more than once. Mr. McDona Lp. He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona tp. And the rifle under the raincoat? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. And how long would he be gone? Mrs. Porter. A few hours. Mr. McDona.p. And what did he say as he was going out to do this? Did he have any specific comment? Did he tell you any reason? Mrs. Porter. Well, he said that it is a practice range somewhere apparently. That is the purpose of him taking the rifle, in order to practice. Mr. McDona.p. Mrs. Porter, let me direct your attention to approximately April 10, 1963. April 10 is the day that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot at Gen. Edward Walker in Dallas. Before I get to that specific question, let me ask you one further one, in general about the rifle, and that is you say on occasion he went out to practice wearing the raincoat. Do you know how he got to the area that he was going to practice shooting the rifle? Mrs. Porter. He told me by the bus, so I thought it was kind of a little, would be suspicious for the people in the bus to see him 232 wearing the raincoat, you know, well, but that is what he told me, that he took a bus. | Mr. McDona.p. When he put this raincoat on and had the rifle underneath, could you see this rifle? Could you see it? Mrs. Porter. The raincoat was quite long. Mr. McDona.p. Below the knee? Did it come below the knee? Mrs. Porter. You could not see that it was a rifle. You would not spot it. Mr. McDonatp. Going back to approximately April 10, in the week preceding the General Walker shooting, did you notice any change in Oswald’s personality during that time? How was he acting? Mrs. Porter. Well, I cannot compare right now, you know, be- cause it was long time ago, but his personality constantly was changing to the worst, really. He became more withdrawn and more hostile to everybody, maybe more short tempered. Mr. McDona pn. During the week preceding April 10—— Mrs. Porter. Well, he will spend lots of time alone in this closet that he converted into a little kind of office and he would shut the door and would do some more writing somewhat, and he asked me not to disturb him. Mr. McDona Lp. Directing your attention to that day, April 10, 1963, would you tell us what happened? Mrs. Porter. Well, I cannot remember the timing all the very vivid details of day. I just can state it that that particular night he did not come home until very late, and when he did not come home at regular time, I was worried about him. So I found a note addressed to me what to do in case if he did not come home. Of course I was petrified. Nobody I can turn to. But then later that night when he came home, I asked him to explain. He was out of breath and he was pale, and asked him to explain this note, and he said that “I just shot General Walker.”’ So I was very upset and enraged about that, and we had an argument over it. Mr. McDonaALD. Just a second, Mrs. Porter. Let’s wait. [Air raid siren.] Chairman Stokes. This reminds us of the customary test every Wednesday at 11 o’clock. Mr. McDonaA Lp. Just one minute. Mrs. Porter, if you could speak up as best you can—— Mrs. Porter. OK. Mr. McDonaA Lp [continuing]. So we can hear you. Before the siren, you were saying—— Let me ask you the question so you can repeat the answer. aan’ happened when Lee came home on the night of April 10, Mrs. Porter. He was very pale, as I said, and he was out of breath, and I was asking, I mean asked him to explain about the note that he left for me, and asked him what happened, and he said that he just tried to shoot General Walker. I asked him who General Walker was. I mean how dare you to go and claim some- body's life, and he said “Well, what would you say if somebody got rid of Hitler at the right time? So if you don’t know about General Walker, how can you speak up on his behalf?”’ Because he told me 233 that he wasn’t—just a minute. He said he was something equal to what he called him a fascist. That was his description. ; ie McDona.p. Did he turn on the television? Did he try to isten‘ Mrs. Porter. We did not have television. He turned the radio on later on, listened for the news, and it wasn’t, nothing on. Mr. McDonNALp. You say he was pale? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. McDona .p. Did he appear nervous or distraught? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know what “distraught” mean? Mr. McDona.p. Well, other than being pale in color, did he give, did he have any other characteristics, physical characteristics? Did he seem to be shaking or extremely nervous? Mrs. PorTER. Yes, he was extremely nervous; yes. Then when he heard the news that General Walker wasn’t killed, you know, he was kind of angry that he missed it. Mr. McDonaALD. You say he returned late that evening. Do you recall seeing him go out that morning, the morning of April 10? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I probably have. Mr. McDona.p. But it is your testimony he did not come home after work, before going out to try to shoot General Walker. Mrs. Porter. I really do not remember right now. He might, didn’t come from work, or maybe he left and come back later. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall seeing him leave the apartment with the rifle around April 10? , Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I am sorry. Mr. McDonatp. When he returned that evening, about what time did he get back? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember the time. Quite late. Mr. McDonNaALp. Pardon? Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. McDona Lp. Was it early in the evening, late in the evening? Mrs. Porter. I assume it is very late in the evening. Mr. McDona .p. Did he come in with the rifle? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. You specifically remember he did not have it? Mrs. Porter. Well, as I recall right now, I think a few days later, or the next day or 2 days later, he went and brought the rifle back in the house. Mr. McDona.p. How did he bring it back? How did he carry it? Mrs. Porter. The same way he was taking it out, with the raincoat on. Mr. McDona.p. With the raincoat? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Is this the way he would normally take the rifle out of the Neely Street apartment, under the raincoat? k Mrs. Porter. When he went as he said practice, target prac- 1ce—— Mr. McDona.p. Yes? Mrs. Porter [continuing]. That usually was the procedure. Mr. McDona.p. But concerning the General Walker incident, do you remember the night, that night, when he came in pale? When he came in, did he have the raincoat on? 234 Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. But as I recall right now, I think that he went and he hid the rifle somewhere else. Mr. McDona.p. He told you this? Mrs. Porter. This is what I try to remember right now. I think that is what it was. Mr. McDona Lp. Did he seem pleased when he got home? Mrs. Porter. Pleased with what? Mr. McDona pb. Pleased with what he had done? Mrs. Porter. No, he was just nervous and he was eager for listen to the news, but then he was disappointed. Mr. McDona.p. Excuse me just a second. Mrs. Porter, would you like a straight-back chair? Mrs. Porter. No, that is fine, all right. Mr. McDonaALD. You mentioned a note, he left you a note. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Where was this note left? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember right now, but I think it could be in the closet, on the table there. Mr. McDonabp. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. Maybe it is in the closet above his shelf or some- thing like that. Mr. McDona.p. You found this note before he returned? Did you find it before he returned? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. McDona.p. And what did it say? Mrs. Porter. What for me to do in case if he did not come back ome. Mr. McDona.p. And what specifically did it say? Mrs. Porter. Well, it was a key to the mailbox, post office mailbox, I think. I really don’t remember what the note exactly said right now. Mr. McDona.p. Was it written in his handwriting? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. McDona.tp. And what did you do with the note when he returned home? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDonaALb. Is that note in existence now? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. McDona p. Did Lee have a notebook, a book that he used to keep writings in, regarding General Walker? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. McDona.p. What do you remember about it? _Mrs. Porter. Well, at the time when he was spending lots o time alone in the closet, I thought that he is writing, you know. I don’t know, whatever it was, but I learn about that, that w something to do with General Walker. I learned about that later. Mr. McDona.p. How did you learn about it? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDona bp. Did he tell you? Mrs. Porter. Could have been. _ Mr. McDona.p. You learned about it soon after the Walke incident? You learned about the notebook shortly after the Walke incident? Mrs. Porter. Probably. 235 Mr. McDona.p. So who else would be in a position to tell you what the notebook contained? Mrs. Porter. You—you probably have access to it. Mr. McDona.p. No, no, I mean at that time. Mrs. Porter. Only Lee, yes, sir. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall if that notebook contained photo- zraphs? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. McDona.p. What did those photographs depict? Mrs. Porter. Well, I remember now it looked like some kind of a 1ouse or a road or something like that of that nature, and if I asked him what it was, he said that is General Walker’s house. Mr. McDona.p. And were these photographs attached to a piece of paper, I mean a page of the notebook itself? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember right now. Mr. McDona.p. What happened to that notebook? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall if Lee ever—— Mrs. PorTER. You mean now or then? Mr. McDona tp. Then, what happened then? Did Lee do anything (0 the notebook? Mrs. Porter. Well, it is possibility that maybe it was destroyed. Mr. McDonap. Just 1 second. Mrs. Porter, we are speaking now of the notebook that Lee kept yn the General Walker shooting. . Mrs. Porter. OK. Mr. McDona.p. And you testified that he brought the rifle home 4 number of days after the incident. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. And you were aware of this notebook that he , you know, I have to compare. Mr. McDonatp. As you will see, A has him holding a gun, Iding the rifle in his right hand—left hand, B, the rifle in the tht hand, and then, C, in the left hand again, slightly to the mnt. So with these to refresh your memory, can you say, can you all if you took any additional pictures? Mrs. Porter. No, I cannot remember how many exactly. To me it ks like all of them. It looks like Lee. Mr. McDonap. That is correct. Mrs. Porter. That is the only thing I can say, but I do not member how many picutres I was taking. © Mr. McDona.p. But since we have three in front of you, we Ow now that you at least took three; correct? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona cp. Three different occasions? Mrs. Porter. I mean it was one occasion. Mr. McDona _p. Right. 242 Mrs. Porter. But I could take three pictures, I could take twe pictures. I cannot be definite about how many. Mr. McDona.p. Let me ask you if you can remember, was there a pose? Did Lee pose holding the rifle over his head, in two hands Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember that at all. Mr. McDona.p. Mrs. Porter, I want to show you now two addi tional photographs labeled JFK exhibits F—the one photograpl with two numbers, F-183 is the face of the photograph depictins Lee Oswald, and F-184 is the back, which has some writing on it If the clerk would please hand this to Mrs. Porter, and if w would for demonstration purposes display JFK exhibits F-382 anc F-383. Mrs. Porter, if you will direct your attention to the reverse side that is where my questions will be directed. The reverse side i displayed on the easel. Have you had a chance to look at the reverse side? Do you se the phrase that is written in the upper right-hand—— Mrs. Porter. Can I consult with my attorney? Mr. McDona_b. Sure, please. [Witness consults with counsel.] Mr. McDonaA .p. All set? | Directing your attention to the phrase which I have been told i Russian; is that correct? Mrs. PorTErR. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. In the upper right-hand corner of the phot graph on the back, do you recognize the handwriting? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. That is what I was discussing with m lawyer. We tried to find out if that was written by me. I mean as told him, that my handwriting does change a few times a day. I not write same way, you know, in the morning and maybe at nigh so it is hard for me to claim even my own handwriting, but yo have certain way of writing, habit of writing certain letters, so know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain letter th way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but after examine it, I know it is not. Mr. McDona bp. Well, first of all, what does it say? Mrs. Porter. “For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha.” Mr. McDonabp. ‘Hunter of fascist’’? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona_p. “Ha, ha, ha.” Now if you will look closely, there is a possibility that if you lo you will see the handwriting, the dark handwriting, it appears th someone might have wrote over the original handwriting. You can see underneath. Mrs. Porter. I can see something, right here that looks like ha been erased and copied over. Mr. McDona.p. Or possibly someone wrote over it just to bri out a light handwriting underneath. But nevertheless, does any of that look like your handwriting Mrs. Porter. Like mine? Mr. McDonap. Yes. Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall ever writing such a phrase on th photograph? 243 Mrs. Porter. No, but it would sound like me. Mr. McDona_p. It sounds like you? Mrs. Porter. Yes, and at first, you know, I thought it look like my handwriting, but when I examine I do not, like letter “f,’’ I do not print it that way, and “‘t.” I am talking about Russian descrip- tion, not English. Mr. McDona_p. You are saying you don’t print it that way now. How about in 196—— Mrs. Porter. No, it wasn’t habit. Mr. McDonatp. So it sounds like something you would have written but you can’t identify your handwriting. Mrs. Porter. When one letter is scratched underneath, I mean marked underneath, it is a sound in English like “s” and Rh.’ “sha” sound. That is not necessary to put this marking on it, but it is typical of some Russians do. Mr. McDona p. Is it typical of the way you would have written then in 1963? Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. McDona bp. Is that peculiarity —— Mrs. Porter. Well, that would be typical for Russian to write it, but at the same time another letter—— Mr. McDona.p. Excuse me, just so everyone understands what letters we are talking about. At this point I was referring to Ms. Jackie Hess who was point- ing out the Russian letters. [Jackie, who is a staff member, speaks Russian. | Mrs. Porter. It is the third letter in the second word. “F A,” and then another one that looks like—— Yes? Mr. McDona.p. She speaks Russian? Mrs. Porter. She does? And “‘t,” it is not necessary to put this mark underneath as well, out it is kind of habitual, not habitual. It is a habit of some %ussians to do that. But this letter “ha,” in the first word after ‘0,” this is something like maybe foreigner would try to write it, you know, to copy Russian language. Mr. McDona_p. Do you recall ever seeing this photograph with his writing on the back? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona cp. It is your testimony you don’t think that is your landwriting. Mrs. Porter. At first look I thought it was, but then I start *xamine it, I don’t think it is my handwriting. Mr. McDona.p. Now if you will look in the lower left-hand orner, it says “To my friend George. From Lee Oswald.” And here is a date “5,” then “IV/63.” Do you recognize that handwriting? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona tp. Does it look like Lee Harvey Oswald’s handwrit- ag’ Mrs. Porter. Well, I do not have much opportunity to compare is English handwriting to this photograph, but I cannot claim it fas his handwriting. I am not expert on handwriting as far as Mglish go. 244 Do you have any other documents to compare his handwriting in English with this one? I mean that is up to experts. Mr. McDonaALb. Yes, I understand. Well, did you see his handwriting in English very often? Mrs. Porter. Not very often, but I seen it. It was many years ago. I do not remember what his handwriting, but it wasn’t big or sturdy, you know. He wrote with small letters. Mr. McDona.Lp. When he wrote to you, if he wrote notes or whatever, did he write to you in Russian? Mrs. Porter. In Russian language, yes. Mr. McDona.p. And how would he sign his name in Russian? Mrs. Porter. Alik. Mr. McDona.p. Alik. So when you look at this handwriting in the photograph, is it your testimony that you are just not tha familiar with his handwriting? Mrs. Porter. In English. Mr. McDona .p. In English, I see. Have you ever seen this photograph before? Mrs. Porter. This particular photograph? . ie McDonaA Lp. Yes, the particular one with the writing on th ack. Mrs. Porter. No. | Mr. McDona.p. Now in the lower right-hand corner it says “Copyright G. deM.”’ What does that notation mean to you? Mrs. PorTER. Which one? Mr. McDona.p. Where it says “Copyright.” Mrs. Porter. I assume it was for some kind of book publication and somebody have a right in this photograph to claim it. Mr. McDoNaALp. Have you ever seen that before—— Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDOoNaALp [continuing]. That particular notation? Mrs. Porter, regarding all of the photographs, the different pose that we have seen, the photos you took of Lee, did you ever destro any photograph of this nature? Mrs. Porter. Well, it have been brought to my attention jus recently. Apparently I did. I forgot completely about it until som body spoke about. I think I did. Mr. McDona.p. And how many did you destroy? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDonaALp. When did you do that? Mrs. Porter. After Lee was arrested. Mr. McDona .p. Did anyone tell you to do this? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I think I was just afraid that i will be more evidence against Lee and could be against me too Mr. McDona.p. How did you destroy the photograph? es PorTEeR. Well, I had been told I burned it. That is prob ably—— Mr. McDona.p. Do you remember doing that? Mrs. Porter. Very vaguely. Mr. McDona.p. Was anyone with you when you did it? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDona.p. Do you know how many copies Lee had made o this photograph? 245 Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. ae McDona.p. Do you know whether he had many duplicates made‘ Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. I have no idea. Mr. McDona tp. Do you know if Lee developed these by himself, at his place of employment? Mrs. Porter. I think once he worked somewhere, it was possible 0 do it at work, I believe. I really do not know if he developed umself or he send it for. Mr. McDona _p. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to move 0 the committee record, photographic exhibits F-378, 379, 380, "-179, F-180, F-183, F-184, F-382, F-383, and F-381. [JFK exhibit F-179 represents F-378 and F-379; JFK exhibit "-180 represents F-380; and JFK exhibits F-382 and F-383 are epresentative of F-183 and F-184 respectively.] Chairman Strokes. Without objection, they may be entered into he record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisir F-179 246 DATE % j JFK Exuisit F-180 TLE LETT egy yey MT cy Vl ‘ Ne i fis DATE. 3-3-73| igwv2 , DEI i ae, Soh kissin Avan att tinhitialadinhaitialnadialiilniliidinden timed enees JFK Exuisir F-382 oar Det WYP ate kins PD = Kes) if JFK Exuisit F-383 248 JFK Exuisit F-381 249 Mr. McDona p. Mrs. Porter, I just have three more questions for his line of questioning, and, that is, let me direct your attention to April 1963, April 21 specifically. This was a date on which it is in Priscilla Johnson’s book and Isewhere, it has been written that you were told by Lee Oswald hat Richard Nixon was coming to visit Dallas. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona p. Do you recall that incident? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona_p. Tell us what happened, please? Mrs. Porter. Well, after the Walker incident, he give me prom- se that he never do it again. I see him one day, I mean I don’t now the exact date, that he was putting his gun, not gun, pistol or ifle@whatever, anyway he said he is leaving, but I knew he had a veapon with him. So I told him where you leaving, and he said ‘Well, the Nixons is coming to town, so I am just going to look.” ind I said for that you didn’t need—you know, why you taking all his ammunition with you, not ammunition, the gun? And so we vind up having an argument over it, and we had a fight, and he lid not go. 7 Mr. McDona cp. All right, now the book ‘Marina and Lee” states hat somehow you lured him into the bathroom, and then slipped ut and held him in there. Mrs. Porter. Yes. | Mr. McDona_p. Tell us how that happened? Mrs. Porter. Well, it was easier to remember details when you vere working so many years ago on the book than right now. Mr. McDona .p. Try, if you could. At this time he had the handgun on his person, and he was reparing to go out? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I guess. Mr. McDona.p. And how did you get him into the bathroom? Mrs. Porter. Well, we wrestle or whatever you call it. You try ith the time passing by not to—it is easier to forget the bad hings of your life that bring memories back, so I cannot describe ou the fight that we have, you know, in such scrupulous details hat you wanted me to. Mr. McDona tp. But do you recall getting him, maneuvering him nto the bathroom? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. How normally—well, was he stronger than you? Mrs. Porter. Of course. Mr. McDona.p. So how did you get him into the bathroom? Mrs. Porter. First of all, I was very angry and that maybe give 1@ more energy and I was determined just that I am going to keep im there, and maybe he give in after a while. Maybe he was just frying to make me angry and see where he stand with me. If he eally want—I mean he was much stronger than me. If he really anted to, he could overpower me, definitely. Mr. McDona op. I see. And then the book Says, and other testimo- y, that you held him in. You held the door shut. Mrs. Porter. The door for a while, yes. Mr. McDonap. Did he try to pull the door open? Mrs. Porter. But not for very long, yes. 250 Mr. McDonap. Did he appear to be pulling very hard? Mrs. Porter. Well, it was hard for me to hold on to it. I don’t know, if he try his best, you know, or how much power he used. Mr. McDona.p. Is it your testimony that in your opinion if he really had wanted to get out, he would have been able to? Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this point. Chairman STokEs. Thank you, Counsel. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer, for such time as he may consume. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter,, 1 would like to turn now to your life with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. On April 24, 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald went to New Orleans, and you remained behind with Mrs. Ruth Paine in Dallas. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Why did he go to New Orleans at that time? Mrs. Porter. He had difficulty to handle a job right here, so he thought maybe he will have a better chance in New Orleans, and he did have relatives over there who might be able to help him find a job. Mr. Preyer. Did the Walker shooting have anything to do with his moving to New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. I really don’t, I do not recall right now if that was the turning point, but at least I was glad that he decided to move to New Orleans; the farther from General Walker, the better Mr. Preyer. Had he ever discussed moving to New Orleans before the Walker shooting? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember, sir. Mr. Preyer. And I gather that you were glad that he was movin to New Orleans because you were concerned about his behavio after the Walker incident. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Did he have any friends in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. Only relatives that he spoke of. Mr. Preyer. He didn’t mention anyone else living there, apar from his relatives? Mrs. Porter. No. Pitas PREYER. Where was the rifle when he moved to New Orleanj Mrs. Porter. Would you please repeat the question? Mr. Preyer. Where js the rifle? p 4 | Mrs. PORTER. He moved first. He packed all the belongings if Mrs. Paine’s station wagon, and I think we took him by the b el Me or he went on his own to bus station. So he left for Ney eee first, and all the belongings have been packed by Lee an} e t in Mrs. Paine’s apartment, I mean house. Mr. Preyer. So that he went by bus to New Orleans, but he haj packed his belongings and those were sent where? rage: Porter. Usually during the moving, Lee was always doin| . He was the one who did all the packing, not me. a Mr. Paever. So that you and Mrs. Paine later brought all 251 Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer [continuing]. Remaining luggage? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Including the rifle. You mentioned that when he first got the rifle, he thought, as I inderstood your testimony, that it was the manly thing to do, and assume that you felt that that was natural for him to have a rifle it that time, but that after the Walker incident, you stated that rou realized he was capable of killing someone with it. When he went to New Orleans by himself, and you were left in Jallas with Mrs. Paine, did it occur to you to dispose of the rifle, or he pistol, to get rid of it, so that he could do no harm, further 1arm with it? Mrs. Porter. Not really, because by that time I was afraid of ee, and most of the time I did not, I tried not to do somethi ng to ntagonize him. Mr. Preyer. You were physically afraid? Mrs. Porter. Excuse me? Mr. Preyer. Let me ask along that line, just before he went to lew Orleans, what was his treatment of you? Mrs. Porter. Well, he was quite brittle, sometime toward me. Mr. Preyer. That was family quarreling? Mrs. Porter. Quite constantly. Mr. Preyer. Was that a factor in his moving to New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. Excuse me? Mr. Preyer. Was that a possible reason that he moved to New 'rleans, one of the reasons? Mrs. Porter. It was lots of factors involved, but I think main one ras for him to look for another opportunity for a job. Mr. Preyer. What do you think he would have done if you had otten rid of the rifle? Mrs. Porter. Well, he probably would have got rid of me. Mr. Preyer. Pardon me? Mrs. Porter. Well, I cannot answer this question. I don’t know ‘hat he would have done. Mr. Preyer. I understood you to say he might have gotten rid of ou if you got rid of the rifle. At this time did he talk about returning to Russia, to the Soviet nion, at all? Mrs. Porter. I think that came in the picture later on in New rleans. Mr. Preyer. When you got to New Orleans and you were both *ttled in the Magazine Street apartment, did you have any visitors iere? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall except one lady with children and usband, I don’t remember how many of them, one family did ome to visit us, friends of Ruth Paine. Mr. Preyer. They were not friends of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mrs. Porter. No. They visited only once. They never kept in ‘uch again. ‘Mr. Preyer. We have asked you at various times what he said yout President Kennedy or his family and other political figures. t this time in New Orleans did he have anything to say about resident Kennedy or his family? vi 252 Mrs. Kennedy was Mrs. Porter. During the New Orleans period that. He was quite con- expecting a child and Lee told me about she has a few h and he infor med me that cerned about her healt happen to ng would miscarriages before and he was hoping nothi this baby, I think he said the baby died. in this New Mr. Preyer. Did he talk about the Soviet Union Orleans period? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he did. Union? Mr. PreyER. What were his comments about the Soviet to He did not talk about Soviet Union in order Mrs. Porter. dis- Soviet Union was compare America and Soviet Union. When He doesn’t cussed, it was in the case that he wants me to go back. come want me around anymore. He thought that I go back or we . back to the Soviet Union. Soviet Mr. PRevER. He talked about you going back to the Union? of Mrs. Porter. At times it was me and sometimes it was both us. Mr. Preyer. Did he talk about Cuba during this period? Mrs. Porter. Well, he was engaged in some activities, I assume on the street, about those pamphlets, “Fair Play for Cuba.” ne PrEYER. Did he compare Cuba with the Soviet Union at thi time’ Mrs. Porter. Yes, he did. Mr. Preyer. What was that comparison, was it more favorable to one than the other? Mrs. Porter. Well, he acted like he had a choice between the Soviet Union and Cuba and he does prefer maybe to go and live in Cuba because that is something that he did not try. _ Mr. Preyer. During your stay in the Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans, was Lee ever gone for long periods of time? B that I mean, say, as much as 5 days and nights consecutively: Mrs. Porter. No; he spent only one night in jail once and that i: the only time that he was not present in the house with me Mr. Preyer. That is the only time he was gone overnight? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Was he friendly with your neighbors there? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Did he appear to have any friends at all in Ne Orleans? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. You mentioned his interest in Cuba. Could you tell us just a little bit more about that and about what he might havg said about Fidel Castro and why he wanted to go there? | Mrs. Porter. Well, I knew for a long time that Fidel Castro waf his hero. He was a great admirer of him, so, he was in some kind q revolutionary mood at that period of time. He thought that mayb} he would be, I mean, he would be happy to work for Fidel Castr] causes or something like that. | sit, PREYER. Now I would like to ask you about three names 4 is time and ask you whether you or Lee knew either of thes three people. First, is Clay Shaw. Did you remember knowing Clay Sha 253 Mrs. Porter. I did not know Clay Shaw ever for Mr. Garrison in New Orleans. That until I had to testify is when I learned about, I mean this name. Mr. Preyer. Do you know whether Lee knew Clay Shaw before the time of the Garrison trial? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know about that. I had never seen or heard the name. Mr. Preyer. Did you know Guy Bannister? Mrs. Porter. Who? Mr. Preyer. Guy Bannister. Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. And you don’t know whether or not Lee knew Guy Bannister? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know, but I never heard that name either. Mr. PREYER. Do you recall ever going to Guy Bannister’s office in New Orleans with Lee? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t. For what purpose? Mr. Preyer. You had no recollection of going with Mrs. Porter. No. him? ) Mr. PREYER. Do you know David Ferrie? Does that name refresh your recollection at all? Mrs. Porter. Somehow the name sounds famili ar right now, but [ don’t know where I heard it before. I cannot put the face on the name. Mr. Preyer. You have no recollection of meeti ng him or seeing him, do you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Did you meet Dorothy and Dutz delieve were Lee’s aunt and uncle? Murret who I Mrs. Porter. What is the first name? Mr. PREYER. Dorothy and Dutz, D-u-t-z, I believe is his name, Dorothy and Dutz Murret? Mrs. Porter. I remember Aunt Lillian that lived in New Or- eans. Is that the same person? Mr. Preyer. Do you recall meeting Lee’s aunt and Jrleans? uncle in New Mrs. Porter. Yes; her name was Lillian and | I forgot her hus- vand’s name. Mr. Preyer. Did Lee’s aunt and uncle ever mentio n the name Nofio Pecora in any conversation that you or Lee may have had vith them? Mrs. Porter. I did not speak English at that time leard that name, no. yet. I never Mr. Preyer. You never heard that name. 0 you recognize the name in any conversation that ind uncle had of Carlos Marcello? Lee’s aunt Mrs. Porter. No, I never heard the name. Can I add something? If him and his uncle were talkin vould not be present in the room, I cannot say g and I that they did not alk about it, butI never heard this name. Mr. Preyer. When he was in New Orleans, it is qade an effort to join an anti-Castro Cuban group. known that Lee ian named Carlos Bringuier, if I am pronouncin He met with a g it properly, and at he was arrested in a scuffle later on with Bringu ier when Lee €1-371 QO - 79 - 17 Vol. 2 254 was passing out pro-Castro literature. In other words, he appeared to be working for both sides in New Orleans, the anti-Castro and the pro-Castro. That is the background for why I ask you this question, and that is, was Lee a true Communist? Mrs. Porter. No, he was not. Mr. Preyer. Could you explain that a little more? Do you believe he was sincere in his beliefs? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. Like newspaper reporters call him Marxist or Communist. He was neither of those. He maybe was so- called self-proclaimed Marxist because it happened to be maybe he read the book and maybe he agrees with Carl Marx, some of the theories, but as far as belonging to the party or something like that, that is not so. Mr. Preyer. You are saying that he was a self-proclaimed Marx- ist and that, as I understand it, that he had difficulty working with any, within any party? Mrs. Porter. He did not call himself a Marxist or say I believe in that kind of ideas. Mr. Preyer. Do you believe he was on the pro-Castro or the anti- Castro side in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. At that time, you mentioned just right now, I always thought that he was a pro-Cuban, not anti- a pro-Castro. Mr. Preyer. Didn’t he generally remain true to his views about communism, the views he held when he first went to Russia? Mrs. Porter. Would you please repeat the question. I did not understand you very clearly. Mr. PREYER. I think it might be a confusing question. Did he continue to take Communist or Socialist newspapers and literature throughout his life in this country? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. Preyer. Did you notice any change in his attitude toward the Soviet Union at this time? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t recall that. Mr. Preyer. Where did he work in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. For some coffee company. Mr. PREYER. Was that the Reiley Coffee Co.? Mrs. Porter. It could be. Mr. Preyer. Did he talk to you about this job? Mrs. Porter. No, not very much. Mr. Preyer. Did he always come home on time? You mentioned he was not away from home overnight except on one occasion. Mrs. PorTER. He was very punctual. Mr. Preyer. How did he get home, did anyone drop him off or did he come home on the bus? Mrs. Porter. I think by the bus. Mr. PrREYER. Where did he keep his rifle in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. In one of the closets as well. Mr. Preyer. You mentioned that he would, on several occasions, put on his black raincoat and take it out to practice. Mrs. Porter. That was in the Dallas period. It was in Dallas. Mr. Preyer. Did he do that in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall him doing that in New Orleans. Mr. Preyer. Do you recall when he first mentioned Cuba? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t, sir. 295 Mr. Preyer. Had he mentioned it before he went to New Orleans or veg this something that he became interested in in New Or- eans’ | Mrs. Porter. I think in New Orleans the word “Cuba” came up much more often than in the Dallas period. Mr. Preyer. He distributed the Fair Play for Cuba Committee iterature. Did he talk about distributing that literature with you? Mrs. Porter. Well, he always brought his pamphlets home. I was cind of pleased that the papers weren’t as bad an occupation as laying with the rifle so I couldn’t see any harm in that. Mr. Preyer. He used the name Hidel at this time. Did you write he name Hidel on any of the literature? Mrs. Porter. He asked me to put some signatures with a name ike that. I make joking remark about does that stand for Fidel, ou know, is that a sound association, more or less. Mr. Preyer. Did he agree that it was a variation on the name ‘idel? Mrs. Porter. He just had a smile on, you know. Mr. Preyer. Was that the first that anybody mentioned that lidel was a variation on Fidel, on that occasion? In other words, id anyone tell you about that before that occasion? Mrs. Porter. No. | Mr. Preyer. Mr. Chairman, I think I have no further questions mn this aspect of the questioning at this time. Chairman Stokes. The Chair observes that the witness has now een under examination for approximately 3% hours. This would robably be an appropriate place for the committee to take a recess or approximately an hour. It will be the intention of the Chair to ecess our hearing until 1:30 this afternoon. We will once again ask that everyone remain in their seats until ur witness has left the room, after which we will then officially 2cess for 1 hour. The witness is at this time excused. [Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene t 1:30 p.m.] AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman Stokes. The committee will come to order. We request 1at all persons take their seats and that at the time the witness »omes into the room that no one leaves their seat. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. reyer, for further questioning. Mr. Preyer. Mr. Chairman, I just want to straighten up one destion that I asked which I think may have caused some confu- on. In connection with Lee Harvey Oswald’s activities with both the o-Castro and anti-Castro groups in New Orleans, I asked the estion of the witness: Did you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a ue Communist? I think you and I may have been thinking of that question in fferent terms, that you may have been thinking of it in terms of arty, was he a true member of the Communist Party, and I was 206 philosophically thinking of it in philosophical terms, that is, was he attuned to the beliefs of the Commu nist Party? Oswald To straighten that out, let me ask this: Was Lee Harvey a member of the Communist Party? TESTIMONY OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER—Resumed Mrs. Porter. No, he was not to my knowledge. Mr. PrEYER. In that sense he was not a true Communist? Mrs. Porter. Yes. es of Mr. Preyer. Did he believe in the principles and the doctrin the Communist Party? Mrs. Porter. In some. party, Mr. Preyer. In that sense, in the sense of the beliefs of the do you consider that he was a true Commun ist? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t consider him being a true Communist. is From him, for example, I learned, at least he told me, that there a difference between Commun ist in Soviet Union and the Commu- nist Party right here. ) Mr. PrEYER. Do you think he was sincere in his political beliefs? Mrs. Porter. I really don’t know, sir. | Mr. Preyer. Pardon me? | Mrs. Porter. I do not exactly understand the question, was h sincere about what. Mr. Preyer. His version of beliefs in Communism were some what different from the Russian doctrines? Mrs. Porter. That would be correct. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxgs. The Chair recognizes counsel, Mr. McDonald Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, directing your attention to September 1963, wha happened that caused Lee Oswald to send you back to Dallas Mrs. Porter. Well, at this point I was expecting my second chil and Mrs. Paine was very generous to invite me to stay at her hous until the baby arrived. Mr. McDonatp. How did you arrive or how did Oswald arrive a a decision to leave New Orleans? You had only moved there a fe months prior. What caused him to decide to send you back t Mrs. Porter. Well, by this time he came up with ideas of leavin United States. He was planning to go back to the Soviet Union try to get visa to Cuba. Mr. McDona.p. Did he want to go to live in Cuba? Mrs. Porter. I assume then he did. Mr. McDona.p. What specifically did he say? Mrs. Porter. Well, he said that he go over there first and the he will send for me. Mr. McDonaALp. Go where first? Mrs. Porter. To Cuba. Mr. McDona tp. Let me backtrack a minute. Did you ever have discussion with Lee Oswald about hijacking an airplane? Mrs. Porter. He approached me with that idea and I thought was a very ridiculous thing to come up with. Mr. McDona.p. When did he suggest this? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember the exact timing. 207 Mr. McDonaLp. While you were living in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. Yes, it was in New Orleans. Mr. McDona p. What did he say to you? Mrs. Porter. Well, he asked me for my cooperation to help him to hijack a plane and the response was that I could not speak English, how can I force somebody, or anyway I just laughed at the whole matter. Mr. McDona tp. What did he want you to do? Mrs. Porter. Well, it was so ridiculous it is even embarrassing to mention it right now. He told me that he would teach me what I am supposed to say, maybe hold the gun and tell the people, you know—I forgot what really I am supposed to do. Mr. McDonatp. How did the discussion come about regarding hijacking the plane? In other words, how did he approach you and what did he say? Mrs. Porter. I am sorry, but I do not remember the conversa- tion, word to word, right now. Mr. McDonatp. Did he mention any particular airline or any particular flight? Mrs. Porter. No; it was just the general idea that he was toying with. | Mr. McDona_p. Did he mention where he wanted to hijack the plane to, to what country? Mrs. Porter. No, pardon me—to Cuba. Mr. McDona .p. Did he mention using his rifle and his handgun? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he did. Mr. McDona.p. What did he say? Mrs. Porter. Well, with the gun he can persuade the pilot to fly the way he will tell him to. Mr. McDonatp. What did he want you to do? Mrs. Porter. Just to hold another gun or something like that, you know. Mr. McDona.p. What did you Say in response to all of this? Mrs. Porter. First of all, I refused and I tried to make him to see 10w it will look very funny to people, here I was pregnant with a hild, you know, it doesn’t look very scary. Mr. McDona.p. This happened after the Walker incident, you were in New Orleans. Mrs. Porter. It was in New Orleans, yes, sir. Es McDona p. Did you tell anyone of his suggestion to hijack a dlane? Mrs. Porter. Then? No. Mr. McDona .p. You did not tell any relatives or friends? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona p. Did you think he was serious? Did you think he Vas going to carry out such a plan? Mrs. Porter. I really cannot say. I don’t know. __Mr. McDonatp. When did you first learn of his planned trip to Mexico City? When did you first know about that? _ Mrs. Porter. Shortly before I left for Dallas with Ruth Paine. Mr. McDona_p. How did you learn of this? Mrs. Porter. He told me about his plans to go to Mexico City ind visit the Cuban Embassy over there. 258 Mr. McDona.p. Did he tell you how he was going to travel to Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. By the bus. Mr. McDonaLp. What else did he say about the trip to Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. He told me not to tell anybody about that. Mr. McDona.p. To whom was he referring when he told you not to tell anyone? Mrs. Porter. Mrs. Paine. Mr. McDonaLp. Did he give you a reason for not telling? Mrs. Porter. Yes, because he said that maybe he wouldn't, yo know, he would not be able to come back. Mr. McDonaLp. Come back where? To the United States? Mrs. Porter. Well, he told me that Mrs. Paine would not ap prove such an action on his part and maybe if he would not come back, she would not be helpful to me, since we really did need her financial support at that time. Mr. McDonaLp. Did he say he was going to travel there wit anyone, in the company of anyone? Mrs. Porter. No, he did not. Mr. McDonaLp. Well, do you think he traveled with anyone? Is there anything that would lead you to believe that he traveled tc Mexico City with someone else? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDonaLp. Did he ever mention or give you any indicatio that perhaps he would be traveling to Mexico City with someone Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Would it have been likely that he would have} Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so because Lee was quite secretive ag a person. He would not share his plans with somebody else that easily. He never mentioned afterwards, after he came back fro Mexico, that he was with somebody. Mr. McDona.p. Did he tell you the planned route that he antic pated traveling to Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. No, he did not. | Mr. McDona _pb. Tell us precisely, then, what happened when yo left New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. Me and my child en route went to Dallas and wg left Lee at this apartment in New Orleans. Mr. McDona.p. When was the last time you saw Lee in Ne Orleans? Mrs. Porter. Do you mean the date? Mr. McDona_p. Yes, in relation to the day you left to go back t Dallas? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember the date, but Mrs. Paine came tf New Orleans and she picked me up and all the belongings ang things like that. | Mr. McDona bp. She carried all your belongings back? Mrs. Porter. In her car, yes. | Mr. McDonatp. Who helped pack or packed the belongings Mrs. Porter. Lee did. | Mr. McDona bp. Did you also? | Mrs. Porter. Maybe a very few minor baby stuff. We did n¢ have that much. 259 Mr. McDona.p. How many possessions did you have? Did you aave furniture? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. So when you talk about belongings—— Mrs. Porter. Just the clothing and cooking utensils. Mr. McDona_p. What did you have, boxes and suitcases? Mrs. Porter. Mainly boxes. Mr. McDona tp. What about the rifle? Did you see that? Mrs. Porter. Well, Lee packed all the large things. Mr. McDona_p. Do you recall seeing the rifle among the goods, 1mong your belongings? Mrs. Porter. No, everything was packed and he loaded it in the ar by himself. Mr. McDona.p. Who loaded it into the car? Mrs. Porter. Lee did. Mr. McDona_p. Was the rifle visible? Could you see it? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.tp. Where did Lee get the money to travel to fexico City? Mrs. Porter. Well, he told me that he was saving from his aycheck, putting it aside. We have very moderate spending, only are necessities. Mr. McDona.p. Did he show you the money he had saved? Mrs. Porter. No. xpecting another one. So, anyway, I was quite lost. On top of Mr. McDona.p. Why do you say that? Mrs. Porter. Well, I don’t know why, but I was not approved of hat Lee did, but at the same time he was my husband and I have ' be somehow loyal to him. Mr. McDona.p. When he left for Mexico City, when you both arted in New Orleans, when did you expect to see him again? ‘Mrs. Porter. I honestly did not expect to see him again, but he ‘id that if his trip to the Cuban Embassy would be unsuccessful id they would not permit him to go to Cuba, then he would come ick to Ruth Paine’s house in Irving, Tex. ‘Mr. McDona _p. That he would not come back? ‘Mrs. Porter. He will come back. ‘Mr. McDona.p. You are saying—the question was, when did you ‘pect to see him again? Mrs. Porter. In the matter of a week. Mr. McDona_p. You did expect him to come back? Mrs. Porter. Well, if he did, it was understood if he can go to ba right away, he will go, but if he can’t, then he come back to ‘xas. Mr. McDona tp. If he had been successful in getting to Cuba sht away, what was your plan? What were you to do? 260 Mrs. Porter. Well, he said that he will be in touch with me an send for me to follow him to Cuba. Mr. McDonaLp. Did he ever discuss if he were unsuccessful i getting into Cuba, that he would try to go back to the Soviet Unio from Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. Yes, that was discussed, too. Mr. McDona.p. At that point was he willing to go back to th Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. As far as I remember right now, I think, ye; Mr. McDona_p. At that time were you willing to go back to th Soviet Union? Mrs. Porter. Well, our living conditions were not very nice an Lee might not be capable of handling job for a long time and ther would be more security if I go back home. Mr. McDona.p. When he did return to Dallas, did he tell yo about his experience in Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. In very short terms that he was unsuccessful an he talked with some people over there. They denied him a visa an he was very disappointed. ziMe McDona.p. Did he tell you who he met with and what h id? Mrs. Porter. He did not mention the names. Mr. McDona_p. Did he tell you where he went? Mrs. Porter. To the Cuban Consular maybe. Mr. McDona.p. Did he ever mention to you anything about th university in Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Did he ever discuss anything of a social natur what he did in Mexico City when he was not at the Cuba Embassy? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall right now. Mr. McDona.Lp. Do you remember if he ever discussed attendin a party or parties? Mrs. Porter. No, he did not. Mr. McDona pb. In Mexico City? Mrs. Porter. No, he did not say that. Mr. McDona.p. Well, when he got back, did he specifically te you he had traveled from New Orleans to Mexico City and bac again by bus? Did he specifically tell you he went by bus or are yo just assuming that? Mrs. Porter. I really just assumed that because that is what ae me before he was leaving, that is how he would travel ther y bus. Mr. McDonaA .p. Did you ever see a bus ticket? Mrs. Porter. At that time, no. Mr. McDona.p. Do you know if he traveled through Dallas 0 the way to Mexico City’ Mrs. Porter. Excuse me? Mr. McDona tp. Do you know if he traveled through Dallas? D he go to Mexico City from New Orleans by way of Dallas? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know that. Mr. McDona op. If he had, would you have expected him to or notify you if he had been in the area? Would that be likel Mrs. Porter. No, I did not know about his route. 261 Mr. McDona.p. Did he ever mention to you the name Sylvia Odio? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona .p. Mr. Chairman, I am finished with this section of questioning. Chairman Stokes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer, for such time as he may consume. _ Mr. Preyer. Mrs. Porter, when Lee Harvey Oswald returned from Mexico to Dallas, he had been through what must have been an important experience in his life where he was frustrated in his attempt to return to Russia or to go to Cuba. Did you notice any change in his personality at that time, once he returned from Mexico? Mrs. PorTER. Somehow I felt that maybe he will be more settled oy now. It looked like he was quite happy to see his family when ne came back and we were talking about, you know, arrival of the aew baby. So I thought maybe right now he will be more responsi- dle. Mr. Preyer. Did his treatment of you improve? Did he behave ;oward you more responsibly? Mrs. Porter. He was not as brutal and violent after that com- oared to what was before. Mr. PREYER. So that there was a change in his personality and 1is treatment of you when he returned and that change was on the whole to the good? Mrs. Porter. In some areas, yes, he improved better. At least the ‘elationship was a little bit better. Mr. PRrEYER. He eventually came to get a job at the Texas School 300k Depository. Do you know how he got that job? Mrs. Porter. I think some friends of Mrs. Paine—I would be just peculating right now recalling back, how long it was. I mean, it vas a long time ago. I think somebody helped him to get this job. Mr. Preyer. Did he ever say anything about his job? Did he like t or did he regard it as too beneath him or what was his attitude? Mrs. Porter. I think he kind of likes his job, yes. Mr. Preyer. Getting back to the other question, do you know or an you name anyone other than Mrs. Paine who may have helped im get that job? Mrs. Porter. I think one of her neighbors was working there, 90. Maybe that is how, with his help or recommendation, that he ot the job. Mr. Preyer. That would have been Mr. Frazier? Mrs. Porter. That is the gentleman I am thinking of. Mr. Preyer. Apart from Mr. Frazier, Mrs. Paine, do you know of nyone else who had something to do with him getting that job? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. Preyer. When you were living with Mrs. Paine in Irving and ee Harvey Oswald was living in Dallas at the Beckley Street .0minghouse, did you ever visit him there in Dallas? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. How did you come to find out that he had registered an asapmed name, O.H. Lee, at the rooming house at Beckley reet 262 Mrs. Porter. He left me his telephone number where he can be reached. One day I called and asked to speak with him and they say that a person by that name doesn’t live there. So when he came the following weekend to Ruth Paine’s house, I asked him what it is all about. He said that he did not give his real name to the landlady because he don’t want them to find out that, maybe by reading newspapers, that he was in Soviet Union and maybe it will create some difficulties. Mr. PreyER. What was your reaction on learning that he was renting the room under an assumed name? Mrs. Porter. Well, by that time I was quite upset about him living such a secretive life, always making some stories or lies or covering up something, so it was not a very comfortable position to be in, at least for me it was not. Mr. Preyer. We have asked you earlier about whether he was devious and secretive, cunning. Did he always like to be the boss or did he take orders gracefully? Mrs. Porter. Not very easily. Mr. Preyer. Generally speaking, how did he get along with people? Mrs. Porter. He did not have very many friends. The friends in America, the one that he met, he was disappointed in them quite quickly. Mr. Preyer. Well, I think all of these questions may perhaps be summarized this way, the questions of whether he was secretive or whether he could work with people. Can you visualize him working with an accomplice? Mrs. Porter. Personally, I can’t. Mr. Preyer. Could you explain briefly why you reached that conclusion? Mrs. Porter. Well, I am not a psychiatrist, I cannot maybe make a good judge of character, but living with a person for a few years you at least have some kind of intuition about what he might do or might not. I don’t mean in every respect, but he was not a very trustworthy [sic] and open person. So, personally, I seriously doubt that he will confide in someone. Mr. Preyer. During October and November of 1963, and the two months just preceding the assassination, did any change occur in Lee in his conduct? | Mrs. Porter. Two months before it? Wasn’t that in Dallas? Mr. Preyer. Yes. Was there any change different from what you have already described for us? Mrs. Porter. I did not see very much of Lee except only on the bee i He seemed to me on the weekends his mood was all right. Mr. Preyer. Could you contrast—— _Mrs. Porter. It was a more relaxed mood instead of very tense like before. , mS PREYER. He was in a relaxed mood rather than a tense mood? Mrs. Porter. Yes. _Mr. Preyer. How did that compare with his mood just before the time of the Walker shooting? Mrs. PortER. Excuse me? I didn’t hear. 263 Mrs. Porter. Well, like before Walker he was more irritable and }innoyed by me, but maybe just because we did not see each other }or quite a long time during the week. } Mr. Preyer. Was he—pardon me, I did not mean to cut you off. Mrs. Porter. That is all right. ) Mr. Preyer. Was there anything durin g October of 1963 in Wallas that occurred that was out of the ordin ary that would have yeen a signal to you of any kind of what was to come? Mrs. Porter. No. } Mr. Preyer. How about in November? Was there anything out of joe ordinary that occurred at that time that could have been a ).gnal? ) Mrs. Porter. Not at all. I was thinking that finally we maybe | Mrs. Porter. Not that I know of. Besides seeing }uth’s husband, occasionally, I don’t know anybo Michael Paine, dy he would talk 1 Mr. Preyer. Was he friendly with Frazier, Ruth Paine’ or? s neigh- Mrs. Porter. I really don’t know, sir, becau se I see him a very w times and I did not know if they talk about anything. Anyway, > did not make any remarks about another gentl eman. Mr. Preyer. I want to ask you about some meetings you had ith one person during this period. Do you know an FBI agent amed James Hosty? Mrs. Porter. I remember the name, but I do not remember his ce by now. Mrs. Porter. When he found out about that, he was very angry ain. He said that he will talk to Mr. Hosty and tell him to stop r. Preyer. Did he say anything about wheth er you should 2ak to him again if Mr. Hosty should come again ? Mrs. Porter. Excuse me? Mr. PREYER. Well, let me put it this way: How *. Hosty visit you? many times did Mrs. Porter. I recall only one incident, but it could tybe, I don’t know. That could be among the be two, records. 264 Mr. Preyer. What were the visits of the FBI like from your poin of view? Were you intimidated by them or frightened by them o: what was your attitude about them? Mrs. PorTER. Well, at the beginning I thought that was a routine procedure because after all, we just came from a Communist coun try. I really didn’t see anything unusual about the Governmen keeping an eye on you or a Government official checking on you occasionally. It did not disturb me that much. Mr. Preyer. But Lee’s reaction to it was—well, could you jus describe what his reaction was to those visits? Mrs. PorTER. Sometimes I thought and it did cross my minc because of Lee’s lack of holding a job, maybe he was angry becausé¢ somebody were investigating him on the job. Mr. PREYER. What was his opinion generally of the FBI? Mrs. Porter. He was not fond of them. Mr. Preyer. Pardon me? Mrs. Porter. He was not very fond of them. Mr. Preyer. Did he give them credit for causing him to lose his job in New Orleans because of the Fair Play for Cuba leaflets’ Mrs. Porter. I think so. Mr. PreyER. Do you know if Lee ever mentioned President Ken: nedy to Mr. Hosty, Agent Hosty? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. Preyer. When was the last time that you saw Hosty before November 22, 1963? Mrs. Porter. Whatever this visit at Mrs. Paine’s house, that is only once or twice maybe I see him. I think maybe he come back. ] do not recall exactly that he ever came back again. Mr. Preyer. Do you know when the last time Lee saw Hosty before November 22, 1963? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t remember the day. Mr. PRrEYER. Did you ever see Hosty after November 22, after the assassination? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember Mr. Hosty’s face so I cannot say if I have seen him or not. I do not recall seeing him afterwards. Mr. PREYER. Could you tell us a little more about the visit of the FBI to you on their first and second visits? Who was present when they first visited you? Was Mrs. Paine with you, did I understand you to say? Mrs. Porter. Yes, Mrs. Paine was with me. Mr. Preyer. Was anyone else with you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Where was this? Mrs. Porter. When or where? It was at her house. Mr. PrEyER. Where was it? Did you speak in the house or out in the yard? Mrs. Porter. It was in the house. Mr. PREYER. Could you tell us in a little more detail what was said at that meeting? Mrs. Porter. Mrs. Paine was acting as interpreter, so she told me that, as I told you before, that the man was, just wanted me to tell him if anybody did ever, or if any agent of another country will ever ask me to work for them in the future or something in that manner. 265 Mr. Preyer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions in that area at this time. Chairman STOKEs. The Chair understands there are two votes on the floor and the committee will probably have to remain on the floor for both of those votes. The Chair at this time will recess for 15 minutes and we will ask that all persons in the room remain seated until the witness has left the room, please. [A brief recess was taken.] Mr. Dopp. The committee will come to order. Chairman SToKEs. Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, we are going to show you exhibits F-183 and F-184, and F-133A. Would the clerk please hand Mrs. Porter the exhibit, and for demonstration purposes, we have on the easel JFK F-383. _ My questions are going to be directed toward the back of the photograph where the handwriting is. Mrs. Porter. OK. Mr. McDona.Lp. Mrs. Porter, if you would again direct your attention to the lower left-hand corner, where the writing says ‘““To my friend George. From Lee Oswald.” Mrs. Porter. Yes. | Mr. McDona.p. And I specifically call your attention to the numbering in the lower extreme left-hand corner where it has “5/ TV /63.” Can you tell us, was that Lee’s custom, in dating letters or whatever? Was it his custom to use that style, the style you see here, with the “5,” with the Roman numeral? Mrs. Porter. I really cannot tell that much about—— Mr. McDona.p. Would you take a look at it? Mrs. Porter. No; I really don’t know, sir. Mr. McDonapb. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. I do not know. Mr. McDona.p. Have you ever seen that style of dating, where the month is designated by a Roman numeral? Mrs. Porter. I don’t see anything so unusual about it, because isn’t it everybody’s preference how they want to write? You mean all the Romans are all—— Mr. McDonacp. I am sorry; will you repeat that? Mrs. Porter. Are you trying to say that all the numbers should be in Roman numerals? Mr. McDona.p. No; I am not saying which way they should be. I am asking you if, as you look at those numbers, what do you see in front of you, what numbers? Mrs. Porter. Five—fourth month—1963. Mr. McDona cp. IV/63. The question is that style of designating the month with Roman numerals, is that the style of writing that you know to be charac- teristic of Lee Oswald? Mrs. Porter. I really don’t know, sir. Mr. McDona tp. You don’t know? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Do you ever use that style of designating a date? 266 Mrs. Porter. I think in Russia I could. It is customary in Russia to do that. Mr. McDona bp. It is customary in Russia? Mrs. Porter. Roman numerals for the month. Mr. McDoNALD. To designate the month? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Do you know if Lee adopted that style? Mrs. Porter. I do not know really. to Mr. McDona.p. Mrs. Porter, let me direct your attention November 21, 1963. It was a Thursda y. Mrs. Porter. What is the date? | Mr. McDonaLpD. Twenty-first of November. Where were you that day? Mrs. Porter. I was at Mrs. Paine’s house. house? Mr. McDona.p. Just for the record, where is Mrs. Paine’s Mrs. Porter. In Irving, Tex. Mr. McDona bp. Irving, Tex. What did you do that day in Irving? Mrs. Porter. What day of the week was it? Mr. McDona.p. It was a Thursday. Mrs. Porter. Thursday? Just, I do not really remember, just a routine. staying Mr. McDonaLp. Was Lee there that morning? Was he with you? Mrs. Porter. I really don’t—— Yes; probably he did. He did come Thursday. Mr. McDonALp. When did he come on Thursday? Thurs- i Mrs. Porter. He usually come on Friday, but he came on ay. Mr. McDona.p. At what part of the day did he come? Mrs. Porter. After work. Mr. McDona.p. After work. So about what time would that be? Mrs. Porter. Six o’clock, between 5 and 6. hap- Mr. McDona.p. And what do you remember exactly, what pened when he arrived? First of all, what were you doing? What were you doing? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDonap. How do you remember Lee arriving Thursday afternoon, November 21? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember right now, after testifying sc many times for so many people, you know. Mr. McDona.p. Do your best. How do youremember today? Mrs. PorTER. Well, I am sorry, I do not recall what exactly Iw Boing, I just know that he arrived a Thursday and it was afte work. Mr. McDona.p. Do you remember? Describe the situation whe you first saw him on that afternoon. In other words, did he com through the door? Did he come through the back door, the fro door? Did you see him when you were in the kitchen? Mrs. Porter. Sir, I do not remember. Mr. McDonaLp. You don’t remember any details? Mrs. Porter. No. 267 Mr. McDona.p. What did he say? Can you remember what he said to you when he came in? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t remember. Mr. McDona .p. Did he say hello? Mrs. Porter. Isn’t it usually people say hello when they see each other? Probably. Mr. McDona.p. Do you remember what you said to him? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t. . ain McDona.p. Were you surprised that he came on a Thurs- ay’ Mrs. Porter. Yes; it wasn’t the usual day that he come. Mr. McDona.p. So did you make any comment to that effect? Mrs. Porter. I probably have. Mr. McDona.p. Can you remember what you said? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t. Mr. McDona.p. When had you last spoken to him prior to him coming to Irving on Thursday? When had you last talked to him? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember, sir. Mr. McDonaLp. When was the last time you had seen him? Mrs. Porter. Prior to that? Mr. McDoNnaALb. Prior, yes. Mrs. Porter. He usually came every weekend, once a week. Mr. McDoNnaLp. Do you remember seeing’ him the weekend before? Mrs. Porter. No; one of the weekends he did not come, on Friday, I do think so, because he was angry with me or something like that. | Mr. McDona.p. How did he act when you first saw him on Thursday evening? Mrs. Porter. Well, I think maybe I try my best to remember. I think prior to that maybe we had disagreement or argument about something, like, him hiding the name. Mr. McDona bp. I am sorry I didn’t hear that. Mrs. Porter. I think it was in connection with him hiding his real name from the landlady and maybe we had argument over that. I thought maybe he came just to make up, you know. Mr. McDona.p. What did you discuss when he came on Thurs- day evening, can you recall? Did you speak about that, using the fictitious name? Mrs. Porter. Well, we were looking forward and talking about him renting apartment for us, and I would like to be with him—it was very big imposition to live with Mrs. Paine, and I thought we just should live as a family, and like that, we discussed for us all move together. Mr. McDonaLp. You remember discussing these things that night, Thursday night? Mrs. Porter. Not word for word. Mr. McDona.p. Not word for word? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona .p. But this is what you remember, generally speak- ing’ Mrs. Porter. Yes. Ae McDona.p. How did he appear when he came home that night’ 268 Mrs. PorTER. Quite normal. It was nothing unusual in his ap- pearance. Mr. McDona.p. It was not unusual that he would come in on a Thursday? Mrs. Porter. No; it wasn’t anything unusual his appearance. You asked me how did he look? . Mr. McDona .p. Did he seem relaxed? Mrs. Porter. Yes. | Mr. McDona_p. Did he seem in any way different than he usual- | ly would appear? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDonaALb. Did he seem calm, calmer than normal? Mrs. Porter. Yes. | Mr. McDona.p. Can you relate or remember, did he act in any} way like he did prior to the Walker incident? | Mrs. Porter. No. | Mr. McDona_p. Please explain why you say no? Mrs. Porter. Well, he was more withdrawn person before, more, hostile. He was more in peaceful mood right now and was willing to listen to me more so than then. . Mr. McDona.p. What do you mean “he was willing to listen”? Mrs. Porter. Well, like, for example, if maybe before I would say I would like for us to be together, and he would tell me to, oh, just. stop dreaming, or just cut me off, or not listen at all, but now at least he was listening at what I had to say. | Mr. McDona.p. In other words, that evening you are saying he) would listen to you more. | Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona _p. Did you all eat dinner together, you and Lee and the Paines? Mrs. Porter. Yes. No, I recall that—— Was President Kennedy supposed to come Friday? Mr. McDona .p. That is correct. Mrs. Porter. OK, so that was quite interesting news to me, and ] was asking Lee about the President being in Dallas, and he did not make any comment about it at all. It seemed like he didn’t—well) like before I said that he was more listening to me, but now when } recall back, it was quite unusual that he did not want to talk about) President Kennedy being in Dallas that particular evening. That was quite peculiar. ey Mr. McDona tp. What did he say? What did you say to him about) President Kennedy’s trip to Dallas? Mrs. Porter. It was quite exciting, you know, for me to talk about, but it seemed like he is changing the subject or just refused to talk about, but it wasn’t in any hostile way or violent form. Jus looked like he just ignored a little bit you know to talk about) Mr. McDona.p. What did he say; do you remember? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. ¢ Mr. McDona.p. How did he dismiss talking about Kennedy? Did e say—— Mrs. Porter. Maybe changed subject about talking about a new) born baby or something like that. | Mr. McDona.p. How many times did you bring up the subject 0} President Kennedy coming to Dallas? | 269 Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember how many times now. Mr. McDona.p. Did it come up more than once? Mrs. Porter. Probably. Mr. McDonaALp. And what was his reaction each time? Mrs. Porter. He just didn’t want to talk about it somehow. Mr. McDona.p. Was anyone else talking about it? Was Ruth Paine talking about it? Mrs. Porter. Yes, Mrs. Paine. ' Mr. McDOona.p. Mrs. Paine was discussing it? Mrs. Porter. Yes, that is how I learned, from Mrs. Paine, that Mr. Kennedy coming, President Kennedy coming to town. Mr. McDona.Lp. And what was your reaction then? Did his not wanting to talk about the upcoming visit of President Kennedy— what was your reaction to his attitude? Mrs. Porter. Well, I did not—if he didn’t want to talk about, I mean I did not pursue further. | Mr. McDona.p. Did you at all think that evening, did you think back at all that evening before, when Lee was home, and he didn’t want to talk about the upcoming Presidential visit? Did it ever cross your mind about the Walker incident? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona Lp. Or the Nixon incident? Mrs. Porter. No, no. Mr. McDona.p. Did Lee say anything at all about President — Kennedy that night? Mrs. Porter. No. I asked him, for example, if he know which route President Kennedy will take or something, and he said he doesn’t know anything about it. Mr. McDona.p. That is what he said, “I don’t know anything about it’’? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Did you ask whether he was going to watch - President Kennedy when he came through downtown Dallas? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember that. Mr. McDona.p. That evening, did you know the route the Presi- dent was going to take? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Did Mrs. Paine know? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. She didn’t tell me. Mr. McDona.p. And your testimony is that Lee did not know or did not tell you? | Mrs. Porter. He did not tell me that he know. Mr. McDona.p. And when was all this discussion about Presi- a? Kennedy taking place? Was this taking place at the dinner table? Mrs. Porter. No. I think maybe it was in the living room before the television set. Mr. McDona.p. While the television was on? Mrs. Porter. Probably. Mr. McDona.p. Do you recall watching any news programs that evening that were describing the—— Mrs. Porter. Well, Mrs. Paine did speak Russian, and I did not ‘understand English well enough to know what it was all about. 41-371 O - 79 = 18 Vol. 2 270 Mr. McDona tp. I am sorry. Did you say that Mrs. Paine did not speak Russian? Mrs. Porter. She did speak Russian. Mr. McDonabp. She did speak Russian; OK. When you were in the living room discussing President Kenne- dy’s visit, was that before or after dinner? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember, sir. Mr. McDonaLp. What happened later on that evening? Were there any further dicussions about the upcoming Presidential visit? Mrs. Porter. He went to bed before me, and I had some other chores to do, around the house, so when I went to bedroom he was asleep. Mr. McDona _p. Before he went to bed, did he pay any attention to his daughter? Mrs. PorRTER. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. His child? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he did. Usually on the weekends he did play | with children. | Mr. McDona pb. Did he play with her that evening? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona .p. Do you recall for how long? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDonaA_p. Did he act differently toward you that evening, comparing it with other occasions when you had seen him in the recent past? | Mrs. Porter. Well, since I was angry at him, you know, previous weekend, I didn’t want him to just—I mean I don’t want to make up that easily. I want to, you know, to teach him a lesson, not to do} this any more. Mr. McDona.tp. Now when you moved in with Ruth Paine, where were your belongings? | Mrs. Porter. In Mrs. Paine’s house, in the garage mostly. Mr. McDonatp. And how much space did they occupy in the | garage? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember, but you have to go in between boxes, you know, in the garage. Mr. McDona.p. Could you get an automobile in the garage at) the same time? | Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDona.p. And do you recall going in that garage from} time to time when you lived with the Paines? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. And do you recall seeing where his rifle wa located? In other words, did you know where it was? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I did. Mr. McDona Lp. Where was it? Mrs. Porter. In the garage. Mr. McDonaLp. Where in the garage? Mrs. Porter. I think it was wrapped in a blanket. Mr. McDonap. And where was this blanket? In other words was it in plain view? Was it in a corner? Mrs. Porter. No, it was between boxes I think. I mean that ig how I remember it now. 271 Mr. McDona_p. Did you ever see it unwrapped? Did you ever see the gun when you were at Ruth Paine’s? Did you ever see the rifle taken outside of the blanket? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona_p. Was it ever exposed? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona p. On the night of the 21st, did you see Lee go into the garage? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona tp. Did you see him go into the backyard at all? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. McDona.p. When he was playing or paying attention to the child, what were you doing at that time? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. I am sorry about that. Mr. McDona.p. Would it be your usual custom to be playing with the child with him? Mrs. Porter. Excuse me? Mr. McDona.p. Would you usually play together with the child? Mrs. Porter. No. Usually I be busy doing something. But, I have two children, you know, so when you take care of one—— Mr. McDona.p. Do you remember at all Lee going out into the backyard or the side yard toward the garage? — Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember that. Mr. McDonapn. You just testified when you went to bed or got to bed he was asleep. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona p. In the book “Marina and Lee,” you are quoted ‘as Saying in that that at one point in the morning, 3 a.m. I think it is, that there was an incident where he kicked you vehemently, I think the word is in the book. Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. McDona_p. He kicked you very forcefully, pushed your leg, ‘or something to that effect. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona_p. Would you comment on that? Mrs. Porter. No, I meant, I do not remember that incident right now. Mr. McDona.p. But it is your testimony that when you got to bed that night he was asleep, or he seemed asleep? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Are you sure he was asleep? Mrs. Porter. Well, I assumed that he was. He wasn’t awake. Mr. McDona_p. What happened the next morning? Mrs. Porter. I am sorry, it is very hard for me to remember right now details, so whatever I told Priscilla, that was the truth. My memory was much fresher then, and you can take the state- ments in the book as a true fact. Mr. McDona.p. Tell us what happened the morning, Friday morning, November 22. What happened at dawn or when you woke up? Mrs. Porter. Well, to the best of my recollection right now, I think I wanted to get up and maybe fix cup of coffee for Lee or something. He told me not to get up. He’ll do it himself. 212 Mr. McDona.p. How did he look? How did he appear in the morning? Mrs. Porter. As usual. Mr. McDonaLp. He got dressed for work, in other words? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona .p. Did he appear at all to be nervous? Mrs. Porter. No. | Mr. McDona.p. Agitated or excited? Mrs. Porter. No. It is nothing in his behavior that I would be suspicious of something. Mr. McDonatp. Are you saying that he acted in a normal fashion? Mrs. Porter. As far as I remember right now, yes. Mr. McDonaLp. Did he at all resemble the way he appeared before the Walker incident? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona Lp. In other words, your testimony today is that his | demeanor at the time of November 22 was different. He was calm. | He was acting normally. Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. McDonaLp. What did he say to you as he went to work? Mrs. Porter. I am sorry, I do not remember. Goodbye, probably. Mr. McDona.p. And where were you when he went out to work | that morning? Mrs. Porter. In the bedroom. Mr. McDona.p. You were still in bed? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. McDona.p. Was it dark in the room? Mrs. Porter. I think so. It was very early. Mr. McDonatp. And you don’t recall what he said when hej walked out? Mrs. Porter. No. | Mr. McDona.p. At that time did you detect anything out of the} ordinary? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. McDona.p. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. Thank you, Counsel. | The procedure at this point will be as follows: The Chair will} recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer, for such | time as he may consume, after which the committee will operate under the 5-minute rule. i The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. | reyer. Mr. Preyer. Mrs. Porter, when did you first learn that Presiden | Kennedy had been assassinated? Mrs. Porter. I was watching television, and all of a sudde everything went blurry, and I did not know what happened, andj Mrs. Paine explained to me, she told me that somebody shot Presi+ dent Kennedy. Mr. Preyer. Did you continue to watch television with Mrs} Paine to learn more news about it? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer. What was your reaction to the news? 273 Mrs. Porter. Well, it was horrible, shocking news. Mr. Preyer. Did the TV, as you listened to it, say that the shots had anes were believed to have come from the Texas Book tory’ Deposi- Mrs. Porter. Well, I did not understand English, but I think Mrs. Paine told me that shots came from school book depository. Mr. Preyer. Did you have any intuitive feelings about the shoot- ing at that moment? Mrs. Porter. Well, for instance, my heart kind of stopped or ached. I don’t know how to describe the feeling. I felt very uneasy and uncomfortable, and I was afraid that maybe my face will betray me, so I went outside. I didn’t want Ruth Paine to see. The blood was rushing to my cheeks. Mr. Preyer. You were feeling uneasy and uncomfortabl e because you thought Lee might be involved? Mrs. Porter. Well, for an instant it did cross my mind. I thought to myself I hope it wasn’t Lee. Mr. Preyer. When did you first learn of Lee’s involv ement? Mrs. Porter. When policemen came at Ruth Paine’s house and told me through her that Lee was arrested. Mr. Preyer. Did you go to the police station with the policemen? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I think so. All this day is not very clear in my memory, because after that everything went very fuzzy. Mr. Preyer. But you did see Lee at the police station not long _after the assassination, I believe. Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Was that the same day or the next day? I do not recall. Mr. Preyer. When you saw him there, did you speak to him through a glass window? | Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. Preyer. What did you talk about? Mrs. Porter. Well, it just seemed to me that he was avoidin g to discuss with me the assassination at all. He just talk about the children mainly. Mr. Preyer. Did he give you any signals indicating you should avoid talking about the assassination? Mrs. Porter. Yes; he did, because it was a glass betwee n us, and there was a telephone receiver that you are suppos ed to talk through, and he motioned with his eyes on the teleph one, and I understood that maybe he meant that it was, you know, that it was taped or something, so be careful what you say. So he just told me not to worry about anything. Everything will be all right. Mr. PrEYER. So that he signaled with his eyes at the tele- phone—— Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Preyer [continuing]. Indicating to you be careful what Say. Was his response calm or was it excited? you Mrs. Porter. What kind of response? Mr. Preyer. Well, when you met him at the police station, was his attitude calm or was he excited or—— Mrs. Porter. He looked scared to me. Mr. Preyer. He looked scared. Was he protesting his innocence, for example? 274 Mrs. Porter. He never told me that. No; he did not tell me in exact words that “I am innocent.” Mr. Preyer. If he had been innocent, do you think he would have protested his innocence to you or that he would have complained about his rights being violated? Would that have been typical of him? : Mrs. Porter. Well, that I really cannot say, sir. I don’t know. Mr. Preyer. While he was in jail, did he ever call you on the telephone? . Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. Preyer. Did he ever at any time give you any hint as to why he did it? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Or anything as to whether he had any accomplices, anyone assisting him? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. How were you treated by the FBI after the assassi- nation? Mrs. Porter. Well, they were quite strict with me. Mr. Preyer. How about the Secret Service? Mrs. Porter. They were the nice guys, I guess. Mr. PrEvER. So is it fair to say your attitude was more favorable toward the Secret Service than toward the FBI after the assassina- tion? Mrs. Porter. That is correct. Mr. Preyer. Were you ever contacted by any foreign government after the assassination? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. PrEYER. Were you ever contacted by anyone who, in effect, supported Lee Harvey Oswald’s act in assassinating the President? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Never, at any time? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Did you know Officer Tippit? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Or did you know Jack Ruby? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Preyer. Do you know whether Lee knew Officer Tippit? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know about that. Mr. PrEYER. How about Jack Ruby? Mrs. Porter. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Preyer. Mrs. Porter, with the benefit of 15 years hindsight, living with the assassination all of these years, and knowing Harvey Oswald probably better than anyone else ever knew him, can you tell this committee and the American public if it is your opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President? Mrs. Porter. Well, I don’t know if I am qualified to make state- ment like that, because I knew one side of Lee, but I do not have qualification to make a judgment of his whole character and put all the pieces together. . Mr. Preyer. So you do not wish to give an opinion on that subject. Mrs. Porter. Well, I don’t think I am in position or qualified to give opinion like that. 275 Mr. Preyer. Let me ask one final question in this field. If he did it, do you have an opinion as to why he would have done it? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t. Mr. Preyer. Mr. Chairman, I at this time wanted to review some of the areas which we have already gone over, and as you indicat- ed, I think some of the other members, all of the other members, will wish to participate in that too, areas which we have already covered today, but on which I would like to ask Mrs. Porter about some earlier statements which she has made which might appear to be inconsistent with some statements which she has made today. I understand we will proceed until 4 o’clock today? Chairman Stokes. The gentleman is correct. Mr. Preyer. All right, then if the Chair permits, I will begin with a few of those instances at this time. Chairman Stokgs. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Preyer. First, Mrs. Porter, I understand that at the time you testified before the Warren Commission, you could not speak or understand English very well. Mrs. Porter. That is correct. Mr. Preyer. You did not use it in the course of your everyda y activities, the English language. | Mrs. Porter. I testified before Warren Commission more than once, and they always provide interpreter for me. _ Mr. Preyer. So that you did need a translator when you testified before the Warren Commission. Mrs. Porter. That is correct. Mr. PrEYER. When did you learn to speak English so that you could use it in the course of your everyday activities? Mrs. Porter. Well, it did come gradually. I cannot say it took 5 months or 6 months or 1 year. It was a gradual learning process. Mr. Preyer. Could you make some general estimate of, say, within the last 3 years? Mrs. Porter. Well, maybe like a year and a half after assassina- tion I could communicate maybe 3 or 4 months after November 22. Mr. Preyer. First, I would like to ask you a few questions about the Komsomol, Communist Youth Movement, which you testified 40 here today. You testified this morning, as I understand, that you were ex- velled from it primarily because you married a foreigner. That seemed to be the main reason. Back in December 3, 1963, shortly after the assassination, you talked with the FBI about this. You wold them you were expelled from it for failing to pick up your mee cetship card. You did not mention your marriage to Lee, as I "ecall. Why did you not mention your marriage at that time? a Porter. I do not understand your question. Why I did not vhat: Mr. Preyer. Today—— Mrs. Porter. Oh, I see I give you a different reason today for it. Nell, I assume that the reason for me to be expelled from organiza- jon was for that reason because I was under pressure before. But heir excuse for expelling me, they did not tell me directly well, ecause you married to a foreigner, that is why we are expellin g 276 you. They said because I did not, I was not a good member, I did not pay my dues on time or whatever, so it was on the paper a legitimate excuse for them. Mr. PreEYER. You testified today, I believe, that you did pay your dues regularly to the Komsomol and you told the Warren Commis- sion you paid your dues regularly. Earlier you mentioned in a deposition that you were discharged from the Komsomol because you did not pay your dues. Did you pay your dues? Mrs. Porter. Well, sometimes I usually did, you know, at the beginning, but then at the end of it, if I missed a month, you know, or something like that. What I am trying to say, that my involve- ment with the organization was only the things I did, I paid the tuitions or whatever few cents a month or something like that. Well, on this meeting when they discharged me they discussed my character and it looked like I wasn’t good enough. And I was such an irresponsible member of the organization. Excuse me. May I add also that Lee frightened me as well. He thought that if the authorities ever find out that I am a member of such an organization, I could be prosecuted in this country, too. So maybe at the beginning when the FBI were questioning me, I was still afraid that it might cause some inconveniences or departure out of this country. Mr. Preyer. Let me turn to one other area which is Lee’s trip to Mexico. You have told us today that you knew of Lee’s intended trip to Mexico City when you were living in New Orleans, and I believe you said that also to the Warren Commission. Why did you not give the FBI this information when they inter- viewed you back in November 29, 1963, approximately a week after the assassination? Mrs. Porter. At that time I did not really have the country to go to. My husband committed a horrible crime. I did not know if I would be prosecuted for that just as well, being his wife, because I did not know the rules and regulations and law of this country at all. I thought that if I tell them that I knew about Mexico, I would be responsible just as well for what he did. Mr. Preyer. As late as January 22, 1964, you were still denying that you knew Lee was going to Mexico when you lived in New Orleans, but about 10 days after that you testified before the Warren Commission that you did know of the trip. If you were trying to protect Lee in December by not telling of the Mexican trip—— Mrs. Porter. I tried to protect myself as well, sir. Mr. PreyYeER. Protecting yourself? Mrs. Porter. To tell you the truth, I did not like the FBI. I did not like the treatment. I am sorry to say that, I was frightened and I sometimes was maybe deliberately difficult in giving information to the FBI. Mr. PREYER. Were you pressured by anyone to change your testi- mony between those dates? That is just a 10-day period there. Did the FBI or the Secret Service or anyone suggest to you to change your testimony there? Mrs. Porter. Well, I don’t remember. Mr. PreYeER. Would you not have remembered if one of them—— 277 Mrs. Porter. I think it was—well, I did not want to talk about the FBI, but I do believe that one of the FBI something that looks like it came from Mexic agents, he brought o and, little by little in the questioning, I had to confess that I did know. Maybe that is what it was. I don’t remember right now. Mr. Preyer. As I understand your testimony, you are saying now that you did know of the trip to Mexico and you gave your earlier statements to the FBI to protect Lee and to protect yourself? Mrs. Porter. That is correct. Mr. PREYER. We talked earlier today about the use of the alias Alik Hidel by Lee in New Orleans. | think you also told the Warren Commission that Lee used Hidel and that that was just an altered form of the name Fidel, Fidel Castro . Why did you tell the Secret Service when they interviewed you 10 days after the assassination that to your knowledge Lee had never used the name Alik Hidel? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember this incident at all. Mr. Preyer. I am sorry, I didn’t understand you. Mrs. Porter. Ten days after assassination, you said? Mr. Preyer. Yes; approximately 10 days afterwards ently indicated to the Secret Service that Alik you appar- or that Lee had never used the name Alik Hidel. Mrs. Porter. Well, my emotional conditions were normal at the time, you know, after the assassinatio not very n, so I could maybe remember something one day and forget the next one or be frightened or whatever the circumstances were. But when I gave testim ony to the Warren. Commission, it was all the truth. | Mr. Preyer. Shifting to the question of the rifle and the pistol, you have told us that you didn’t like rifles and guns. When first time you saw the pistol that Lee had? was the Mrs. Porter. I really do not remember what month or the day it was and when I learned about the existence of it. Mr. Preyer. Was it on the occasion of the photograph or was it on the occasion of the Nixon incident that you mentioned? Which was the first time that you knew he had a pistol? Mrs. Porter. Well, I cannot right now compare when it was, when the picture was taken, or when the Nixon inciden t was, before or after. Mr. Preyer. I think the picture was taken in March and the Nixon photograph was in April. The picture must have been the first time. If you noticed, he had the pistol at that time. Mrs. Porter. This would be a more logical way of remembering, probably when he was taking the picture, because I really do not know right now where the pistol come from. Mr. Preyer. Did you make any comment to Lee when the picture as being taken about the rifle and the pistol? Mrs. Porter. Well, I probably did. Mr. Preyer. Did you comment on both of them, the pistol and the rifle, do you recall? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall, but it is very possible that I did. Mr. Preyer. Well, if you saw that Nixon or if you saw the pistol luring the Nixon incident, why did you tell the Secret Service at shat time that you had never seen Lee with a pistol? 278 Mrs. Porter. Well, maybe at the time they questioned me I did not remember. Maybe I tried to protect myself from something, ] do not know. Mr. PreyER. You did know that Lee had killed Officer Tippit with the pistol at that time, did you not, so you knew he had used the pistol before? Mrs. Porter. Well, that is probably correct. I do not remember when I find out about Officer Tippit. Mr. Preyer. Another area of some apparently contradictory statements is in the area of ammunition. You told us today that Lee practiced with a rifle and that you saw ammunition lying around and you told that to the Warren Commission, also. Why did you tell the FBI on December 17, 1963, again shortly after the assassination, that you had never seen ammunition around the house? Mrs. Porter. For one simple reason, I was frightened of my well- being in this country. Mr. Preyer. Would you like to make any general statement at this time about the earlier inconsistencies in your testimony? You have told us that they were, as I understand it, were due at first to your desire to protect Lee, perhaps to your fear of the FBI, perhaps to your fear of being a foreigner in a strange country. Is that basically correct? Is there any further general explana- tion you would like to give of why there are these inconsistencies in your earlier testimony? Mrs. Porter. There was quite mixed emotions. I was very grate- ful to Mrs. Ruth Paine who gave us shelter when I needed it. I was very embarrassed about the fact that if she finds out that I knew about all this, the trips to Mexico and the rifle and things like that, it was very embarrassing for me to admit to myself that she has been used, you know, in a way. It would be against her religion and her beliefs and it was insulting for me to do such a thing to a friend. That was one part of it. The fear for not being able, I mean for being prosecuted by law for knowing about those things, that was there, too. Mr. Preyer. It has been alleged by some critics that the reason your story changed was not so much because of the reasons you have given or because of your. own beliefs, but rather because the FBI and the Secret Service put pressure on you to incriminate Lee immediately after the assassination. While the FBI and the Secret Service did question you, was there ever any pressure from them for you to give evidence that would incriminate Lee, evidence that you believed to be false? Mrs. Porter. No; that is not correct. I maybe like Secret Service and dislike FBI, but both of those people were working for one cause, to find the truth. The Secret Service did question in a more gentle way and I responded to that much better. The FBI some- times were a little bit too brutal and my response was not as cooperative. Maybe in some little way I want to punish them for it, not to give them information or correct information but it was not for the reasons I have been accused of doing it. It was human mistakes, human error, in my own character. 279 I do apologize for it, but it is not because they tried to twist my irm and told me what should I tell and what not to tell. That is 1ot true. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. I have no further questions it this time, Mr. Chairman. Chairman StToxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The committee at this time will operate under the 5 minute rule. might say to the members that we have to conclu tearing in this room by 4 p.m. Obviously, we will de today’s have to continue he hearing as it relates to this witness on tomorr ow. We will roceed as far as we can this afternoon. Mrs. Porter, throughout your testimony here today adicated that Lee Harvey Oswald always spoke of you have liking President xennedy; is that correct? Mrs. Porter. That is true, sir. Chairman Stokes. You never heard him speak of him in a hos- le manner? Mrs. Porter. No. Chairman Stoxgss. Then is it consistent, in your opinion, then, 1aat a man who spoke of President Kennedy as he did also was ccused of having killed the President? Mrs. Porter. That is very hard for me to comprehend. Chairman Stokes. Now, have you on occasions ‘indica ted 10ought perhaps he was not shooting at President Kennethat you dy but as trying to hit someone else? Mrs. Porter. It was my aloud speculation which doesn’t have ay foundation for it because it was very hard for me to even think dout a person who could like someone can do such a thing to him. he reason I mentioned Mr. Connally, I mentioned his name only 2cause Lee was corresponding at one time in his life with Gover- or Connally. ‘Chairman Sroxgs. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? that had he in effect said about Governor Connally? Mrs. Porter. Not very much. I just learned from him ere in Russia that he did write Governor Connally when we for some legal ‘atter. I think about his coming back to the United States or have *mething to do with the service, I do not recall what it was. But then he received a letter from Governor Connal ly. Lee point- | out the envelope with, instead of a stamp, it was Mr. Connally’s ‘cture on it and he explained to me that is how people who want be elected, it is a form of advertisement before an election or mething like that. Chairman Stokes. Did this have something to do with the type of discharge that he had which he was dissatisfied with? ‘Mrs. Porter. Well, at the time I thought it was just a ‘tting entrance visa or permission to enter United States matter of tat is what I thought at the time. Anyway, I heard again. the name in e Soviet Union, Mr. Connally. I thought maybe he mehow at that man. was angry Chairman Srokgs. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. I thought maybe for some reason he was angry at at man. Chairman SrToxgs. In expressing that anger, do you recall what Said? 280 Mrs. Porter. No, I did not say that he was expressing anger. Immaturely [sic] I tried to make some kind of logical explanation for why all this happened. It was hard for me to believe that he really was aiming at Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Sroxes. Were there several occasions in which he expressed himself regarding Governor Connally? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember right now. Chairman Strokes. Can you recall having given testimony tc someone regarding his attitude toward Governor Connally? Mrs. Porter. I had so many testimonies, I do not recall that. | don’t remember. Chairman Stokes. So at this time you have no recollection o! that? Mrs. Porter. No. Chairman Stroxkss. You mentioned to us that when the two of you arrived in New York, that Lee Harvey Oswald was somewhat disappointed because the press was not there; is that correct? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. It was in New York or in Dallas Maybe when we got off the plane in Dallas, maybe that was wher he expressed his disappointment. Chairman Stokes. Why did he indicate that he was disappointec that the press was not there? Mrs. Porter. Well, he told me that it was in the news when he left the United States, so now probably the news media will be waiting for him over there just as well. So he told me to ge prepared for it and nobody was there. Chairman Sroxes. So when no one was there, what did he say’ Mrs. Porter. Well, it is not what he said but maybe just ar expression on his face maybe indicated disappointment you know because there was no one there. Chairman Stokes. So then we are to understand that what he manifested was an expression or an attitude, not necessarily did hi say anything or verbalize anything? Mrs. Porter. Well, I do not recall right now, that is correct. Bu somehow I did learn about that, he was, one way or anothe! expressed this kind of statement. Chairman Stokes. Were there other occasions that he indicatec he felt he ought to get attention from the press? Mrs. Porter. No, I don’t remember that. I don’t remember othe occasions. Chairman Stokes. You said to Judge Preyer earlier today tha Lee Harvey Oswald very much admired President Fidel Castro Then you indicated right behind that that at about that time he appeared to be in a revolutionary mood. Do you recall that? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Tell us what you meant by that? Mrs. Porter. Well, Fidel Castro, he was a new, how you call it president of the new republic, and he was the leader of the revolu tion in Cuba and when Lee obtained a rifle, I guess that is some how in my mind associated with some kind of revolution. Chairman Stokes. Did he then often talk about revolution? Mrs. Porter. Not in this country. Chairman STOKEs. Not in this country? Mrs. Porter. No. 281 Chairman Stokes. Where did he talk about revolution? ae Porter. He talked about the revolution in Cuba, that al- ready—— Chairman Stokes. Did he talk about it often? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Stokes. Can you recall what he said about it? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t remember the details right now. Chairman Stokes. But he did talk about it often? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Stoxgs. My time has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, there won’t necessarily be any continuity in my questions. I am going to question you about various things that nave occurred to me during your previous testimony. I am not attempting to confuse you in any way. First of all I would ask, you are in reasonably good health? Mrs. Porter. I am OK. Mr. DEvinE. I notice you are in a habit of putting your left arm sehind you. Are you uncomfortable in some way? Mrs. Porter. It is just an uncomfortable chair that the back aurts when you try to lean forward. ) Mr. Devine. We will try to remedy that. Are you now a citizen of this country? Mrs. Porter. No; I am not. Mr. Devine. Has anyone during the course of these past 15 years threatened to deport you if you did not answer in a manner that they thought you should? Mrs. Porter. No; they have not. Mr. Devine. They have not, you have had no such threats. Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. Going to another matter, when Lee obtained the job at the Texas School Book Depository, did he seek the job at that lace or was it just happenstance as far as you know that he obtained a job there? Mrs. Porter. I don’t understand your question, sir. Mr. Devine. Did he seek a job at the Texas Book Depository specifically? Is that where he wanted to find a job? Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so. He was looking for a job at the ‘ime. Mr. Devine. As far as you know, that job just came up then and 1e didn’t seek that particular location as far as you know? Mrs. Porter. No, no. Mr. Devine. Did he mention to you when the Kennedy visit was liscussed that he had a box seat for the motorcade in his present *mployment? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. He never mentioned that? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. DevINnE. When is the last time you spoke to your husband? Mrs. Porter. In jail after he was arrested. Mr. Devine. Through the glass? Mrs. Porter. Yes. 282 Mr. DEviInE. You were asked, I think, by Judge Preyer whether or not you received a telephone call from him and you said you don’t remember. Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. Devine. Now wouldn’t you actually remember if that hap.- pened to be the last time you spoke to him while he was alive? Mrs. Porter. It doesn’t ring a bell. I don’t recall. In my memory. the last time I spoke to Lee was when he was in jail. Mr. DevINE. But you have no recollection of that? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. DevINE. Did he ever talk to you about the shooting at General Walker? Mrs. Porter. Afterward, yes. Not very much, but only what | told you, that is all I remember. Mr. DEvINE. This was afterward, of course, but what did he say about it, that he had missed or what? Mrs. Porter. Well, we had quite long discussions and if I go inte details right now, which I do not remember, but the general ide was that he didn’t think, I mean he thought he was really doings good service to a country by eliminating a person like Mr. Walker Mr. Devine. Did you happen to be watching television at the time your husband was shot by Jack Ruby? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. You did not see that incident? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. Was Jack Ruby ever at Mrs. Paine’s home? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. Had you ever met him on any previous occasion Mrs. Porter. Never. F ahe Devine. You never were in contact with him after the inci ent’ Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. DevINE. The morning that Lee left, he told you to stay u bed, that he would fix his own coffee. Did you see him leave Mrs. Porter. You mean the driveway or the room? | Mr. DeEvINE. That morning at 5 or 6? Mrs. Porter. No; I stayed in bed as far as I recall right now. did not walk to the door. Mr. Devine. You did not see him go down the street to pick his ride? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. You then would not know whether he had anythin; with him? Mrs. Porter. I have no idea. ye DEvINE. You didn’t see him carrying the blanket covere gun’? Mrs. Porter. No; I did not. Mr. Devine. Did he say anything to you about having a venetia: blind or a blind in the blanket? Mrs. Porter. No. No comment about that at all. Mr. Devine. You said that when you first heard about the assas sination, you were watching the television, I believe with Mr: Paine, and you said the thought crossed your mind, and I thin your exact words were, “I hope it was not Lee.” 283 Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Devine. What caused that to come to your mind? Had this een bothering you? Mrs. Porter. What, all the time or ever since or what time? Mr. Devine. Had it occurred to you previously that he might do omething like this? Mrs. PorTER. No; when they mentioned School Book Depository, knew that Lee was working over there. I don’t know, a sixth ense or something like that. Although I just felt for some un- snown reason—something just struck me. Mr. Devine. The television revealed that the case occurred in ront of the place where Lee worked. Did that cause you perhaps to »elieve that he might be involved? Mrs. Porter. Well, knowing about the incident with Walker, one vould think, I hope it is not again. Mr. Devine. I will ask further questions later. I think my time jas expired. INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 HOousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The select committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:10 a.m., in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the select committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, Fauntroy, Sawyer, Dodd, Ford, Fithian, and Edgar. Staff present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director; Robert Genzman, staff counsel; Michael Goldsmith, senior staff counsel; Surell Brady, staff counsel; and Elizabeth L. Berning, chief clerk. Chairman Stokes. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. The Chair will request that all persons in the hearing room please take their seats and remain in their seats while the witness is being brought in. Additionally, at any time that the witness is taken back out of the room, we request that all persons in the room remain in their seats until the witness has left the room. Good morning, Mrs. Porter. Mrs. Porter, you are still under the oath that was administered to you yesterday. You understand that, do you not? TESTIMONY OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER—Resumed Mrs. Porter. Yes, I do. Chairman Stoxgs. Thank you. The committee will operate under the 5-minute rule. At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecti- cut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mrs. Porter. Mrs. Porter. Good morning. Mr. Dopp. Mrs. Porter, yesterday in response to a question from Ongressman Preyer, you said that you could not state an opinion as to whether Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Mrs. Porter. Yes. r. Dopp. Now as I understand it, you testified that you believed that Lee Oswald attempted to assassinate General Walker. (285) STAT ty an tr, 286 You testified that you prevented Lee Oswald from leaving the house by locking him in a bathroom because you believed that he was going to shoot Richard Nixon. You further testified that you did not believe that Lee Oswald would have worked with an accomplice. And in answering the question as to whether Lee Oswald could have worked with an accomplice, you stated that although you weren't a psychiatrist, you knew him very well, and could say what he might and might not do. Now, Mrs. Porter, I am going to ask you again, just as Congres- man Preyer did yesterday, do you believe that Lee Oswald killed the President of the United States? Mrs. Porter. I honestly don’t know how to answer this question. I can just repeat what I said yesterday, I am not in position to make statement to force somebody to believe my way or if you just want my personal—— Mr. Dopp. You are not going to be forcing anyone to believe—— Mrs. Porter [continuing]. Or convince somebody. If you want just my personal opinion—— Mr. Dopp. That is what you were asked yesterday. Mrs. PorRTER. Yes. Yes, I do. Mr. Dopp. You do believe that your husband—— What is your full answer to that question? Mrs. Porter. Yes; I do believe that the man was capable of doing such a crime. Mr. Dopp. Do you believe he acted alone? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I do. Mr. Dopp. Would you tell this committee what you believe to be, what the reasons are, on what basis do you draw that conclusion? Mrs. Porter. Maybe just a plain intuition, I don’t know. But I did not claim that I knew the man very well, but whatever portion of his life that I shared with him, I came to conclusion, not conclu- sion, but at least I do not believe that Lee will trust and confide in someone. Mr. Dopp. I am sorry, I didn’t hear your last statement. You didn’t—— Mrs. Porter. I do not believe that he would confide in somebody. He wasn’t that open of a person. Mr. Dopp. Is what you are telling the committee—— Mrs. Porter. Only from what I know. Mr. Dopp. I understand that. Is what you are telling the committee, that as a result of having lived with this man for 4 years—— Mrs. Porter. I don’t believe it was that long. Mr. Dopp. Well, 3 years, whatever the period of time was there. That you knew him well, knew him better probably than any other human being—— Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. Dopp [continuing]. And that as a result of your knowledge 0 him, is it on that basis on which you draw the conclusion? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. Dopp. Are you aware, or do you have any knowledge of th fact that Lee Oswald attempted suicide at any point in his life! 287 Mrs. Porter. I did not know when we were married. I find out bout that later. Mr. Dopp. How much later did you find out? Mrs. Porter. After the assassination. Mr. Dopp. After the assassination? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. You never noticed any scars on his wrists? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I did notice scar. Mr. Dopp. Did you ask him about it? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. And what was his response to you? Mrs. Porter. He didn’t want to talk about it, said it was some- ‘aing in his childhood he would rather not talk about. Mr. Dopp. Did you suspect that he may have attempted suicide? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. I would like to draw your attention, if I could, Mrs. orter, to the time, period of time, in which you and Lee Oswald ved in Russia, in Minsk, if I could. Do you recall the conditions under which you were living in Tinsk, the type of conditions? It has been stated that you and Lee Oswald actually were living nder circumstances that were better than the average Russian or 1e average Russian citizen, particularly an average working class sussian 22 years old. Now aside from the reason that you gave yesterday, that he was foreigner, were there any other reasons why it was that you and ee Oswald would be given special consideration in your living ccommodations in Minsk? Mrs. Porter. No, that is only the reason that I could think of or know of, only just what I said yesterday. Mr. Dopp. There is no other reason whatsoever? Mrs. Porter. I don’t see any other reason. Mr. Dopp. Is it a fact that you were living under conditions that vere sie than the average 22-year-old Russian working class itizen‘ Mrs. Porter. Well, if it was only me, I would not be, I would not ave that. Lee had apartment before we were married. Mr. Dopp. I understand that. But my question to you is, was it not in fact a better living ondition, much better living circumstances, than the average ‘orking class 22-year-old Russian, and, if so, are there any other msiderations that you are aware of that would explain why he ceived that special treatment, other than the fact that he was a reigner? Mrs. Porter. That is only thing that I know, just because he was foreigner—we had the privileges. Chairman Stroxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Dopp. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to roceed for 2 or 8 additional minutes? ee STOKES. Without objection the gentleman is recog- ized. Mr. Dopp. Mrs. Porter, at the time you married Lee Oswald, did nyone from the Soviet secret service, the KGB, question you as to hy you were marrying Lee Oswald? 288 Mrs. Porter. It wasn’t the permission to marry Lee wasn’t grant ed that quickly, and the man who finally signed the papers, he tried to talk me out of it. He asked for my reasons. Mr. Dopp. He tried to talk you out of it? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. Dopp. To convince you not to marry Lee? Mrs. Porter. “Why do a young girl like you marry a foreigner Can’t you find a Russian boy,” and things like that. “You knov him so little.’”’ It was more or less kind of fatherly advice. Mr. Dopp. Were you asked at that time, because you were marry ing a foreigner, to report to the KGB, or provide any informatio1 that might come to your knowledge as a result of information tha your husband might share with you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. At the time of your departure or the application fo: Ce 3 from the Soviet Union, were you questioned by th KGB‘ Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. Were you questioned by any Soviet authority as to th reasons why you wanted to leave the country, other than th people you would normally meet during the normal application visa application process? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. Do you know whether or not your husband, Le Oswald, at that time, was questioned by any Soviet officials as t why he wanted to leave the country? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. Dopp. Do you remember when it was that you applied for ai exit visa from Russia, what month? Mrs. Porter. If I recall correctly, it probably June. Mr. Dopp. I think June 1962 was when you actually left, June < 1962 is when you actually left. Do you recall when you made application? Mrs. Porter. June 1961. Mr. Dopp. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. It could be June 1961. It took whole year to wai for the permission and papers to be processed. Mr. Dopp. You made application in June of 1961? . Mrs. Porter. If I am correct remembering the month, it too almost a year, a little over a year to wait for the permissior Mr. Dopp. When you left Russia, you went, you exited throug Brest, I believe. Mrs. Porter. Brest, yes. Mr. Dopp. And then you went to Rotterdam. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. Was Lee Oswald with you the entire time, from th time you left the Soviet Union until the time you arrived in th United States? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. Was there any significant period of time when he wé out of the area, when he was absent? Mrs. Porter. Well, we traveled by train to Rotterdam, and h didn’t leave, I mean there is no way you can leave anyway on tk train. He was present all the time. 289 Mr. Dopp. All the time. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. Until you got to Rotterdam. Mrs. Porter. Except maybe when he went, you know, for the vathroom and things like that. Chairman Strokes. The time of the gentleman has again expired. Mr. Dopp. I ask, if I can, unanimous consent for 1 additional ninute to finish this line of questioning. pecan STOKES. Without objection the gentleman is recog- ized. Mr. Dopp. You were in Rotterdam for how long? Mrs. Porter. I think we spent 1 night over there, I think. Mr. Dopp. If I told you it was 3 days, would you argue with me? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. During that 3-day period, did you see anyone, other han Lee Oswald? Did you meet any people? Mrs. Porter. Not—I seen some faces and people around, but I id not talk to anyone. : Mr. Dopp. Where did you stay in Rotterdam? | Mrs. Porter. It looked like a boardinghouse somewhat. Mr. Dopp. How did you get the name of that boardinghouse? Did omeone give you that or did you just come across it? Mrs. Porter. I think Lee had some kind of preliminary—is that he correct word to use? Mr. Dopp. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. Anyway, it was Lee who arranged, or somebody rranged for him. I do not know who it was or who recommended ertain—— Mr. Dopp. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. I did not know who recommended a certain place. Mr. Dopp. But it was clear to you that when you arrived there, he people knew that you were going to be there. Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. Mr. Dopp. When you walked in the door, did they say “Hello, it 3 nice to see you. We have been waiting for you’’? _ Mrs. Porter. I did not speak English, so Lee was doing all the alking. I just followed him. Mr. Dopp. They spoke English then. Mrs. Porter. I assumed they were. Chairman Stoxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Dopp. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will come back to this. Chairman Sroxes. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford. _ Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, back to the question of Mr. Dodd. When you and your husband received the visa to return to the Jnited States, did you ever wonder why or inquire as to why it was 0 easy to obtain the visas? Mrs. Porter. It wasn’t easy. It was lots of redtape and lots of gony of waiting period, and up to the last minute, I did not know “we going to be permitted to leave the country or not, so it really ame as a nice surprise. Mr. Forp. Over what period of time? Was it 1 month or 2 1onths? Mrs. Porter. It took almost a year, a little over a year. 290 Mr. Forp. A little over a year. Mrs. PorTER. Yes. | Mr. Forp. Why is it you were unable to identify the rifle that| allegedly belonged to Lee Oswald when you have testified that you | saw it on numerous occasions, moved it around while cleaning the house, and had taken photos of Lee with the rifle in his hand?] Mrs. Porter. Would you please pardon me, my ignorance, but all] the rifles look alike to me, unless it is the very small size and a large size. I am not expert on the rifles or guns. Mr. Forp. Did it look the same? Mrs. Porter. Well, unless they paint it black and white, I would not really know the difference, brown, you know, lighter color or darker color or something, but—— i Mr. Forp. There wasn’t anything about that rifle that stuck in t your mind that you might have used to later identify it? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t. Mr. Forp. Who brought it to your attention that you had de- stroyed some of the photos of Lee taken with the rifle and the handgun? How were they aware that you had destroyed some o the pictures? Mrs. Porter. Would ycu please repeat the beginning of you question? Mr. Forp. Yes. Who brought it to your attention that you had destroyed some of the photos of Lee taken with the rifle and the handgun, and ho were they aware that you had destroyed some of the pictures?) Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember who pointed out to me. Mr. Forp. I didn’t hear you. Mrs. Porter. I do not remember who pointed this out to me} Mr. Forpb. You don’t recall who? Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t. Mr. Forp. Mrs. Porter, you have told so many different versions of this period for various reasons, to protect Lee, to protect your} self, to keep from being sent back to Russia because of fear o1 strong emotions. I want to ask now, are you sure that at this point you are really clear on these facts, or have your many stories confused you as well as the American people? Mrs. Porter. The question is so long it is not easy to answer Mr. Forp. Let me repeat it to you in parts then. | You have told many different versions of this period for various reasons. You have testified that you did this to protect Lee, t protect yourself, to keep from being sent back to Russia, because 0 fear, or strong emotions. Are you sure that you have not confuseq yourself; do you know the truth at this point? What are you tellin; us? At what point are we to believe what you are saying before thi committee? Mrs. Porter. May I consult with my attorney, please? Mr. Forp. Yes. [Witness consults with counsel.] Mrs. Porter. I am sorry. If you are trying, if you are asking me if I do know anything more than I already said, that is what the question was. 291 Anyway I am telling absolutely the truth. I do not know any- hing more. Of course, it is very confusing when you read so many , ,hings in the newspapers, and I am just as anxious to find the nswers as everybody else. Chairman StToxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. '} Chairman Strokes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from , Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. ') Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. )Mrs. Porter, I am curious. Why have you not obtained citizenship 'r applied for it by now? ') Mrs. Porter. Well, because I am quite lazy about to do so. I |} vould love to become American citizen. I will be honored to become | )imerican citizen, but with the household duties, and you do have 9 take time to study certain literature and really be prepared to ye accepted, you know, to pass exams and things like that. ) Another thing, I am afraid that maybe I will be refused, and I |) on’t want to take a defeat. 1) Mr. Sawyer. As I understood your testimony, you never heard of jack Ruby before this assassination and subsequent events. Mrs. Porter. That is correct, sir. pC Sawyer. Did Oswald ever mention anything about the Car- usel? Mrs. Porter. I was quite surprised when they start talking about yack Ruby and asking questions about, did he ever went to the | yar? Of course I wasn’t present there, so I would not know. But Lee rasn’t drinking. I mean he did not drink. So I don’t see any reason or him to go to a bar or places like it. Mr. Sawyer. But you never heard Lee mention the Carousel, I / ssume. ) Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. And did he ever mention any friends that he might }) ave had, or acquaintances in the Dallas Police Department? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. Never mentioned—that he had—— Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer [continuing]. Any acquaintance there. Referring now to the writing on the reverse side of the picture iat is up there on the board, what do those top two lines say in ussian? Can you tell me? Mrs. Porter. You want me to translate it to English? Mr. Sawyer. Yes. Mrs. Porter. “Hunter for the fascists.” Mr. Sawyer. “Hunter for the fascists.” Mrs. Porter. Yes, “Ha, ha, ha,” You know. }) Mr. Sawyer. But the writing before the “Ha, ha, ha” is “Hunter }jor the fascists” is that correct? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. And then the writing down in the lower right “To ay friend George. From Lee Oswald” did I understand whether or ot you could identify that as Lee’s writting? Mrs. Porter. I cannot identify it as Lee’s writing. I cannot, I do })ot remember what Lee’s handwriting looks like in English. I do j)ot have anything in my hands to compare. 292 Mr. Sawyer. So that when you say you can’t, it is merely that you don’t know whether it is or not. You don’t have an opinion that it is not his handwriting. | Mrs. Porter. That is true. It is for experts to compare. Mr. Sawyer. And the way the date is written there, “5,” and then a slant, and then “IV,” and then slant and “63” do I under. stand that would be a way in writing it in Russian of 5 April 1963, in effect? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. Sawyer. Because they use a Roman numeral for the month Mrs. PorTER. Some do, yes. Mr. Sawyer. And usually they have the month follow the date like they do in the Navy or other. Mrs. Porter. Yes, I guess so. Mr. Sawyer. I presume that George is DeMohrenschildt; am | correct on that? Mrs. PorTER. Yes, sir. Mr. Sawyer. Because down where it says “Copyright,” then ir the same handwriting as the copyright is written, it has “G” anc then “de” and then ‘“M” which I presume are George DeMohrens childt’s initials. Mrs. Porter. Yes; I presume that is. Mr. Sawyer. Do you know whose writing it is in Russian up at the top, where it says “Hunter for fascists. Ha, ha, ha’’? Mrs. Porter. Well, some letters would be, look like I woulc see but some not, so I am confused about that inscription in the ack. Mr. Sawyer. You don’t know whether that is your writing 01 not, or do you know it is not? You are not clear on it? Mrs. Porter. Well, like if I look at first, you know, I think yes, 1 is my handwriting, until I start to analyze it, and it is not. Those letters ‘Ha, ha, ha,” you know, the letter “Ha,” that is not my way of writing this certain letter. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman SToKEs. The gentleman from the District of Columbia Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, would you refresh me on why you moved to Minsk’ Mrs. Porter. Why did I move to Minsk? I did not have very good relationship with my stepfather, and i was lots of static in the air and friction between two of us, so I fel like I was in his way, and I had nowhere else, no other place to go except where my aunt and uncle live. So I took a chance to go witl them, find a job during the summer. Mr. Fauntroy. And you lived with your aunt and uncle? Mrs. PorTeER. Yes. Mr. Fauntroy. And your uncle never talked to you about hi: work at all? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Fauntroy. Did you know where he worked? Mrs. Porter. At a building? Mr. Fauntroy. No; did you know for what agency he worked Mrs. Porter. No. 293 Mr. Fauntroy. He never talked about his work—— Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Fauntroy [continuing]. To you? Mrs. Porter. It wasn’t customary for people who worked for [VD to discuss their job at home. Excuse me. [Witness consults with counsel.] Mrs. Porter. Oh, excuse me, sir, did I understand you right? You uid did I know if my uncle was working for MVD? That was your lestion? Mr. FAuNTROY. Yes. Mrs. Porter. Yes, I did know that he was working for MVD, yes. Mr. Faunrroy. So your testimony is that you knew he was orking—— Mrs. Porter. For MVD, but I did not know what he did. Mr. Fauntroy. He never discussed that with you—— Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Fauntroy [continuing]. In any way? Mrs. Porter. Or with his wife either. Mr. Fauntroy. Was it customary in your experience as a teen- ser that people met and married within 6 weeks? Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so. Some do and some don’t. Mr. FauntrRoy. Some do and some don’t. Would you say that your relationship with Lee Oswald was one ‘love at first sight? Mrs. Porter. No. I like him, but I did not fall in love right away. Mr. Faunrtroy. It does strike at least this member as strange iat you could get married in 6 weeks. Mrs. Porter. Well, he was appealing to me. I did not marry him »cause he was American who will bring me back, I mean who will ike me to United States. In fact, if I knew that he will come back, would not marry him. Mr. Fauntroy. So it was not a motivation of your wanting to me to United States? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. FauntrRoy. That may have been—— Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Fauntroy. That is not the explanation for the 6 weeks? Mrs. Porter. No, it is not, because of my hatred of United States. Mr. Fauntroy. Nor is it that you were head-over-heels in love ith him. Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. Fauntroy. Nor was it that you were head-over-heels in love ith him. Mrs. Porter. Well—— Mr. Fauntroy. I guess that is a difficult question to answer. You simply state it wasn’t—— Mrs. Porter. It wasn’t for the reason of becoming, I mean to me here. Mr. Fauntroy. All right. I just have one other question which relates to the question of r. Oswald’s attitude toward the FBI. 294 You do recall that you indicated to the Warren Commission that he became involved with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Nev Orleans after he had lost his job? Mrs. Porter. I guess that is correct. Mr. Fauntroy. And then to the FBI you indicated that he los his job because of his work with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee Mrs. Porter. Well, that is correct. Mr. Fauntroy. And yesterday you said that Lee blamed the FB for the loss of his job? Mrs. Porter. Every time he lost job, he told me that the reason for that were probably because FBI harass him so. I got the impres sions that FBI are not treating him, you know, fair. Chairman SroxEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Fauntroy. May I ask unanimous consent for 1 additiona minute, Mr. Chairman? Chairman SToxes. Without objection, the gentleman is recog nized. Mr. Fauntroy. And I understand yesterday that you also saic you admitted you were lying to the Warren Commission? Mrs. Porter. No; I didn’t. Mr. Fauntroy. Which was it? Mrs. Porter. I wasn’t lying. I wasn’t delivering maybe correct c right away on-the-spot information to FBI. I think that is what wa said yesterday. Much testimony to FBI and Warren Commissio sometimes were contradictory. Mr. Fauntroy. Tell me what your recollection now of the trut is? Mrs. Porter. In what regard? I mean everything I am telling | the truth. Mr. Fauntroy. Did Mr. Oswald begin his work with the Fa Play for Cuba Committee after losing his job, or did he lose his je in your view because of the work with the Fair Play for Cuk Committee, and as a result, of FBI intervention? Mrs. Porter. Well, when I was married to Lee, and because on most of information or whatever I got from him, then I blame FI for him losing the job, but analyzing later on, him as a person, th: wasn’t the reason for him losing the job, so in my mind now he d. not lose the job because of the FBI. Chairman Strokes. The time of the gentleman has again expire Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you. Chairman Sroxes. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithia' Mr. FiruiAn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, I want to return to the inscription on the back | the photograph briefly. Before I do that, let me ask you how much education have yt had, how many years of schooling? Mrs. Porter. I finish school and I attend pharmacy school afte ward for 4 years. I have a diploma, you know, to be a pharmacis Mr. Frrutan. I have only had a little bit of study of the Russie language, but even a very cursory, very brief glance at the back that photograph would indicate that not even a grade school st dent of Russian writing would have written that. 295 Now I could go through several reasons why I cannot believe you vould ever have written it, unless you were intentionally trying to nislead someone. Just a couple of very quick things. The differences between the Russian “t” or “ta” in the what the tussian word “okhotnik’”’ as compared to the “fash(i)stami” are learly either written by someone who doesn’t know Russian, or he two words are written by different people, because in that equence of an internal “t” you would simply not make the English m” with a crossbar over in one case and turn around and use the Inglish ‘‘t” in “fash(i)stami.”’ I could go on. The three “a’s’” in “ha, ha, ha” do not match. The “e” in the tussian word “okhotnik”’ is printed in a very awkward and broken ashion. The “f” in the “fash(i)stami’’ it seems to me is written in a ‘ery unusual manner with the loops on the “f’” at the top of the ross staff and so on. Can’t you testify to this committee that you did not indeed write hat on that photograph? Mrs. Porter. As I told you, I am just puzzled, and I am just as urious as you are. Mr. FITHIAN. But we will get later today to discussing the hand- riting. I am simply asking you, cannot you at this point specifical- y testify to this committee that that is not your writing? Mrs. Porter. Yesterday I was thinking after I left this room, I yas thinking exactly the same thing as you did, or that had been yritten by a very old person, because sometimes people with the ge, they don’t have such a good grip, or a child. Mr. Firnian. Anyone trained in Russian schools after 1930 or ‘985 would not have been trained with the bar over the “m” to aake the Russian “t” and there are just a number of other items f caligraphy and handwriting and I am not a handwriting expert, ut all I am saying is you cannot testify—— Mrs. Porter. I cannot claim this as my handwriting. But I told yesterday this is my way of writing “‘t.” I put the dart, whatever ‘ou call it, line on top of “‘t.” This is my habit of writing “‘t.” Mr. FirHian. You do use the equivalent of the English “m” with he bar across it—— Mrs. Porter. Well, I use both. Mr. Firuian [continuing]. As in the Russian word of “okhotnik’’? Mrs. Porter. In the word of okhotnik, if I have time, I write ‘‘t’’ hat way. If I am in a hurry, writing a letter another “t” with the yord fascist. Mr. Firutan. That is the way you write “‘t.” Mrs. Porter. In a hurry I write “‘t,” yes, but I cannot claim the thole world, I mean the whole word, or the whole sentence was vritten by me. Mr. Firntan. Let me ask you this: Is it possible that the word okhotnik” was on the photograph written by someone else, and hen you added the “sa” fash(i)stami? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Firu1an. You did not do that. Mrs. Porter. No; I do not remember ever writing anything on he photograph. 296 Mr. Frru1an. And then looking at the words, isn’t it your best judgment that you indeed did not write any of those words? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall writing—anything. Mr. FrrHiAn. I am not asking what you recall. I am asking you to look at it, and you know your handwriting over some years, and can’t you simply flat out testify to this committee that you did not, that that is not your handwriting? Mrs. Porter. Well, I told you yesterday my handwriting is not very consistent. You know, like if I start a letter, I do not finish it with the more or less same handwriting. But as I said, I am not expert. I am very confused about this picture. I do not remember writing anything on it. If I started studying the handwriting and claim it as my own, I can’t. Chairman Sroxes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Frru1an. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for a few minutes. Mrs. Porter. Excuse me, can I talk to my lawyer? [Witness consults with counsel.] Chairman STokEs. Without objection, the gentleman is recog: nized for an additional 3 minutes. Mr. Frrutan. Did you tell Mrs. McMillan that that was not your writing? Mrs. Porter. I probably have. We discussed that, yes. Mr. FirH1An. And you told her it was your best guess, your best judgment, that that was not your writing? Mrs. Porter. I can’t say I can say that that doesn’t look like m} handwriting. Is that what you are asking? | - Mr. Frraian. No, I am asking you what you told Mrs. McMillan Mrs. Porter. Well, we work on the book. Do you mean when we work on the book? It was so long ago, I don’t remember what we were talking about, and this picture didn’t come, I mean I never seen this Mr. FirHian. Let’s turn to the picture, the pictures, and th negatives which went along with them. You told the committee yesterday that you burned some of the evidence, some pictures, e tars after the assassination of President Kennedy; is that cor rect: Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Firu1an. Do you remember burning any negatives, that is the film from which the picture is made? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Firuran. All you remember is burning pictures themselves Mrs. Porter. I vaguely remember destroying the pictures, a pic ture. Mr. Frru1an. What other evidence or material did you destroy i your haste to try to get rid of evidence? Mrs. Porter. As far as I know, only that, this picture. Mr. FrrutAn. In Lee’s practice of writing a kind of a diary, did h keep letters from other people as a part of that sort of keeping | track or keeping a record of things? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. What? Mrs. Porter. I do not know. 297 Mr. Firnian. Did you ever see any letters in his writing and naterial from others? Mrs. Porter. I don’t have a habit to go through, you know, omebody’s belongings, so I don’t remember everything, letters, inless they were addressed to me and would receive some letters, ometime Lee let me to read them, or tell me what it was all about. Mr. Firuian. Was it his custom when he wrote a letter to a verson to make a copy for himself? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know, sir. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has again expired. Mr. Firuian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxgs. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. Mrs. Porter, how did you happen to land in Mrs. ‘aine’s residence? Who found that place to live? Was it you or was > Lee? Mrs. Porter. I forgot how I was introduced to Mrs. Paine and ow we met. But she was a very kind and generous person. She did tudy Russian in Berlitz School, and in order not to offend me by ist inviting to live as a charity to her house, she asked if I can elp her with her Russian studies, and that was my payment for. Mr. Devine. Who knew her, met her originally? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall. I am sorry. Mr. Devine. Who made the initial contact with her to live in her ‘ome? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. DEvINE. You don’t know. Was she aware that Lee had ammunition and guns among your ersonal property there? Mrs. Porter. I wouldn’t know. I did not tell her. Mr. Devine. I believe you said that he kept the gun in a blanket. a the garage; is that correct? Mrs. Porter. He kept rifle in the garage, yes. Mr. Devine. So she wouldn’t necessarily know that. Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so. Mr. Devine. Following the assassination of the President, this ommittee has received evidence that your then husband left the ook depository, walked several blocks, caught a bus. The bus ecame involved in traffic. He left the bus, hired a taxicab which 00k him back to the neighborhood. Did you see Lee after seeing the announcement on television that ne President had been assassinated? Mrs. Porter. Did I see him? Mr. DeEvINE. Yes. Mrs. Porter. No. I saw him the last, the next time, in jail. Mr. Devine. He did not come to the residence, as far as you now. Mrs. Porter. Sir, Irving is quite far away from Dallas. Mr. Devine. I didn’t understand. Mrs. Porter. I was at Ruth Paine’s house, a suburb of Dallas. Mmless somebody drove him there, he could not come. Mr. Devine. You don’t know whether he had the handgun then then he left that morning or not? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. I didn’t see him leaving. 298 Mr. DEvINE. The evidence further shows that after he was in the neighborhood of the Paine residence, he then on foot went several blocks away, at which time he was confronted by Officer Tippit. Mrs. Porter. I believe you are a little bit confused about Paine residence, sir. Mr. DEVINE. Right, right, but then you would reaffirm the fact that you did not see Lee from the time he left early that morning to go to work until you then saw him in jail. Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. DEvINE. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana; the gentleman from Pennsylvania, rather, Mr. Edgar. Mr. Epaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, just to follow up on that question, we had an oppor-} tunity to go to Dallas and look at the neighborhood where Lee Oswald had his apartment. You had indicated that he came the night before to your residence with Mrs. Paine. How did he get there? | Mrs. Porter. I forgot this man that he worked with at the school} book depository, he was a neighbor, and he usually gave Lee a lift,] he dropped him off. | Mr. Epcar. I am interested in trying to develop a personal] picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, and you have given us some clues.} You have indicated that he did not drink. You had indicated that he sat for long periods of time looking, and playing and using his rifle. What is a description of him as a person? This individual you met, and within 6 weeks married, must have made some impres-} sion on you in terms of his personality. | Can you describe for the committee what Lee Harvey Oswald was like as a person? Mrs. Porter. I am afraid I cannot describe person just in onef statement or one small phrase. | Mr. EpGar. What did he look like? Mrs. Porter. You mean physically? Mr. Epcar. Physically. Mrs. Porter. He wasn’t very tall man. He was a little bit talle than me. I mean, whatever, he was neat in appearance, he had} good manners, in Russia. | Mr. Epcar. Was he strong? Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? Mr. Epcar. Was he strong? Mrs. Porter. Well, he was stronger than me, but he wasn’t a he man. Mr. Epcar. What was his attitude towards himself? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. I am sorry. Mr. Epcar. Let me ask you this question: Did you get the sense from him that he wanted to feel like a man, that is, to be ve strong and very powerful? Mrs. Porter. Not physically powerful, I don’t think that was. Mr. Epaar. Mentally powerful? | 299 Mrs. Porter. I think he want to be somebody, I guess. He want to be recognized by people, or maybe have a better job that he think that he was entitled to. Mr. Epcar. So he had the sense of himself that he was more important or he wanted to be more important than people were recognizing him to be. Mrs. Porter. That is correct. Mr. Epcar. And how did he treat you? Was he gentle to you as an individual? Mrs. Porter. Well, part, some, like when we were in Russia he was quite gentle and nice and thoughtful. But when we came to United States, his personality was changing, and he was cruel many times. Mr. Epacar. He was cruel. You indicated that he was cruel in the activity around General Walker, and you indicated some other illustrations of his cruelty. Can you recollect any time in which he was cruel to you? Did he beat you physically? Mrs. Porter. That is not very pleasant thing to talk about, but the answer is yes. Mr. Epcar. The answer is yes. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Encar. He physically hit you—— Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Epcar [continuing]. At some point. Did you ever require any medical treatment becaus e of his cruel- ty? é Mrs. Porter. No, I did not. Mr. Epaar. You indicated that you knew that he had the rifle, and you knew about the attack on General Walker . You knew about the suggested or attempted attack on Mr. Nixon. To your best recollection, were there any other incide nces that you can recall where he fired the rifle, either at someone or in your presence? Mrs. Porter. That is only facts that I know. Mr. Epaar. Can you recall whether he committed any crimes chat have so far not been brought out in your testim ony? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know any of those. Mr. Epaar. Did he have any other rifles or any other weapons ther than the rifle and the pistol? Mrs. Porter. Not to my knowledge. That is all I know of. Mr. Epaar. Let me ask you this question. This is a little bit off she course of those questions but it is one that has intrigued me. Lee Harvey Oswald met you in Russia. You spent a little over a year together married and then you came to the United States. You had a job, and he was bringing home a payche ck. You were living fairly well off, at least for Russian standa rds at the time. How did you pay for your trip from Russia to the United Nhere did that money come from? States? Mrs. Porter. As far as I know, Lee told me he borrow ed from the American Embassy. Chairman Sroxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired . Mr. Epcar. May I have two additional minutes, Mr. Chairman? 300 Chairman Stokes. Without objection, the gentleman is recog- nized for an additional 2 minutes. Mr. Epaar. Thank you. To the best of your recollection, he borrowed the money from U.S. Embassy? Mrs. Porter. That is what he told me. Mr. Epaar. Did he at any time, to your knowledge, physically go to the U.S. Embassy—— Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. Epacar [continuing]. To pick the money up? Mrs. Porter. Oh, I answered the question: that did he physically go to the Embassy? I said yes. But then you said to pick the money. I do not remember how and when he picked, you know, he got the money. Mr. Epcar. When you arrived in the United States, did Lee seem to have some money to hold you over until he got a job? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember how much money he had left. I do not recall if he had any left or not. Mr. Epcar. How did you pay for your food? Mrs. Porter. We live with his brother for a while. Mr. Epcar. How did you pay for just your general expenses? Mrs. Porter. I never handled the money when I was married to } Lee. He was the one. | Mr. Epaar. He handled all of the money. | Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Epcar. How long after you returned to the United States did } he get a job? | Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember. Mr. Epcar. Two weeks, three weeks? Mrs. Porter. That sound right. Mr. Epacar. So there is a 2- or 3-week period where he was} looking for a job and not working. Mrs. PorTErR. Yes. Mr. Epaar. Thank you. | I yield back my time, and I will come back to questions later. j Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. | Mrs. Porter, this morning in response to a question from Mr. | Dodd, relative to your opinion as to whether or not Lee Harvey} Oswald killed the President, you said your opinion was yes. Now this is not the first time you have expressed that opinion, is it? Mrs. Porter. That is correct. Chairman SToKEs. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection to} this extent. | Do you recall during the Warren Commission hearings the late : Congressman Boggs saying this to you: : Let’s get an answer. I think this answer is quite important. | Mrs. Oswa.p. On the basis of all the available facts, I have no doubt in my mind | that Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy. At the same time I feel in my own mind, | as far as I am concerned, I feel that Lee, that my husband, perhaps intended to kill} Governor Connally instead of President Kennedy. Do you recall that question being asked by the late Congressman f Boggs, and your answer being as I read it? | 301 Mrs. Porter. I do not recall. I never, you know, went back and read my testimony. But if it is printed, that is—si nce you refresh my memory, that is possible. I am for sure I said that. Chairman Stokes. So that I understand you, my having read this to you, does this now then refresh your recollection of what you said on that occasion? Mrs. Porter. Because I do not remember Senato r so and so that you mentioned it, it was so many people around , so many faces, I did not remember, you know, person. Chairman Stokes. I can understand you perha ps do not remem- ber that particular Congressman. What I am Saying to you is, with my having read this to you now, does this refresh your recollection of what was asked of you and what you said on that occasion? Mrs. Porter. Well, I really do not remember what I said, but if under oath to the Warren Commission I gave that testimony, that is my testimony. | Chairman StoxeEs. Then you do not deny that that was your testimony. Mrs. Porter. No. Chairman Stokes. Now again you know Priscilla Johnson McMil- lan, don’t you? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Chairman Sroxgs. That is the lady who wrote the book “Marina and Lee.” Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Stokes. And you talked with her with what she was writing about the book, didn’t you? reference to Mrs. Porter. Sure. Chairman Stokes. You have read that book? Mrs. Porter. Yes; not recently but a year ago. Chairman Sroxgs. I beg your pardon? Mrs. Porter. A year ago, yes. Chairman Strokes. A year ago, right. Let me read this passage to you from the book. I am reading at page 436. Marina was now certain that Lee was guilty. She saw Moreover, she knew that had he been innocen his guilt in his eyes. t, he would have been screaming to high heaven for his rights, claiming he had been mistrea officials at the very highest levels, just as he had alwaysted, and demanding to see fact that he was so compliant, that he told her he done before. For her, the was being treated all right, was a Did you tell Miss Johnson that? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Stokes. Now in addition to it, you told did you not, about the police coming and taking Miss Johnson, away Many posses- sions, and one of the possessions that they left was a small demi- tasse cup, and when you looked and discovered the fact that they had not taken the cup, you also found in there Lee’s wedding ring. Did you tell her about that? Mrs. Porter. Well, I do not—I remember the demita sse, but it is missed. I don’t know where it is. Are you asking me did I find Lee’s ring? Chairman Sroxgs. Did you find his ring? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. 41-371 O- 79 = 20 Vol. 2 302 Chairman Stokes. And then did you tell Miss Johnson this: “Qh, no,” she thought, and her heart sank again, “Lee never took his ring off, not even on his grimiest manual jobs.” She had seen him wearing it the night before. Marina suddenly realized what it meant. Lee had not just gone out and shot the President spontaneously. He had intended to do it when he left for work that day. Again things were falling into place. Marina told no one about Lee’s ring.” Did you tell Miss Johnson that? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Strokes. As my time has expired, the Chair would request unanimous consent to proceed for 3 additional minutes. | Without objection. Now did you tell—— Mr. Fauntroy. Overruled, Mr. Chairman. Chairman StTokEs. That is democracy. | Mrs. Porter, it has always been important for the American people to ascribe some motive to this killing. And I notice further } that, in the same book, Miss Johnson writes this, and I am reading } at page 484 of the book: | In his eyes, his political ideas stood higher even than himself. He would talk about Marxism, Communism, and injustice all over the world. Did you tell Miss Johnson that? Mrs. Porter. That was Miss Johnson’s conclusion about studying Lee as a person. Her findings weren’t based only on what I told | her. She did great research and met with lots of people who knew} Lee. That was her conclusion, and I agree with her. Chairman Stokes. Did you tell her that he talked about Marx- ism to you, and about communism to you, and about injustice all} over the world to you? Mrs. Porter. Yes, probably. [Witness consults with counsel.| : Mrs. Porter. Well, when you live with person, you know, a few) years, and then you have to put bits and pieces of phrases that have been told, and Priscilla worked, will have to go and think} about what conversations we have, not to make them up, but to relive them again. That is correct statement that she made. | Chairman Stokes. So that we understand you, he did express himself to you on these kinds of subjects, did he not? Mrs. Porter. Well, it is not maybe directly to me or maybe hej discussed with somebody else and I overhear the conversation. Chairman Strokes. And when you overheard the conversations,} these were conversations you understood? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Strokes. What he was saying? Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Chairman Sroxes. And did he have strong views? | Mrs. Porter. Well, I cannot recall right now the contents of conversation. The book had been started long time ago. My memory was much fresher then. Chairman Stokes. There has been some discussion with youj with reference to the fact that you told certain untruths to both the FBI and the Secret Service for the reason that you wanted protect Lee. At the same time you were the individual who ref vealed to the FBI what you knew about the General Walker shoot ing; is that correct? 303 Mrs. Porter. Yes. Chairman Stokes. Can you explain to us why you would at- tempt to protect him by telling untruths about other things, such as the rifle, the trip to Mexico, things of that nature, and then would reveal to them something that no one else in the world knew but you? Mrs. Porter. I don’t think just FBI little by little get tion that I know of, and I just did not come to them all informa- and say hey, you know, Lee tried to shoot Walker. But they have been probing and they have, how do you call it, some facts, you know, and by questioning me, you know, quite often I had to reveal the informa- tion. You know what I mean? I was cooperative then. Chairman Stokes. But prior to your revealing it, the FBI had not found out on their own that Lee Harvey Oswald had shot at General Walker, had they? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know how they done their work. remember when is exactly happen and how it is happen I do not ed. I told you my reason for withholding it, information, or did not tell exact truth to FBI during the questioning was because of fear for my well being, for my children. I did protect Lee when he was alive because I didn’t know what to make of it. I though t maybe he is innocent. It was a hope that he is. It was a very confus ed state of mind that I had then. Chairman Stokes. But when you told them about the Walker incident, was it because you were afraid that they would find out about it? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember what the reasons exactl y were at the time, and maybe didn’t happen in one session, maybe just little by little, but I just want to clean my conscience completely. I want to give everything that I could. Chairman Stoxes. I don’t quite understand. You said you wanted to clear your conscience of everything that you knew? Mrs. Porter. Well, eventually I said everything that Lee and I try to be helpful to a matter by testifying I know of before Warren Yommission, talking with you right now. Chairman Stokes. What I am talking about was the FBI and the others who were talking with you at that time. Mrs. Porter. Well, I have hours of testimony with Secret Service, so whatever they put together can revealthe FBI and #f picture, and I know it is not flattering, I mean some kind to me, but that is he way it was. Chairman Strokes. Let me go into another area with you. You have given some testimony with reference to the fact that vhen you and Lee were living in Russia, that you felt that your nail was being opened, that your telephones were being tapped. Mrs. Porter. We did not have telephone. Chairman Stoxgs. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. We did not have telephone. Chairman Stokes. You did not have a telephone? Mrs. Porter. No not at our apartment. Chairman Stokes. At any time there in Russia, did you have a elephone? Mrs. Porter. No. 304 Chairman Strokes. I am not quite clear on whether you have told us that you were aware of the fact that you were being watched and monitored by someone there. Were you? Mrs. Porter. Well, I really did not have any doubts that they would keep eye on a foreigner. Chairman Stokes. By “they,” whom do you mean? Mrs. Porter. Some authorities, I don’t know. Chairman Stokes. I beg your pardon? Mrs. Porter. Some authorities who were supposed to do that. I don’t know. Anyway it is gossip or whatever, that people in Russia do think, you know, they are watched. Chairman Strokes. Can you be more specific when you say “some authorities’? Tell us whom you are talking about. Mrs. Porter. Well, it is not somebody dressed in a uniform, you know, like maybe secret police maybe. I don’t know. Chairman Stokes. Didn’t you tell Miss Johnson about someone that you walked over to, that you recognized in a railroad station, that you walked over to, a KGB agent? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember that right now. Chairman Stokes. Do you recall talking with anyone in the organization that you were in, the Komsomol, about the fact that you were being watched? Mrs. Porter. I probably have, but I do not recall right now. Chairman Sroxgs. Again in Priscilla Johnson’s book, at page 139. where she says this: “The chairman told her that the Komsomo! knew everything about her and her husband. ‘ We knew each time you had a date. We knew when you applied for your marriage license. We knew the date of your wedding,’ he said. Marina was chilled but not surprised. She had long been aware that the Komso mol was a tool of the police. Its members were often assigned tc report on the activities of their friends.”’ Did you tell Miss Johnson that? Mrs. Porter. Yes; and all the facts in the book are true. But when you ask me right now, I could not remember; you know what I mean? Mr. HamitTon. Mr. Chairman, if this is a convenient time, car we take a break, a 5-minute break? ad SToKEs. Just one other question and then we will take a break. You just said everything in this book—— Mrs. Porter. The facts are true, yes. Chairman SrToxeEs [continuing]. Are true, the facts are true. And here, where you refer to the chairman, who were you talk ing about? Mrs. Porter. The chairman? Chairman STOKES. Yes. Mrs. Porter. I guess the person who conduct meeting or som thing like that. Chairman Sroxes. Counsel, we will at this time grant your r uest. We will take a 5-minute recess. Everyone, please remain seated while the witness leaves th room. 305 [Recess. ] Chairman Sroxgs. The Committee will come to order. All persons are requested to take their seats and remain in their seats until the witness has again come into the room and been seated at the witness table. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Coming back to, well, the picture is gone now, but the writing on the revers e side, they do not in Russia use exclamation marks, do they? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. Do they? Would they use three exclam ation marks after—— Mrs. Porter. Any number you like. Mr. Sawyer. Pardon? Mrs. Porter. Any number that you like, yes; one or three, yes. Mr. Sawyer. Do you know whether or not that writin g in Rus- sian on the top that says “Hunter for Fascists, ha ha ha” would have been Lee’s writing? Mrs. Porter. I do not know, sir. Mr. Sawyer. You do not think so? Mrs. Porter. I do not know whose writing that is. Mr. Sawyer. You do not know; is that right? . Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. Did you ever see any writing by Mr. DeMohr ens- shildt? Mrs. Porter. Not that I recall. Mr. Sawyer. I remember your testifying yesterday that you were startled, I think were your words, or shocked to find that DeMoh- ‘enschildt knew about Lee’s having shot at General Walker. Do vou recall that? : Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. And you were startled because you knew you had 10t told him about it? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. And I notice that the date on the transm ittal of his picture to George DeMohrenschildt is April 5, 1963, whereas Nalker was shot at on April 23, 1963, so presumably DeMohrens- — hildt not only knew about the fact that Lee had shot at Walker, ut had received this picture from Lee before that date, before the late of that shooting; is that right? Mrs. Porter. So what would you like me to—so what urpose of this question? I mean, I did not send is the this picture. Mr. Sawyer. Well, just as I look at this, and I do not purport to € any kind of a handwriting expert, but the writing at the bottom, Copyright G.dM.” appears to have some considerable significance, imilarity to the letters of the title written up there in Russian. Nid DeMohrenschildt speak and write Russian? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I think he did. Mr. Sawyer. Fluently? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. And as I recall, you said that Lee referred to reneral Walker as a fascist; is that correct? Mrs. Porter. Yes. 306 Mr. Sawyer. But you are not familiar with the handwriting of DeMohrenschildt yourself? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. But you do not think this is your handwriting, in any event? Mrs. Porter. I do not think so, sir. Mr. Sawyer. And as to whether it would be Lee’s or not, you just do not know; is this right? Mrs. Porter. No. I mean if anybody have my handwriting, you know, in Russian somewhere they are welcome to compare. Mr. Sawyer. When DeMohrenschildt led you to understand, from whatever he said, let you understand he had known about the shooting by Oswald at Walker, what precisely did he say then? Mrs. Porter. I do not recall the incident, you know, very clearly, but I think that I was kind of surprised that he made the remark like that, and I assumed that Lee told him, you know. I look at him and then Lee look at me and was thinking that I told him about. Maybe it was just his joking guess or something. Maybe he knew Lee quite well or better than—— | Mr. Sawyer. Did you ask Lee about how he knew about it? Mrs. Porter. If I did, I do not recall right now, or remember. Mr. Sawyer. Was there anything in what DeMohrenschildt said that may have been given the impression that he may have partici- pated in that shooting? Mrs. Porter. It never crosed my mind, sir. Mr. Sawyer. It never occurred to you? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. Did Lee ever say anything about DeMohrenschildt having participated in it with him? Mrs. Porter. No. anes Sawyer. When he told you about it, did he tell you he did i alone’ Mrs. Porter. As far as the Walker incident? Mr. SAwyeER. Yes. Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. Sawyer. Is your answer yes? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. And he never at any time mentioned that DeMoh renschildt may have participated? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. Or aided or abetted in any way? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Sawyer. Now, when you saw on television that the Presiden had been shot or were told that that is what was on television, yo stated that the blood rushed to your face and that you were ver upset momentarily. Do you recall that? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. Did you then proceed immediately to go out an check in the garage to see if the rifle was gone? Mrs. Porter. I went outside in the backyard, you know, to th clothesline, because I do not want Ruth to see, you know, my face and then I went in the garage, I think, I mean what I remembe sel now, and I did not check. I just looked and the blanket w there. 307 Mr. Sawyer. But did you not check to see if the rifle was there? Mrs. PorTErR. No, and when police came and asked if my husband had the rifle, I said yes, and he said, “Where is it?” I said, “It’s in the garage.” And when they opened the blanket, it was empty. Mr. Sawyer. Would not the first thing that you would do logical- ly, if the thought crossed your mind sufficient to upset you enough so that you went outside that he may have done it, was to check to see if that rifle was there or not? Mrs. Porter. Well, maybe it is logical thing to do, but I did not check the inside. If I went and check, the blanket was folded, I mean as kind of long like something was in it. Mr. Sawyer. But you did check to see if the blanket was there? Mrs. PorTER. Yes, but I did not check inside. Mr. Sawyer. You did not check inside the blanket? Mrs. Porter. No. Chairman. Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Chairman, I want to just make one correction, and that is that when I said General Walker was shot at on April 23, I misstated. It was April 10, which still is 5 days after that date. Thank you. -Chairman. Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make one more effort in this area of the motive that Lee Harvey Oswald might have had in the assassination. I think the American public has found it easier to understand how it happened, and they haveto understand why it happened. I understand your answer yesterday to my question about what was his motive to in effect say that motivation is complex, and you were reluctant to say any one thing caused him to do this, but I would like to ask your help, not in saying any one thing caused him to do it, but whether you think one or more factors that I will mention to you might have had a bearing on it. » The broadest question I think in the American public’s mind is, was it a politically motivated act or was it an intentionally person- al act that came out of some twisted personal psyche. On the political motivation side, we have seen the photographs of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand, the Socialist Workers Party paper in the other, in a defiant pose. We also know about his efforts to shoot saeneral Walker. Those two things, when you put them together, raise the question of whether his motive could have been to make aimself a hero of the American left, a hero of the left-wing political movement in this country. _ Do you in your personal opinion feel that that was a part of the motivation that made him assassinate the President? _ Mrs. Porter. Well, it is a quite difficult question to answer. I really do not know what to say about the motive. If you want my ersonal opinion about what I think, whether mental or political, I 1ave to choose just the mental state of the person. Mr. Preyer. So that you would discount the political motivation part of his motive? On the personal side of it, we do know the uzzling fact that he appeared to like President Kennedy, and herefore there would not seem to be any political motivation in alling the President. But that it could have been that he simply 308 wanted to make himself important by killing someone important, that he simply wanted to kill the man at the top, no matter what the man at the top’s political views were, whether right-wing or left-wing. Do you feel that this latter motivation was the most important part of his motivation, that is, some sort of personal desire to be self-important by killing someone important? Mrs. Porter. Well, the whole matter is so irrational it is very hard for us to even come up with any rational answers, but I would buy your statement that you made, the last one, about as long as somebody important, it probably does not matter what their politi- cal views are. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter. But this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. I would not know what a person thought about. Chairman SrToxEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Fauntroy. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, just a couple of questions. In your response to a question from Congressman Edgar about the kind of treatment that Lee Oswald gave you, you described it as brutal treatment. Later in your testimony yesterday, when asked about the FBI, and their treatment of you, you also described their treatment of you as brutal. Those were the words you used. I am wondering if you would like to clarify what you mean by that. You described today brutal treatment as being hit by Lee Oswald. Am I to understand that by the use of the word “brutal” in your description of how you were treated by the FBI that you are suggesting that you were also physically abused by the FBI? Mrs. Porter. I do apologize for my very poor vocabulary in the English language. Maybe I did misuse the word in retrospect. Brutal, in the case o Lee it was a physical abuse. I do not know a better word to describe it. When somebody treats you harshly and hurt you emo- tionally or have—— Mr. Dopp. How would you describe it? Mrs. Porter. Anyway, FBI did not hit me physically. Mr. Dopp. It was more the tone of the questioning and so forth? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. I realize it has been a long time. It has been 15 years and I think anyone would understand that having total recall o every event or circumstance is a difficult thing for anyone to do But there were several times yesterday in your testimony where and I limit this to myself, where I thought that your recollectio should be better. Your response to a couple of questions was tha you did not recall, and I would like to raise those couple of ques tions again and ask you whether or not you cannot do a bit bette on your recollection for us. OK? Mrs. Porter. I am just trying my best. Mr. Dopp. I understand that, and I appreciate it. You destroyed, according to your testimony, these photos, som photos that we are talking about of Lee Oswald that you felt wer incriminating to him, and in a question to you yesterday, you sai 309 that you did not recall whether anyone had told them or whether anyone was with you when you you to destroy destroyed them. I would like to ask you again, Mrs. Porter—it is a very important question—whether or not anyone suggested to you, advised you, assisted you in any way in the destruction of those photographs after the assassination of the President. Can you clarify your state- ment with regard to that point? Mrs. Porter. I do believe that all this happened after assassination, and many times I was, I mean very shortly I still was for a long time in a state of shock, and lots of even days in my memory are very—they are completely blacked out, and it is not that I do aot want to contribute to your questions and answer s. Mr. Dopp. But you do remember destroying them? Mrs. Porter. I do remember destroying, as a fact. Mr. Dopp. Do you remember how you destroyed them? Mrs. Porter. I think somebody reminded me that I burned it. That rings the bell. Mr. Dopp. How did you destroy them? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember where I was, who was around, tbsolutely nothing. et. Dopp. In your memory can you see yourse lf destroying hem‘ | Mrs. Porter. I see only—No, I do not. Mr. Dopp. So you do not know how you destroyed them? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. And you have absolutely no recollection? Mrs. Porter. Not today, I do not. I am not refusi ng to ut I do not want to paint picture that it was not existi answer it, ng. Mr. Dopp. Is your recollection that you destroyed these photo- raphs before or after the FBI came to visit you? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember. I had many visits. Mr. Dopp. Do you remember the FBI visiting you? Mrs. Porter. Yes, but it was so many visits, it was not just the ne. It was every day. Mr. Dopp. The first? Mrs. Porter. The first FBI visit? I do not remem ber. Mr. Dopp. You do not remember whether you destroyed them efore the FBI visit or after the FBI visit? Mrs. Porter. I do not remember. It was lots of officials. It was ecret Service and police, FBI all the time around . Mr. Dopp. All I am talking about now is the very first Mrs. Porter. I do not remember. I do not remember interview. iewed me the first time beside the police. who inter- Mr. Dopp. Let me go to one other point. You said that you recall iat at least on one occasion prior to the assassinatio n FBI Agent ames Hosty came to your home and questioned you. Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Dopp. All right, and you also recalled that your husband, ee Oswald, was extremely upset about this visit of Hosty. You 2member that as well, do you not? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I do. Mr. Dopp. But then all of a sudden you go blank on me. You do ot remember whether or not Agent Hosty ever called on you Zain after the assassination or whether or not he was one of the 310 agents who questioned you after the assassination. Can you help us out at all in your recollection of that area? ; Mrs. Porter. Yes. My state of mind before the assassinati on was not just in a state of hazard as afterward. I do not remember Mr. Hosty’s face at all, but I remember visit of his before assassination, and I think he came twice, because after the first visit Lee was upset and he told me if this man come back again, to take number of his license, his car’s license, and that is what I did, so instead of, you know, answering that he had been there once, logically it is twice before assassination. But I do not remember this man after- wards at all. Mr. Dopp. You have no recollection of him coming by your house again? Mrs. Porter. No. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Dopp. Could I just have one additional minute, Mr. Chair man. Chairman Strokes. Without objection, the gentleman is recog nized. Mr. Dopp. I would like to go back again, if I could, Mrs. Porter to your response to my questions about the stay in Rotterdam o your way from Russia. You stated today that you believed it wa some sort of a boardinghouse. Mrs. PorTER. Yes. Mr. Dopp. And if my memory serves me well, earlier statement with regard to this same incident, you had indicated that yo stayed in the apartment, a private apartment in Rotterdam. Mrs. Porter. That is what I call boardinghouse. Is it a differ ence? It was like somebody’s house. Mr. Dopp. It was someone’s private dwelling, you did not pay t stay there? Mrs. Porter. Well, Lee did. I do not think it was for free. It wa not a friend’s house. Mr. Dopp. Which was—— Mrs. Porter. The way I remember right now, what Lee told m that it was somebody, private person rent a room inexpensivel Mr. Dopp. It was a place where you rent a room, then? Mrs. Porter. I think so, yes. It looks like a private house, an you pay for the room, because the lady of the house prepared th¢q meal. | Mr. Dopp. And it was your understanding—— Mrs. Porter. Brought to the room. Mr. Dopp. It was your understanding that there were prior a rangements made for you to stay in this place? Mrs. Porter. I think so, but by whom I do not know. pes Dopp. And you do not have any recollection of the people all? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Dopp. Let me go back once more, just to the crossing of t border. Is it your statement that your husband, Lee Oswald, w with you when you crossed the border? Mrs. Porter. You mean from where, from Russia to—lots borders were crossed between a few countries like Germany— 311 Mr. Dopp. Let me make sure I have it correct. ] think there was a crossing at Brest and another one at Helmstedt. Mrs. Porter. No, I think I said Brest, the last town between Poland and Russia. Mr. Dopp. And he was with you on both occasions? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Mr. Dopp. There is no question in your mind about that? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir, he was with me all the time. Mr. Dopp. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. I have no further questions. Chairman Stoxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. Mrs. Porter, taking you clear back to the time you originally met Lee, this was in Russia, you said you that did not ‘know he was from America or from the United States until some- one later told you; is that accurate? _ Mrs. Porter. Yes. During the few dances with him he spoke with accent, but I did not know he was from America. Mr. Devine. But his Russian was sufficiently fluent that you did Pe necessarily think he was necessarily a foreigner to the Soviet Union? _ Mrs. Porter. He spoke with accent but lots of people in Russia Jo speak with accent. They don’t speak Russian very well, they aave different nationalities than Russians. Mr. Devine. But his Russian was pretty good at that time? Mrs. Porter. It was pretty good, yes. Mr. Devine. A moment ago when I was questioning you, I recited the route of Lee after the time that he left the Book Deposit ory. I nisstated his destination in the taxicab. As I understand it, the evidence indicates that he hired the ‘axicab and returned to the area of his rooming house rather than Mrs. Paine’s residence whereupon he apparently acquire d the landgun, confronted Officer Tippit and then as he ran along he lischarged cartridge cases and then ultimately disappeared into a heater where he was finally apprehended. You would again assert for the record that you did not see rom the time he left you on the morning of the assassi Lee nation stensibly to go to work until you later saw him after the assassi- tation in the jail? Mrs. Porter. That is correct, sir. Mr. Devine. And you have no recollection of his having ‘ou on the telephone from the jail after the time you visited called him? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sroxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, why did you feel such strong loyalty to rotect him, even to the point of giving misleading Lee to testimony, then during the great majority of your marriage he was brutal nd violent to you? Mrs. Porter. You ask me why? Mr. Forp. I am asking why did you feel such strong loyalty ee that you would give misleading testimony at differe to nt times? 312 Mrs. Porter. I did not have anybody in this country but Lee. Mr. Forp. Did not what? Mrs. Porter. I did not have anybody in this country but my husband. I do not know why I had this sense of loyalty or what- ever. It is just me. Mr. Forp. Is that why at different times you misled or gave misleading testimony to the agencies investigating the death of the President? Because you had no one else in this country but Lee, is that the reason? Mrs. Porter. It is not only that reason. It is lots of reasons together. You don’t know why you make decisions. Maybe it is my age, maybe, maybe loyalty to Lee, maybe fear, but it is all complex feelings and that is the decision I had to make. I don’t mean tha that was the right decision always, but sometimes you do make wrong decisions. Mr. Forp. Considering his actions and personality, did you eve think that Lee might be mentally unstable or ill? | Mrs. Porter. Well, I was only 21 when he died. I was not mature enough to recognize the symptoms, but I don’t think anybody in their right mind can commit crimes like that. Right now I do assume the person was ill. Mr. Forp. Did you ever seek any help for Lee? Mrs. Porter. Well, at that time I was not mature enough to recognize the symptoms so I was not aware of it. Mr. Forp. You recognized it, but you did not seek help for him‘ Mrs. Porter. No, I did not recognize the state of his mind then It never occurred to me then that Lee was sick. I did not come tc that conclusion then in my life. Mr. Forp. But his actions and his personality were sort 0 strange? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Forp. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, when you destroyed the photographs, did it no occur to you that there would be negatives around somewhere anc that you ought to look for those and destroy them too? Mrs. Porter. No, it did not occur to me. Mr. FiruiAn. Has it occurred to you since as to what happened tq the negatives, since clearly we have had three different pictureg there would have to be three different negatives somewhere? Thq Warren Commission reports say only one, and we will deal wit | that at another time, but do you know what happened to any of thd negatives? Mrs. Porter. I assume that the government has them. Mr. FITHIAN. I am sorry? Mrs. Porter. When they confiscate Lee’s belongings, I assum they got the negatives from there. Mr. FirH1An. You did not burn the negatives? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember, recall, doing that. | Mr. Firn1an. Let me turn quickly to another set of questiong Did Lee have any Cuban friends in New Orleans? Mrs. Porter. Not that I know of. 313 Mr. Firu1an. Did he ever mention any Cubans that he might 1ave had contact with? Mrs. Porter. No. er: FITHIAN. Did he ever talk to you about his political activi- ies! Mrs. Porter. Excuse me. May I correct myself? When wrested for this Fair Play for Cuba, he did mention he was that he met ome Cubans on the street or that is the one who gave him the amphlets, but it was no specific names mentioned. Mr. Firutan. So he did talk to you about passing out pamphlets? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he told me about that. _ Mr. Firxian. Did he talk to you about speaking about Cuba on he radio? That would be a little unusual that a person would peak on the radio. Mrs. Porter. Yes, he told me. Mr. FirH1an. He mentioned that to you? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Firnian. Did he mention the formation of the Fair Play for ‘tuba Committee? j pS: PorTER. Yes, until I discovered that he was the alll only one Mr. Firuian. Did he mention lectures on Cuba and Commu ) a group of Jesuit priests? nism Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Firnian. Did he ever mention the CIA? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. FirHIan. At any time? | Mrs. Porter. Not that I recall. Mr. Firnian. Now, turning to the time that you lived allas area. Did he have any Cuban or Spanish-speaking in the contacts 1 Dallas? Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so. I don’t know any of them. Mr. Firut1an. Do you recall any of Lee’s friends in Dallas ew Orleans ever referring to him as Leon rather or in than Lee? Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Firuian. The other area I wanted to get some additional formation on is the circumstances under which you met George eMohrenschildt. Mr. DeMohrenschildt is a very aristocratic, wealthy individual, lucated, rather from a different walk of life from Lee. Can ve us any indication as to how the two gravitated together, you "e SO very, very different? they Mrs. Porter. No, because Lee was exposed to lots of ople, you know, because of me being Russian background Russian e friends we had, and apparently from all of them that is sorge DeMohrenschildt the best. he liked Mr. FirHt1an. Can you tell me your own recollection of the first ne you met Mr. DeMohrenschildt? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember how we have been introduced, by nom or where. I think the way I remember right now, I think as somebody’s luncheon and there were lots of people it present and ey were one of them. Mr. Firn1an. Did you grow to know George DeMohr enschildt 11? Of all Lee’s friends, did you know him better than the rest? 314 Mrs. Porter. Well, I like him very well. I cannot describe his character maybe very completely. But well enough to like him very much. Mr. FiITHIAN. Were there many, many contacts between Mr. De- Mohrenschildt and Lee and you? Mrs. Porter. They visited us occasionally. He stopped by just to say hello for a few minutes if he is in the area. Mr. FirHian. By happenstance, did he ever stop by when Lee was not there? Mrs. Porter. By our house? He did stop once, yes. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FirHtANn. Could I have just one additional minute, Mr. Chair- man? Chairman Stokes. Without objection the gentleman is recog nized. | Mr. FiruHian. Do you recall Mr. DeMohrenschildt taking yo anywhere apart from the time that he would have taken you and Lee together somewhere? Mrs. Porter. I don’t remember that. When I said that he came by once by himself, it was somebody else with him, some gentle man. He said he had been in the area and he wanted me to meet sc and so, it was some businessman or business associate of his but I don’t know who it was. I do not recall the gentleman’s name or the face. We talked for 2 or 3 or 5 minutes. He didn’t even stay for coffee Then he left and that was it. Mr. Firu1an. Do you remember him taking you to visit the Bruton’s, Admiral Bruton and his family? Mrs. Porter. No. I read it somewhere about that, but I don’t recall the incident at all. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. Epaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Porter, let me draw your attention to the pictures one last time. You will see that there are three separate pictures up there Did you take those pictures? Mrs. Porter. Yes, I did. I don’t know how many, two or three Mr. Epacar. I had an occasion to ride in the back alley where those pictures were taken and look at that area. It is a little bit changed, but to see that area and to get a visual siting of what the backdrop is, if you would look at that picture I would just like tq ask you a question: Why would someone like yourself who does noi like rifles, guns, around the house, agree to take a picture of Lee im that setting? Two of the pictures are clearly with a rifle in hig hand and one of the pictures is with his rifle and his handgun} Why did you take that picture? | Mrs. Porter. I just had been forced to. Instead of being physicalf ly abused by Lee, I just did it what he asked me to or told me tof Mr. EDGAR. Why did he want you to take that particular pose4 Mrs. Porter. Pardon me? | Mr. EpGar. Why did he want you to take that particular posej eaeparHeulay setting, with the rifle and the documents in his an 315 _ Mrs. Porter. His main explanation was that this newspaper that e has in his hand, that that is why he wante d to take the picture, or this newspaper or something like that. _ Mr. Epcar. Was he going to send a copy of this picture to the ‘ewspaper and hope that it got printed? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know, but he said somet hing to do with the ewspapers. Mr. Epcar. Was he going to put this pictu re on a brochure for »me of his activities? Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall why, more than what Mr. Epaar. If you look at the picture carefu I said. lly, it is taken in the aytime, in full bright sunlight. Was he at all nervous that a 2ighbor would come out of his house or somebody would come wn through the alleyway? Mrs. Porter. I do believe it was a kind of weeke ‘Sunday, and the neighbors were gone. nd, a Saturday Mr. Epaar. This picture was taken in Dalla s? Mrs. Porter. Yes. Mr. Epaar. And it was taken when? Mrs. Porter. I think shortly after noon or noon. It was not early the morning and not very late at night. It was during the tytime. Mr. Epcar. What time of year was it taken? Mrs. Porter. In the springtime I remember. It was warm at the ne. Mr. Epcar. We have the one that had a notat 1ich is dated April. Now the picture would have ion on the back lor to that April in 1963 so that would have had to be taken had to be January, ‘bruary or March of 1963. Is that not correct? Mrs. Porter. Well, it could be in April. Mr. Epcar. Except as I understand it, it is the fifth day of April at is notated on the back. Mrs. Porter. I am sorry, I am not expert . I am not trying to ove something, but this print you get very Mr. Epcar. You can tell it is a Spring pictu quickly in Texas. re because he has a ort sleeve shirt on. Mrs. Porter. I am just telling you what I recall, that it was ‘ing. What picture shows I don’t know. Mr. Epcar. You said yesterday something that intrigued me. 1en we were trying to figure out who wrote the Russian inscrip- n on the back, you said, well, it doesn’t look like my handwrit- . I think you said, “It sounds like me.” sould you clarify that for me? irs. PorTER. Yes. Nell, I can be very sarcastic sometimes. I am known to have a rp tongue when I get angry. So if I descr ibe something, it will nd like, I mean that the tone of the state ment could be like 1e. Ar. Epcar. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for two litional minutes. hairman Stokes. Without objection the gentleman is recog- ir. EpGar. Continue, it sounds like you. 316 Mrs. Porter. Sarcasm of the phrase would be. Mr. Epaar. Sarcastically you are saying, “hunter for fascist” or “hunter of fascist.’”’ Which is it, hunter of or for? Mrs. Porter. Of. I probably misinterpreted before the same phrase. Mr. Epcar. What is a fascist? Mrs. Porter. Fascist, well, I think it is the party in Germany. In my mind it is—has something to do with the war, aggressive people, military people. Mr. Epcar. Was it a joke? Was that sarcastic expression a joke? Mrs. Porter. I don’t know. It sounds like it. Mr. Epaar. Just one final series of questions very quickly. Mr. Fithian was asking you about your relationship with Mr. DeMohrenschildt and the difference between his life style and your | life style. Did you see Mr. DeMohrenschildt after the assassination? Mrs. Porter. Not shortly after. I did see him I think on two occasions afterwards. | Mr. Epcar. What were the purposes of those two occasions? Mrs. Porter. Well, I think it was a Russian Easter party once and he was present. I think once I attended a Russian movie at the campus and lots of Russians were present there, too, and he was one of them. | Mr. Epcar. In the Dallas area at the time of the assassination there were a number of clubs and organizations of Russian people, were there not? | Mrs. Porter. No. No, it is a social gathering. Mr. Epacar. But there was a social group of people who sent out cards and said, come to a movie or come to a luncheon or come to} a" Mrs. Porter. No, it was not organized that way. Mr. Epcar. How did you know that the Russian community was} getting together to do a particular thing? | Mrs. Porter. Well, occasionally they do this, you know, the} church or something like that. I think maybe somebody called me and invited me to go. Mr. Epcar. Could you have met Mr. DeMohrenschildt at that kind of setting? Mrs. Porter. I don’t think so. I think it was a dinner, a get-| together, or something like that. | Mr. Epacar. Just finally on the two occasions that you met Mr.} DeMohrenschildt after the assassination, did you have occasion to} es him about Lee Harvey Oswald and about the assassina- tion’? : Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall. I don’t think it was the right atmos- phere or place to discuss it in detail. It was more like a polite hello, you know, hi, how are you, and things like that. 7 ats Epcar. But he did not volunteer that he had a picture from} ee’ : Mrs. Porter. No. Mr. Epcar. He didn’t share with you any information at tha time’ Mrs. Porter. No, sir. Mr. Epcar. Did he offer to help you out at all financially4 Mrs. Porter. I think he did. | 317 Mr. Epcar. Did he give you any money. Mrs. Porter. I don’t recall, but they were very genero inviting us to their house and sometimes bring us about something over. They were helpful. I don’t mean like you try to say that he gave me a big sum amount of money. Mr. Epear. Not necessarily a big sum of money, but did he assist you after the assassination? Mrs. Porter. After the assassination, no. Mr. Epcar. But prior to the assassination he might have helped you out financially? Mrs. Porter. Maybe he buy box of candy or some toy for a child, that is the things I am talking about. Mr. Epaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman. Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mrs. Porter, this morning you told me that you and Lee did not shave a telephone while you were staying in Russia; is that correct? Mrs. Porter . Yes, sir. Chairman Stokes. Did you have access to a teleph one at any time? . Mrs. Porter. Yes. They have public phones and my aunt and uncle had a telephone at work. So if I wanted to call somebody, I could make a connection. | Chairman Stokes. Where was that phone? Mrs. Porter. They have public phones. My aunt and uncle had a telephone. Chairman Stokes. Located near your apartment there? Mrs. Porter. She lived a few blocks away. Like two blocks. Chairman Sroxes. She had a telephone? Mrs. Porter. Yes. ) Chairman Stokes. I see. So whenever you or Lee needed a tele- ohone, you could use hers? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir, and they had a public phone downst airs, 500. Chairman Stokes. Now, I asked you about an incide nt at the rain station involving a KGB agent this morning and you could 10t recall that. Mrs. Porter. No; I don’t. Chairman Stokes. In Priscilla Johnson MacMillen’s ‘Marina and Lee”, page 187, it says: book, The Oswalds spent their last night in Minsk at Pavel’s. The next day, May 22 or 3, they boarded the train for Moscow. Russian fashion their closest friends, includ- ng Pavel and all the Zigers, came to the station to see them off. But even there hey noticed that they were being watched by a man who was standing, half-hidden, ehind a pillar. “Listen in if you like,’ Eleonora Ziger practically spat in his face. “We have no ecrets here.” Her sister, Anita, added: “I simply loathe people who eavesdro Marina kept glancing anxiously around the station p.” looking for Ilya and Valya. ‘nally, she saw them standing way off by themselves in a corner. Their faces were orlorn and they looked as if they were fearful of being seen Marina hurried over to them. “Why didn’t you join us?” by the KGB. ne way” Valya said. She turned to Alik: “Take care of “We didn’t want to be in Marina. She has nobody now ut you.” She was on the verge of tears. Having heard that, does that refresh your recollection of what ou told Miss Johnson? 318 Mrs. Porter. This is the fact that Miss Johnson did get from me many years ago. I do not remember right now the man and where he was standing. I remember where my aunt and uncle were standing, but that is correct. If it is in the book, it is correct, yes. Chairman Stoxegs. I think I have just one more further question: In reply to Mr. Preyer’s questioning of you this morning with regard to motivation for Lee doing this type of thing, you gave some indication that you could agree that it probably was done just to perhaps make himself a bigger man. But you did know by virtue of the General Walker experience that he was capable of killing for political reasons, did you not? Mrs. Porter. I still really did not ever consider it, you know, that that was really that political. It is a political figure, Mr. Walker was. He will be well known if he will be killed, I mean, he is known to the public. He gave me his reasons for shooting him as political. Maybe at this point it was somewhat. Maybe he tried to make Russian explanation to me, but still it was rational enough to make a statement that the man was sick. Chairman Stokes. Let me just refer you to a couple of things: One, he said to you with reference to General Walker that he was worse than Hitler and he should be killed, had he not said that? Mrs. Porter. Yes, he made the comparison. Chairman Stokes. And then let me just make reference to a statement that you gave us in the deposition we took from you on August 9. We asked you this question with reference to what happened when he came back to the house with you. The question was: What did he say when he returned? You said, well, he turned the radio on and he was very pale and he was listening to the news, changing from station to station. I asked him what it was all about. He said that he tried to shoot General Walker. I told him, how dare you take somebody’s life. You should not do things like that. I mean, you have no right to do it. He said, “Well, if somebody shot Hitler at the right time, you would do justice to humanity. So since I don’t know anything about the man, I should not talk about it.” Is that what he said? Mrs. Porter. Yes, sir. Chairman Sroxgs. At the point he said, ‘‘So, since I don’t know anything about the man, I should not talk about it,” he was talking about you? Mrs. Porter. Of me not knowing anything, right. Chairman STokEs. So from that statement to you, then, you then did know that he was capable of killing for political reasons; is that correct? Mrs. Porter. Well, I still think the reasons, well, I am sorry, bu anytime if a person is capable of killing somebody, he is not stable-minded person whatever the reasons are. Maybe it is politi ot excuse, I don’t know. I still don’t think it is just strictly politi cal. Chairman STokEs. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. Mrs. Porter, at the conclusion of the witness’ testimony befor our committee, that witness is entitled to take five minutes 1 order to in any way explain or comment in any way upon th 319 testimony they have given our committee. You may amplify or expand upon it in any way that you so desire. On behalf of the committee, I would at this time extend to you 5 minutes for that purpose. Mrs. Porter. I just want to thank you for listening. I don’t have any comments to add. Chairman Stokes. Does counsel desire any time to make any statement? Mr. Hamitton. Mr. Chairman, I do not, but I would like to thank the committee and the staff for the courtesies extended to Mrs. Porter. I would also like to thank the United States Marshal and the Capitol Police for their extremely professional handling of the circumstances surrounding her appearance here. Chairman Stokes. We would like at this time also to thank Mr. Hamilton of the D.C. Bar Association for having provided counsel for Mrs. Porter while she was here. We thank both of you for appearing. At this time you are excused. All persons are request ed to remain in their seats until Mrs. Porter has left the room. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. - NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. Biaxey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the most publi- cized issues to emerge in the investigation of the Kennedy assassi- nation has to do with the authenticity of the photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald with a holstered pistol strapped to his waist, hold- ing a rifle in one hand, and in the other copies of The Militant and ‘The Worker, both Communist publications. These photographs col- lectively have come to be known as the backyard photographs. Oswald himself, when shown the pictures at the Dallas Police ‘Headquarters after his arrest, insisted that they were fakes, and ‘over the years many critics have argued similarly. No doubt, the controversy was stimulated by the publication on the cover of Life in 1964 of a copy of one picture retouched to enhance the quality. _ If the backyard photographs are valid, they are highly incrimin a- tory of Oswald, and they tend strongly to corroborate the basic story told by Marina Oswald. If they are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that more than private parties conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy. Here, then, is a brief history of the backyard photographs. In the early afternoon of November 23, 1968, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the home of Ruth Paine in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. A thorough search of the premises was conducted. It concentrated primarily on a garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Detective Guy F. Rose found a brown cardboard box containing books, papers, and photographs. There were at least two prints of Oswald holding the rifle, each showing nim in a slightly different pose, and there was at least one negative ‘rom which one of the prints had been made. The items were taken 30 the Dallas Police Headquarters. 320 On the evening of November 238, Captain Will Fritz first showed Oswald an enlargement of the picture later designated by the Warren Commission as CE 1383-A. According to officers present, Oswald denied repeatedly that he had ever seen the photograph and claimed that someone had superimposed his head on another’s body. Oswald was then shown the print later designated as CE 133-B, which he also claimed was a trick photo. Marina Oswald was subsequently questioned by the FBI about the photos. She said that they were taken at the Oswald home on Neeley Street in Dallas, in the backyard. But Marina gave two different versions of when the pictures were taken. She first told the FBI it was in late February or early March 1963. Her testimo- ny to the Warren Commission reflected the same recollection. Nevertheless in an FBI interview made after her initial appear- ance before the Warren Commission she said that the first time she ever saw the rifle was toward the end of March. She recalled rene the photos 7 to 10 days thereafter, in late March or early pril. Other evidence available to the Warren Commission supported her later version. A rifle and a revolver were shipped to Oswald | from different mail order houses on March 20. The left-wing news- | papers Oswald is holding in the picture were dated March 11 and March 24, and were mailed on March 7 and March 21, respectively, | both by second class mail. According to postal authorities, both newspapers would have arrived in Dallas by March 28. In addition, Marina claimed she remembered taking the photos on a Sunday about two weeks before Oswald allegedly took a shot at General Edwin Walker on April 10. The Commission therefore concluded from all its information that the photos were probably taken on March 31, 1963. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, an FBI photographic expert, analyzed the two prints, the negative, the Mannlicher-Carcano, and an Imperial Reflex camera that Marina testified she used to take the pictures. Shaneyfelt testified as to the results of his analysis to the Warren Commission: One, the photos were taken by the Imperial Reflex camera. Each | camera has unique irregularities that are reflected on the margins | of negatives made by that camera. Shaneyfelt determined that the | margin irregularities of the negative of 133-A were identical to those of a negative which he made by using the same Imperial Reflex camera. Two, the photos were not composites. Shaneyfelt said he could find no indication that they had been tampered with. | Three, the rifle in the photos was probably the Mannlicher- Carcano found in the Book Depository. Shaneyfelt photographed the rifle, duplicating as best he could its position in the photo and the lighting, and found the configurations matched. He also found a notch in the stock of the rifle that appears, albeit faintly, on the rifle in the photos. He did say, however, that he could not find enoveR peculiarities to state categorically that the rifles were iden- tical. The backyard photo appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964 edition of Life, which had purchased the rights to publish it from a man named James Martin, who was at that time Marina’s 321 business manager. Several other copies appeared in The New York Times, Detroit Free Press, and other news publications. Shaneyfelt told the Commission that any apparent variations, particu larly with respect to the configuration of the rifle, were caused by re- touching, a common practice in the printing of picture s at that time in the news media. Despite the efforts of the Warren Commission to settle questio ns about the two pictures, Warren Commission critics have refused to let the matter rest. They have persisted in doubting their authen- ticity, charging that they are, in fact, composites. Some critics cite a horizontal line across Oswald’s chin as evi- dence that his head was grafted onto another person’s body. Others claim that Oswald’s chin structure does not correspond to the shape depicted in the photographs. Critics also contend that the heads are identical in both pictures, whereas the length of the body differs. Finally, the critics have alleged that the shadows cast by the nose are inconsistent with those cast by the body. Mark Lane for instance, indicated in his “Rush to Judgment’ that “an examination of the picture * * * tends to raise doubts as to its authenticity.” He also argued that the Warren Commission relied on insufficient evidence to conclude that the rifle depicted in che backyard photographs was the rifle recovered from the Book Depository. , He states: The Commission had only one expert on the question—Shaneyfelt—and used to make an identification. Yet the Commission concluded he re- that “the rifle shown in these pictures is the same rifle which was found on the sixth floor of the Jepository Building on November 22, 1963. Sylvia Meagher, in her “Accessories After the Fact,” states an- )ther critic’s view: It is not possible to determine whether the photograph is genuine or forged, but I lo conclude that the Commission’s procedures were so loose and its blivious in considering this matter that it would have been possible judgment so pecious evidence and have it accepted as authentic. to introduce Marina Oswald, in addition to giving two different versions of when the backyard pictures were taken, gave different versions of he number of pictures taken. At first she testified that she took me picture. She later testified that she took two pictures. In addition, Marguerite Oswald, Oswald’s mother, testified that oon after the assassination she and Marina destroyed yet another victure, in which Oswald was holding the rifle over his head with ae hands. No copy of such a photograph has ever been uncov- red. In the course of the select committee’s investigation, it obtained in additional photograph of Oswald holding the rifle in a pose ifferent from Commission exhibit 133-A or 133-B. This photo- raph, a first generation print, was given to the committee on Jecember 30, 1976, by Mrs. Genevese Dees of Paris, Tex. According 0 Mrs. Dees, this print was acquired by her former husband, ‘oscoe White, now deceased, in the course of his employment with he Dallas police at the time of the assassination. This recently iscovered photograph has been designated 133-C. The committee obtained another first generation print of Com- ussion exhibit 133-A on April 1, 1977 from the widow of George 322 DeMohrenschildt, Jeanne. In the manuscript of DeMohrenschildt’s book, which he was writing at the time of his death in 1977, he stated that he and Jeanne found the photograph in February 1967 among personal belongings they had stored in Dallas before depart- ing for Haiti in May, 1963. Two additional first generation prints, one of 133-A and one of 133-C, were also obtained from former Dallas Police Detective Rich- ard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. Stovall was among the police officers who discovered the backyard photographs during a search of the Paine premises on November 28, 1963. The 1978 BBC television documentary entitled “The Assassina- tion of President Kennedy * * * What Do We Know Now That We Didn’t Know Then” includes an interview with British forensic photography expert, Malcolm Thomson. At the request of the Brit- ish Broadcasting Corp., Mr. Thomson examined copies of two of the backyard photographs. He found that they were fakes. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to show the BBC interview to illustrate how concern over the photographs has drawn public attention. Chairman SToKEs. You may proceed. Mr. Buakey. Could the lights be turned down please? [The documentary was shown.] . Mr. Buakey. Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. | Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years. Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth’s largest adver- tising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduc- tion, including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts. : Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs. Mr. Chairman, I would note that Mr. White’s testimony today } will be split into two parts: The first dealing with the photographs, and the second in relation to the rifle. But it would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. White to testify on the backyard photographs. Chairman SToKEs. The committee calls Mr. White. Sir, please stand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? TESTIMONY OF JACK D. WHITE Mr. Wuire. I do. Chairman SToKEs. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel, Mr. Genzman. Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. eS will you state your full name and occupation for the record? 323 Mr. Wuite. Jack D. White, vice president of Withe Associates, an advertising and public relations firm. rspoon and Mr. GENzMAN. Will you please refer to the exhibi ts marked 179 and 180 which were previously entered into the record. Can you identify them? Mr. Wuite. These are known as the backyard photos . Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly had them taken by his wife, Marina . They are Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and 138-B, and one which surfaced in 1975 during the Church committee hearin gs, which is marked 133-C. _ Mr. Genzman. Have you analyzed any of these photographs? Mr. Wuite. Yes; over a period of about 5 years. Mr. GENzMAN. What led you to do this analysis? Mr. Wuire. Well, in 1964 I read the Warren Commis sion report and I saw where Lee Harvey Oswald said these photos were fakes. Being in graphics myself, I thought I could do a good job of analyz- ing them. Mr. GENZMAN. How much time did you spend on your analysis? Mr. Wuire. It was over a period of about 5 years. I comple ted it orobably about 3 years ago. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, what was your method of analysis? Mr. Wuire. I utilized various methods. First of all was just scrutiny, you might say—just looking at the photos to see how shings in one photo compared with things in the other photos. I also made measurements. I made photocopies and printed them N various sizes. I made transparencies which I overlaid one over the other to make certain comparisons, and things of that sort. Mr. Genzman. Did you scrutinize various features in the photo- traphs? Mr. Wuirr. Yes, in particular the face and the backgr ound. Mr. GENzMAN. Did you scrutinize the body? Mr. Wuirte. Yes. Mr. GeNzMAN. What opinions have you formed about the back- srounds of the photographs? Mr. Wuire. I believe the backgrounds in the three photographs fou see here are virtually identical. I think they were all taken rom a single camera viewpoint. The backgrounds would have had 0 be either a single photograph originally, or else the camera for ill photographs would have had to be on a tripod or some other upport for stabilizing the camera in one position. Mr. GENzMAN. What opinions have you formed about the heads n the photographs? Mr. Wuirr. The heads in A and B are identical to one vith the exception of the lip area, which shows strong another signs of etouching. I was not able to adequately compare the head 1 and B because I did not have an adequate quality on C to print at the ime I made my comparisons. Mr. GEnzMAN. Thank you. What opinions have you formed about the heads in relation to he bodies? Mr. Wuitr. When you make the heads in A and B an identic ize, the bodies are different lengths. In fact, all three bodies al lightly different lengths than each other if you make the are heads ne same size. 324 For instance, if you make the heads the same size, you might say that A has a normal length body, B has a longer body, and C has a shorter body. Mr. GENzMAN. Did you determine whether the heads and the bodies are of the same individual? Mr. Wurre. I did not do any extensive analysis of the bodies. Some critics believe these are three different bodies. I have nothing to say about that, but I do believe that the heads on A and B are the person called Lee Harvey Oswald, down to a point right below the lips. In fact, the face is a single photograph. It is not two different photographs of the same individual. It is a single photo- graph. Mr. GenzMAN. Did you determine whether the bodies were origi- nally on the background of the photographs? Mr. Wuirte. In my opinion, the bodies have been superimposed on the background. There is some evidence of this. I can’t prove it, but that is my opinion. Mr. GENZMAN. Based on your findings, what is your conclusion about the backyard photographs? Mr. Wuirte. Well, just as Oswald said, I think they are fakes. Mr. GENZMAN. Do you regard these fakes as sophisticated or crude? : Mr. Wut. They are extremely sophisticated, although they are’ not so sophisticated that the fakery cannot be detected. I deal in the graphic arts area all the time in my job. We frequently deal with photographers, commercial artists, people who do this sort o work. If we were to undertake to fabricate a photograph like either o these, we would go to an expert to do it. We would get somebod who was an expert photographer, an expert artist, or a commerci art studio, because it is obvious that to fabricate the head onto th body and then the body onto the background, several sophisticate techniques must be used, including a matting process. Matting, for the people who don’t know about graphics, involve the use of masks and a pin-register system so that you can exactl superimpose something onto a background without the superimp sure being noticeable. What you do is take the figure that you are going to superimpos on the background, and you cut a mask around this figure. Yo make a positive and a negative of this, using one of them to outlin the figure and the other to knock out of the background the are in which you want to print the figure. It is a very sophisticat procedure. It is not something that the average person could do These were not made, in my opinion, by somebody with just a pai of scissors and some paste. Mr. GENzMAN. Do you have an opinion as to whether Oswal hypothetically could have made these fakes? Mr. Wuirts. Even though he said to Will Fritz that he kne something about photography and could demonstrate how the photos were made. I don’t think he could have acquired the expe tise to fabricate them in the few months he worked at Jagga Chiles-Stovall in Dallas. Mr. GENZMAN. Why do you think these fakes were made? 325 Mr. Wuirt. It is fairly obvious after the fact that they were made to implicate Oswald in the alleged assassination by tying him to the assassination weapon. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, did you testify earlier that each back- yard photograph has an identical background? Mr. Wuite. That is my belief. Mr. GENZMAN. At this time would you please refer to the exhibit marked JFK F-391. _ Mr. Chairman, I would ask that JFK exhibit F-391 be entered into the record. Chairman SToKEs. Without objection it may be entered. [The information follows:] JFK Exursit F-391 327 Mr. GENzMan. Mr. White, would you identify this Mr. Wuirte. This is some art that I prepared exhibit? using photographs 133-A and 133-B. Let’s for a moment look at the lower you will start at the bottom. The brown picture that portion, if you see on the exhibit is a portion of 133-B. The red picture is the corresponding portion of 133-A, which is a red transparency overla id over the brown picture. After printing these photographs to the same exact size in the darkroom and then having the red transparency made of A and laying it in register over photograph B, I then slippe d a piece of white paper under the red transparency to block out the brown picture underneath. If you will notice, where the red corresponds to the brown along the edges of the slip of white paper, you will see that every of the background matches perfectly. Starting on the portion left of the picture, you see that the shadows are a perfect match, post is a perfect match. All the fence boards are a then the perfect match. When you get to the corner of the garage it is a perfect match. Even the branches of the bush match perfectly. Then to go to the center portion—which is at the upper part Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. White, could you go over to the exhibit point out these matches? and Mr. Wuire. All right. What I was referring to here—notice that the shadow s all line up in one picture to the other. The post lines up. The fence palings all line up. The edge of the garage lines up. The branch es of the bush all line up. Going to the upper part of the picture, again 133-B is in brown and 133-A is in red, and I have inserted a slip of white paper under ‘the red to block out the brown. Notice here the steps line up perfectly. The post lines up. This shadow lines up. Coming across, this post lines up perfectly. The edge garage lines up here perfectly. Even the shadow along of the from the edge of the roof of the garage lines up perfectly. So I think we can safely say that the background of 133-B, is in brown, is identical to the background of 133-A, which which is in red. They have to be from a single camera viewpoint. If the camera moved side-to-side or up and down, you would not have such a Match because you would have a different perspective. er GENZMAN. Mr. White, are the backgrounds exactly the same’ Mr. Wuirr. There are a few very minor discrepancie Stance, between A and B—it doesn’t show here s. For in- but over here it does—there is one reference point in the background which is so minutely out of adjustment that either the camera moved upward a fraction of an inch or downward a fraction of an the two. But there is absolutely no side-to-side movem inch between camera between the three pictures. ent of the If you will notice right here, there is a highlight on the house just beyond this stairway post. It is the corner of a bright sunlit highlight on the corner of the house. It is exactl y nere, here and here in all three photos. If the camerathe same size side to side or up and down significantly, you would had moved not have the 328 exact same foreground to background relationship between the post in the foreground and the corner of the house in the background. A very slight difference in movement would completely change the ee: of perspective and you would not see three identical high- ights. Mr. GENZMAN. What might have caused the slight discrepancy which you mentioned? Mr. Wuirte. I can only think of two things and this is only speculation, of course. Being an artist myself, I recognized with everything else virtually identical in the picture, an artist fabricat- ing this picture could have manipulated the background of this — photograph A—or B for that matter, but I think it was A. All the area that is very slightly moved has straight edges around it—the stairway, the post, the fence and this post. It would be a very simple matter with a razor blade to slice this along these straight lines and move it up or down. Now, the other possibility is, and it perhaps is a little more likely than that one, that instead of this being a single identical, original background print, there could have been more than one back- ground print, but they all had to be taken from a fixed point like a tripod, or perhaps a camera resting on a car door or in the alley- ay. If the camera was on a tripod, all the backgrounds would be | identical so it would not make any difference how many they took. But if there was somebody driving through the alleyway and they paused long enough to rest the camera on the cardoor, then I can understand how the camera did not move at all side to side and therefore all of these reference points are identical, but possibly the camera tilted a fraction of an inch up or down in the taking, and therefore you might have had a different reference point here. This reference point I am referring to is the roofiine of the house in the distant background. This post in the foreground, as related to the roofline in the background, would have varied widely if the camera had moved any significant distance. In fact, over the years researchers have taken thousands of photographs of this same situation. After viewing many of these photographs, including some made by the Dallas Police and FBI, as well as by numerous private researchers, and even though these people tried to find the exact same viewpoint of this photograph; by checking the foreground and background relationships I determined that no one could find this exact same spot. I have yet to see a photograph that had this reference point the same and that reference point the same, even though people were trying to find the location from which this photograph was made. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, did you testify earlier that the heads of these individuals in the backyard photographs are identical? Mr. White. Yes. Mr. GENZMAN. In making this determination, which photographs did you study? Mr. Wuirte. I studied 133-A and 133-B, because up until 1975 I did not have 133-C, and when I did, it was only a magazine tpt ott so I did not have a very good quality print to work with. 329 Mr. GENzMAN. At this time would you please refer to the JFK exhibits marked as F-270, F-392, and F-393. Mr. Chairman, JFK exhibit F-270 was previously introduced into the record. I would ask that JFK exhibits F-392 and F-393 be entered into the record at this time. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, they may be entered in the record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisit F-392 JFK Exuisit F-393 331 Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, would you identify these exhibits? Mr. Wuite. Well, as I said, this one has previously been entered. The two exhibits here, 392 and 393, are artwork that I prepar my study of these two photographs. ed in Now these are what are called the 3-M color keys. They are red and blue transparencies of photographs 133-A and 133-B. Mr. GENzMAN. Would you point out on these exhibits how you determined that the heads are identical? Mr. Wuite. Well, I started it out with the prints of the two photos that I ordered from the National Archives. I then made photocopies of them and printed them to the same exact head measurement, the top of the head to the bottom of the chin, so that the head measurements would be the same. I then took these two prints to a photoengraver who shot a halftone negative and converted the photos to these red and blue prints that you see. Mr. GENZMAN. Could you lift up the enlarged overlay to show each head? Mr. WHITE. Yes. As you see here, entirely in red is the head on 133-B. Entirely in blue is the head on 133-A. Mr. GENZMAN. Do the heads match exactly? Mr. Wuite. The heads match identically with one minor excep- tion which I will point out. All around the hair matches—the outside and inside edges of the hair. The eyebrows, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the nose shadow, the chin, all match exactly. There is no variation. However, the lips do vary. On 1383-B notice the lips seem to be turned downward in a frown, and yet on 133-A, which is the blue one, the lips are turned upward in a smile. Now I am no expert in anatomy or physiognomy or whatever you want to call it, but my impression is that lips are connected to the face. I have tried this experiment in the mirror, and you can, too. Look in a mirror you will see if you change your lips from a smile to a frown other features on your face change. It is virtuall y impossible to move your lips without moving other features on your face. Mr. GENZMAN. Why would there be this difference? Mr. Wuirte. I believe the original photo is probably the smiling Photo. You can see strong evidence of retouching on B. I believe the lips on 133-B have been retouched so that the face would not appear to be absolutely identical to the other photo. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, did you testify earlier that in each eccyard photograph one man’s head is attached to another man’s ody’ Mr. Wuite. Yes. Mr. GENzMAN. Where were these attachments made? Mr. Wuire. Well, as Professor Blakey indicated in his narration, it is widely believed that the splice occurs in the line straight across the chin under the lip. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask that JFK exhibit marked “F-394” be entered into the record. Chairman Sroxes. Without objection it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 332 JFK Exnuisit F-394 333 Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. White, would you explain this exhibit? Mr. Wuire. This is another exhibit that I prepared. In the center you see the Dallas police mugshot of Lee Harvey Oswald. On the left side you see the face from 133-A. On the right side you see the face from 133-B. All these head sizes have been printed to the same size. Notice the chin on the Dallas police mugshot is a rather pointed chin with a slight dimple or cleft in it. You will notice the same thing on this other Dallas police photo of Oswald in custody on exhibit F-270. Yet, if we examine any of the faces in 133-A, B, or C, we see that the Oswald in the backyard photos has a broad, square, flat looking chin with no cleft or no sharp point to it. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, did you analyze the shadows cast by the figures in the backyard photographs? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. GENZMAN. Did you find any peculiarities? Mr. WuiteE. Yes, several. Mr. GENZMAN. Would you please refer again to exhibit 391? That is the three sections of the overlays of A and B. Mr. White. Yes. _ Mr. Genzman. Can you explain the top display of this exhibit? Mr. Wuire. Yes. Again, this is the same exhibit we saw before in which 133-B is a brown picture and 133-A is a red transparency overlay to the same head size over the brown picture. In 133-A you will notice that the shadow of the nose of Oswald goes directly to ‘the center of his lips. Notice that in 133-B, the shadow of the nose goes directly to the center of the lips. Yet when we overlay these two pictures, we find that the head has tilted 4 degrees approxi- mately from the A picture to the B picture. Yet the nose shadow moves as the head tilts. In other words, in both pictures the nose shadow goes directly to the center of the mouth whereas when he tilted his head 4 degrees, the constant direction of the sunlight should have caused the shadow to move. As you can see in A by this red arrow here, the sunlight coming in this direction would cause the shadow to fall to the center of the lips. Yet, as he tilts his head, the sun would have had to move in the sky 4 degrees to compensate for the tilt of his head. All other Shadows in the picture are identical. Notice the shadow on the post under the stairway. It exactly overlays from one picture to the other. This stairway shadow has not changed, and yet this nose shadow moved as the head moved. Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. Chairman, on this I would ask that JFK exhibit F-395 be entered in the record. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 41-371 O - 79 - 22 Vol. 2 F-39 Exui JFK 335 Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. White, would you identify exhibit 395? Mr. Wire. Yes. This is another piece of art that I prepared. It consists of pictures A, B, and C all printed to the same background size. The main difference you notice in them, besides the fact that I have cropped some off the sides, is that I have positioned them according to the vertical reference points; in other words, you notice that some are higher or lower than others. Now I have positioned them so that the same point in the back- ground is along the horizontal line in the three pictures. Mr. GENzMAN. Did you notice any peculiarities on the shadows of these pictures? _ Mr. Wuire. Yes. If you consider each photograph as if you are ooking at the face of a clock, it is quite obvious that in 133-A the 3round shadow of the figure is pointing to 10 o’clock. In 133-B, the ground shadow is pointing to 12 o’clock. In 133-C the shadow is again pointing to 10 o’clock, but even though the figure is shorter, t is casting a longer shadow; in fact, the shadow goes 6 or 7 inches 4p the fence. Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you. Mr. White, did you analyze the position of the body in backyard ohotograph A? Mr. WHITE. Yes. , Mr. GENZMAN. Did you make a determination as to the body stance in 133-A? Mr. Wuire. Yes, I think the body stance is in position out of valance with the background. If you compare the verticals in the yackground to the balance point of the body, you find that the igure could not be possibly standing in that position because it is gut of balance. If you make a parallel line from the center of the thin that is parallel to this post in the background, you find that she point of balance falls approximately 3 to 4 inches outside the veight-bearing foot. You can try this yourself by suspending a jlumb bob from your chin and in order to get it to fall at a point 8 mr 4 inches outside your weight-bearing foot, you will be off balance ind you will fall over. Mr. GENZMAN. Based on this analysis, what is your conclusion as 0 whether the figure is part of the background or whether it has een superimposed on the background? Mr. Wuiter. This is what led to my conclusion that the figures lave been superimposed over the background. In other words, if it $s impossible for a person to stand in that position in that back- round, then the figure had to be photographed independently and hen pasted, if you will, or superimposed photomechanically on a lank backyard photograph. Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you, Mr. White. Would you return to your eat. Mr. White, based on all of your findings, is it your conclusion hat the backyard photographs are fakes? Mr. Wuirte. Yes. Mr. Genzman. Based on your expertise, how do you think these hotographs came into being? Mr. Wuite. Well, the way I visualize is very similar to someone oming to our advertising agency with a job they want done. I hink that possibly somebody came to a sophisticated art and 336 graphics department of some sort and they had several ingredients with them that they wanted made into a composite photo. They had with them a backyard photo with no person in it. They had a single ID-type photograph of the person we know as Lee Harvey Oswald. They had a couple of Communist newspapers. They had a pistol and they had a rifle. And just suppose that I am this art department that they have come to, I can visualize some one saying to me “Here are these articles. I want them put togeth: er into a composite photograph. The person’s face you have here, ] want him to be holding the guns and the newspapers and then | want the figure superimposed on this background.” Well, being in graphics, I recognize that there are several tech niques to do this, but it is not a simple matter. In order for out firm to do this, we would go to outside experts probably. We woulc go to an art studio or some firm which specializes in photographic composites. This is not something that could be done by someone with just a few weeks or a few months training. It would require the skill of a highly technical expert artist and photomechanica. technician. And the steps that would be undertaken I visualize as being this. You have the blank backyard photograph, but you neec to have a figure to put in it. So either in a studio or in ar appropriate lighting in an outdoor situation, you photograph some one holding the gun and the newspapers in various poses. O: course, this person in my opinion was not Lee Harvey Oswald bu' some photographer’s model. Once these photographs, which were taken against a blank o1 white background, were completed, then an artist superimposec copies of the face on the various bodies in the place of the face o the real person who was photographed holding these objects. A that point some retouching was done. A mask was made which—b “mask” I mean an amberlith outline of the figure and the gun th is to be superimposed on the background. Then through a sophist cated technique called matting, a negative and a positive wer made of this mask, and one of these was used to outline the figur the other was used to knock out of the background—the area to b double printed with the figure holding the gun. Then through the use of this pin register system to make sur the two images match exactly, the figure was printed onto th background. All this was done in a large size, I would estimate 1 by 20 inches. If we were doing the job, we would work with a 16 b 20 yearn even though the final results were going to be rathe small. | Once this double-printing of the image into the backgroun occurs, then final retouching has to occur, and I think this is wher the shadows were added. The ground shadows, in my estimatio from having examined them closely, are airbrushed onto the bac ground with transparent watercolor over the existing grass. By the way, at the time that these pictures were made, there 1 no grass on the ground in Dallas, and there are no leaves on th trees. The date of these pictures supposedly is March 29. I live i Texas, and I see the trees come out. It is usually late April befo you have this amount of foliage on the grass, the bushes, and t trees. So I think the shadows were added by transparent retouc 337 ing, just as the British photo expert said on the film we saw a while ago. Some of the shadows were added improperly. For instance, the shadow of the post by the head of the figure on B is much wider than the same shadow on A. And also as he pointed out, when they cut their airbrush frisket, the knife must have slipped because the post becomes crooked in B and it is not crooked in A. Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you, Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my questioning. Chairman Stoxss. The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. White, when did you first form the opinion that the Oswald »vackyard pictures are fake? Mr. Wuite. You mean an exact date? Mr. Gotpsmitu. No, roughly. Mr. Wuire. I would say about 5 years ago. Mr. GotpsmitH. And that was after how many years of study of shese photographs? Mr. Wuire. Well, I have been studying them and looking at chem, say, for 15 years. I did not start these tests and prepare the artwork you see here until anywhere from 3 to 5 years ago. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. You have been looking at these photographs for ‘pproximately 15 years and approximately 5 years ago you reached he conclusion? Mr. Wuirte. About 5 years ago, I ordered copies of the prints from he National Archives in order to make a more detailed study. *revious to that, I had only seen work that other researchers had lone, such as Fred Newcomb and some others. Mr. Go.tpsmitu. Examining the photographs, how many factors uggesting that they are fake were you able to find, again just sstimating? Mr. Wuire. I haven’t made a count, but I would say 10 to 12 at east. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Now you indicate that you found at least 10 to 2 factors. Mr. Wuite. I would guess at that. Mr. Go.psmitu. In light of that, do you regard the fakery that tas allegedly been done here to be sophisticated or crude? Mr. Wuirtt. It is sophisticated. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Have you ever examined the original exhibits? sy that I mean the original first generation of prints of 133-A and }and the original negative? Mr. Wuirer. No. I have only seen the DeMohrenschildt picture in he original. Mr. GotpsmiTu. So as to exhibits 133-A and B you have never xamined the first-generation print and you have never examined ne original negative; is that correct? Mr. Wuirr. That is true. I have only the prints that were fur- ished me by the National Archives. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Do you know what generation prints they were? y that I mean if someone were to take a picture of 133-A or B, aat would now be a second-generation print? Mr. Wuirte. That is right. 338 Mr. GotpsmiTH. And if someone were to take a picture of that, it would be a third-generation print and so on? Mr. WHITE. True. Mr. GOLDSMITH. The materials you were given, do you know what generation they were? Mr. Wuite. I have no way of knowing. I would presume that they were the next generation after what the exhibit is in the National Archives. That is just a presumption. I have no way of knowing. Mr. GotpsmitH. And prior to that, when you indicated that you had thought that these photographs were fake, this was based upon the work done by other people; is that correct? Mr. Wuirte. Yes, on things I had seen in various books, maga- zines, and so forth. Mr. Go.tpsmiTH. And these things that you had seen in various magazines and books, were they the first-generation prints? Mr. White. I have no idea. Mr. GOLDSMITH. You must have an idea, because if they were in a magazine or in a book, could it possibly have been a first-genera- tion print? Mr. WuirTeE. Oh, no; obviously not. Mr. GoLpsMmITH. Have you ever had occasion to take the original negative from 133-B and analyze it with a computer by a technique called “digital image processing’? | Mr. Wuite. No, obviously not. | Mr. Gotpsmir. Mr. White, I have in front of me a pamphlet that you put together for the committee. | Mr. Wui+re. Yes. | Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Do you recognize this? Mr. White. Yes. Mr. GoLDsMITH. On page 31 of that pamphlet, I regret that we d not have this in exhibit form. I see that you have it in front of you Mr. Whiter. Page what? Mr. Gotpsmi1TH. Thirty-one. Mr. WHITE. Oh, yes. Mr. GouLpsmiITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed i by Oswald’s body and also by his rifle; is that correct? Mr. Wuire. Yes. Mr. Go.tpsmitH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photo graphed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against th image in the photograph? Mr. White. No. Mr. GoLpsMITH. When you measured the object in this photo graph, what did you do beyond using the ruler? Mr. Wuite. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Ob viously I did not take into consideration any perspective whic might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measure ment of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of th head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt Mr. Go.tpsmitH. Without giving any account to other factors: Mr. Wuite. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective We don’t know how close the rifle is to his body. We don’t kno how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtuall 339 mpossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspec- ive of this photograph. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Have you had any training in analytical photo- ‘rrammetry? Mr. White. No. Mr. GotpsmitH. Have you had any formal training in forensic vhotography? Mr. Waite. No. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Have you had any formal training in the study if shadows in photographs? Mr. Wuirte. No. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. White, if the picture is authentic, would you ‘xpect all the shadows cast by objects in that picture to line up yarallel to each other? ‘Mr. Waite. I am no expert on that. I wouldn’t have any conclu- jon unless you pointed some specific reference to me. Mr. GotpsmitH. Are you familiar with the concept known as vanishing point’’? Mr. Wuire. Oh, yes. Mr. GotpsmituH. When you studied these photographs did you use he vanishing point concept to analyze the shadows? Mr. Wuire. Not as such. I didn’t see any pointin using a vanish- ng point to analyze shadows. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. White, drawing your attention to the right a of photographs 133-A and B, did you detect any retouching here? | |Mr. Wuite. I didn’t really pay much attention to the marginal dges. I was mostly concerned with things in the center of the icture. _Mr. Gotpsmir. At this point I would ask that Mr. White be iven the original of 133-A and B. Do you have those before you now, Mr. White? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. Gotpsmitu. I would like to refer your attention now to the rea to Oswald’s left in the two photographs. Mr. Wuite. Yes. Mr. Go.psmitu, If you look at the area that I am pointing to at ae exhibits, I would ask you to examine that same area in the riginal photographs. Mr. Wuitt. Yes, I see what you are referring to. Mr. GotpsmitH. Are those shadows the same in each back- round? Mr. Wuirt. It appears to be some sort of imperfection. I can’t tell ’ ae it is a shadow or not. They don’t appear to be the same 1ough. Mr. Gotpsmitu. I would now like to draw your attention to a 2ctangle that appears in the picket fence in each photograph, and you look at the chart, I will point it out to you, here, and right ver here. Mr. Wuirte. OK. ‘Mr. Gotpsmiru. Did you ever measure that rectangle in those v0 photographs to see if the measurements were the same? Mr. Wuirte. No. 340 Mr. GoitpsmitH. When you examined the backyard photographs and used the transparency overlay technique, in addition to that, did you ever actually conduct any measurements? Mr. Wuirte. Of what? Mr. Gouipsmitu. Of different parts in the background to see if the measurements of those parts correspond to each other? Mr. Wuirte. No. However, I can say that I examined the parts of the photograph in relation to each other, and I recognized that in the darkroom technique employed to make these photographs appear to be shot at different perspectives, that certain darkroom techniques like easel-tilt were used which changed the measure- ments. Mr. Go.psmitH. Now I understand that you have examined them, but again you haven’t measured them? Mr. Wuirte. That is true, I have not measured them, but there are measurable differences, I would agree. However, this is not necessarily—— , Mr. Go.tpsmitH. Mr. White, I would ask you simply to confine your answer to my question, so please wait until my next question, sir. ; Now you made reference in your testimony earlier to two whit portions that appear on the left side of each photograph. I a going to point them out to you now. I believe this is one; is that correct? Mr. WHITE. Yes. No, it is higher than that, right up there, right there, yes. Mr. GoLpsmiITH. And up here? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. GotpsmitTH. Did you ever measure those parts of the photo graph to see if they were consistent with each other or if ther were measurable differences? Mr. WuitE. You mean with a ruler? Mr. GOLDSMITH. With a ruler or any other technique? Mr. Wuirte. Well, I measured them with an overlay technique i which they appeared to be the same. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Did you measure them by any unit? Mr. Wuite. No, not with a ruler or any unit of measurement Mr. GoupsmitH. Mr. White, you have made reference to severa points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald’s head i disproportionately—— I withdraw the question. That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photo graphs in light of the head size; is that correct? Mr. Wuire. Yes. Mr. GoupsmiTH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photo} grammetrically the effect of an object’s tilt on its apparent length in the photograph? | Mr. Wuite. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don’t indulge in tha} sort of thing. | Mr. GouipsmitH. Mr. White, I realize you are not a scientis Do you know whether scientists consider the use of transparenc overlays to be a good way of detecting differences between so edged images? Mr. White. I have no way of knowing that. 341 Mr. Gotpsmitn. Thank you very much. I have no further questions, Mr. White. Chairman Stokes. The Chair recognizes Mr. Genzman. Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, have you analyzed any rifle photo- graphs connected with the Kennedy assassination? Mr. White. Yes. Mr. GENZMAN. What caused you to do this analysis? Mr. Wuire. I was led to this through my study of CE-133-A and B. Once I had determined to my satisfaction that these were fabri- cated photographs, I wanted to see if I could identify the rifle in the photographs as being the rifle in any other photographs in any of the Warren Commission literature. Mr. GENZMAN. At this time would you please refer to JFK exhib- ts marked F-208 and F-396? Mr. Chairman, JFK exhibit F-208 was previously introduced into che record. I would ask at this time that JFK exhibit F-396 be introduced nto the record. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the -ecord at this point. , {The information follows:] SAME DISTANCE at. BR a A pe? NOT* SAME DISTANCE _ jus aye AAS ps nn eee mae sa eps JFK Exuisit F-396 Mr. GenzMAN. Mr. White, could you go over to the exhibits— Mr. White. Yes, sir. Mr. GENZMAN [continuing]. Specifically, JFK exhibit F-208, a explain it. Mr. Wuitsr. JFK exhibit F-208 is my very earliest attempt 1 analyze the rifle in CE-133-A and compare it to other photograp of the rifle. Mr. GENZMAN. Would you identify the various rifles displayec Mr. Wuirr. Yes. They are labeled “a” through “g” over on t right-hand side. Photograph “a” is a print from exhibit CE-133-A; photograr “bh” is exhibit 139 in the Warren Commission report, which th report tells us is the assassination weapon; “c” is another Man licher-Carcano rifle that I wanted to compare with all of these; “¢ is erroneously labeled ‘“Oswald’s Rifle (Bolt Is Open);” this phot} graph I took out of the book “Six Seconds in Dallas.” I learng later, much later than this exhibit was prepared, that this is nf 343 Jswald’s rifle, according to the 26 volumes. This is called “Replica of Oswald’s Rifle,” so therefore this labeling is erroneous. Never- theless it makes a good comparison with the other rifles because it 's another Mannlicher-Carcano. Photograph “e”—this is Lieutenant Day’s hand here, as he walks mut on to Elm Street from the school book depository carrying the ‘ifle. Now, this photograph has been reversed photographically by lopping the negative when it was printed just so it would be in the ‘ight orientation with the other photographs. You are actually eeing the opposite side of the gun. Photograph “f’’—again this is Lieutenant Day’s hand holding the ‘ifle up, on the third floor of the jail the night of the assassination so that the newspaper people could photograph it. Photograph “g” is from Dallas Police Chief Curry’s book, and his is the Dallas police file photo of the gun said to be the assassi- aation weapon. easure in the picture there. So based on this, I assumed, perhaps "rroneously, that all Mannlicher-Carcanos are 40.2 inches long. So n the darkroom, as I printed each of these negatives, I printed hem each to an identical length from muzzle to butt. Mr. GENzMAN. What did you determine from this study? Mr. Wuire. Well, I determined very little actually. The first hing that I determined, that has not later been proved wrong, is hat the gun in photograph 133-A seems identical in every respect 0 the gun “g” which is the Dallas police file photo. Other than hat, I found that most of the reference points through which I xtended vertical lines could not be made to line up. So I was eally rather baffled by this because I couldn’t understand why the farious reference points shouldn’t line up. Mr. GENZMAN. Besides your determination that the backyard ifle matched the Dallas police rifle, would you characterize your sults as inconclusive? Mr. WuiTte. Yes. | ' Mr. GENzMAN. Mr. White, what was your next analytical step? Mr. Wuite. About a year passed between this study and my next me, because I was rather baffled by all this, and | really didn’t mow where to go from there, until a point in time when a re- '-3896? Mr. Wuite. OK. | Once I received this photo of the Archive rifle and studied it in onnection with some of the others, I had what you might call a pes tcrT; after hearing some rifle experts talk. When I appeared ‘efore Senator Schweiker and the Church committee, I talked to ‘ome rifle experts. They said frequently when somebody buys an Id war surplus weapon like this, the first thing he does is modify he stock to fit his physique. Therefore the thought dawned on me fat the wooden stock is changeable. Mr. Genzman. Did you line up the metal parts? 344 Mr. White. Yes. I made prints where the metal parts of the rifle, that is, from the muzzle to the trigger guard, were all identical lengths. Mr. GENZMAN. After lining up the metal parts, what did you determine about these stocks? Mr. Wuirte. I determined that the butts were different lengths after lining up the metal parts. Mr. GENZMAN. Does the photograph at the bottom demonstrate this discrepancy in the length of the stocks? Mr. Wuitr. Yes. Here we have the Archive rifle printed a brown, the Warren report rifle printed in red; all the way from the muzzle through all the metal parts, in fact all the way to the comb, which is this little notch in the stock of rifle. All of that matches exactly. Only from here back, less than one-fifth length of the rifle, does not match. Mr. GENZMAN. Briefly what did you determine from your study? Mr. Wuire. It is my opinion that we have been shown by the authorities more than one gun as being the assassination weapon. Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you, Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman Stokes. Mr. Goldsmith? Mr. Go.tpsmiTH. Mr. White, I just have one question. Mr. Wuite. All right. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. When you did this study, did you compute photo- grammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph? Mr. Wuiter. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different—— Mr. GoupsmiTH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you com- pute photogrammetrically—— Mr. Wuite. What is “photogrammetrically’? Describe to me what “photogrammetrically’’ is. Mr. Go.LpsmiTH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is? Mr. Wuirte. No. Mr. Go.tpsmiTu. I have no further questions. Thank you. Chairman SToKEs. The committee will recess until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon. Mr. FiruHian. Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKEs. Yes, proceed. Mr. FirHiAn. Will Mr. White be back after the recess? Chairman SToKEs. He will be back. Mr. FiruHian. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the select committee was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.] AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. FITHIAN. The committee will come to order. I will ask Mr. White to take the stand. While he is doing that, let me explain where we are before the House now. Apparently, in about 12 minutes or so the resolution for the funding of this committee will be considered. During that time, of course, the members of the committee will need to be on the floor 345 nd there will be a recess. It is not anticipated that that will be a ng eaten Then, I believe, Mr. Blakey, we will reconvene and roceed. Mr. Goldsmith, I believe, has just a couple of more questions. I i two very brief ones, and so, a matter of 4 or 5 minutes, Mr. Thite. Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. White, actually I have no further questions ) ask you. I would simply like to make a few comments and they re as follows: The committee is very much aware of the assistance 1at you have offered to us. We are aware of the work that you ave performed in this field and the committee is thankful for the ork of people such as yourself who have served greatly to assist s in identifying the issues in the area of the photographic evi- 2nce that need to be resolved. I might add that at least I am aware that at some time you ‘rved as a consultant to this committee, and although you are not ; this time affiliated with the committee’s photographic evidence anel, that your work has been made available to that panel for 1alysis. In that regard I would simply state, were it not for people ich as yourself, this committee would probably not be here today camining the scientific issues. . Again, sir, I would like to thank you very much. TESTIMONY OF JACK D. WHITE—Resumed Mr. Wuite. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to present lis as a private citizen who has no large budget to work with. I n just an ordinary person who has observed lots of things and I n really here to present questions rather than answers. Mr. Gotpsmitu. We appreciate that. Again, thank you. Mr. Firuian. Mr. White, you are in a professional advertising isiness, right? Mr. Wuitr. Yes, sir. Mr. Firnian. My contacts with that business have been usually ared to certain times of the even-numbered years, but I believe it correct to say that people doing outdoor advertising and doing ochure layouts, et cetera, would turn us down cold in their own ofessional work if we sent them second, third, or fourth genera- mn material and they would insist on first generation material; 1't that correct? Mr. Wuitr. Yes. You would be better off using originals. In my sts, as I told the committee, I had no large budget to work with. all my studies I made use of materials that were available to a Mr. FirHian. But in your professional work you would always sh for first generation? Mr. Wuitr. Yes, I recommended to the committee that they cure originals, the closest generation original to all of these ings to study. Mr. Firnian. You have anticipated my second question, then, lich was just again to clarify the record. [ was sure, being the professional that you are, that you would t have sought or asked for third generation films. Mr. Wuite. Definitely not. 346 Mr. Firuian. Did the National Archives ever tell you which generation you received? | Mr. Wuire. I didn’t ask. I asked for the best copy I could get of CE-133-A and CE-133-B. Mr. FiTHiAn. In your experience in commercial art, I take it it would make a difference certainly along the edge lines and the soft edges as I think the term is used, it would make a difference which generation of print was used and how sharp the clarity of the things were? There is a quality difference, isn’t there? Mr. Wuitr. That depends. In some cases there is and in some cases it is negligible. The most noticeable difference of the photo- copy from the original is in contrast. You hardly ever in a good photocopy will lose significant detail, but you will increase contrast so that the dark areas are generally darker and the light areas are generally lighter. | Mr. Firni1an. Mr. Thone, this conludes my questions of the wit- ness. Do you have any questions? Mr. THONE. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Firuian. Mr. White, it is the custom of this committee to: permit the witness at the conclusion of his or her testimony an additional 5 minutes to clarify, amplify or modify or comment on any testimony. We would offer you that time now. Mr. Wuite. I don’t have too much to say except to thank the committee. There was one area of questioning which I had hoped to get into, which because of the shortness of time before lunch I was not permitted to go into. That is the question of the DeMohrenschildt picture. The DeMohrenschildt picture shows a much larger amount o background around the edges than any of the photographs, 133-A, B or C. To me this indicates that the DeMohrenschildt picture is printed full negative. In fact, we can verify this because it is printed with a black border around the edge, the black border being the clear area around the edge of the negative. According to the FBI, the picture, CE-133-B, was identified as being taken with Oswald’s camera because it could be matched to the film plane aperture. Yet if the DeMohrenschildt picture shows a larger background area and it is taken from the same camera viewpoint, then 133-A, B and C have all been cropped and, there- fore, if there is more background area in the picture, then it could not possibly be matched to the film plane aperture. Other than that, I have no additional comments. Mr. Firuian. Thank you, Mr. White. You are excused. We want to thank you for coming today. Mr. Wuirte. Thank you. Mr. Firnian. Professor Blakey. Mr. Buaxey. Mr. Chairman, I would note one thing for the record before making a comment. Proving the universal usefulness of the eraser on a pencil and thus its applicability to, me and I suppose to committee staff as to all others, I have had drawn to my attention what I hope is a typographical error in the narration this morning. When I was discussing the conclusions of Mr. Shaneyfelt, as to the first conclusion, I indicated that he had determined that the 347 on irregularities on the negative of 133-A were identical, et tera. I should have—and I express my regrets to the committee and ose who listened—I have said 133-B. I apologize for my error. ‘Mr. Chairman, if it would be appropriate on this occasion to ake two additional comments: The committee sought testimony om a number of people who had special expertise in the area of aotographic analysis and had taken public positions on the forged fake character of the backyard photographs. One individual Beeted on the BBC program shown this morning. In August a representative from the committee talked with Mr. 1omson in Edinburgh, Scotland concerning his examination of the ickyard photographs and the conclusions he drew as a result. He as shown various technical reports compiled by the committee’s 1otographic evidence panel which addressed the issue of the au- enticity of their backyard photos and was asked to comment, and addition, offered an opportunity to appear before the committee id express his views. After studying the reports, Mr. Thomson deferred to the panel’s nclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of faking, ting the thoroughness of their investigation and emphasized that € opinions he expressed earlier were based on examination of pies of photographs, not the original negatives and first genera- m prints as had been the case in the photographic panel analysis ocess. Mr. Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion on the chin in the ickyard pictures which is suspiciously different from the chin he id observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He also mained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect a 1otocopy composite photograph. In addition, the CBC program of “Fifth Estate’ included com- ents from J. M. Pickard, a photographic expert with the Depart- ent of Defense in Canada. Mr. Pickard was asked about his public inions that the photographs were fake. He indicated to the committee staff that he spent less than 1 ur in preparing for the public airing of his comments and he ade no scientific analysis of the photographs before offering his iblic opinion. Mr. Pickard was not available to testify here today. In light of the impending vote, Mr. Chairman, it might be appro- late to take a recess at this time and come back to the photo- aphic panel this afternoon. Mr. FiruHian. Let the Chair note that I am advised that the nding resolution has now been called up on the floor. For those you who plan to join the hearings later this afternoon, it is my igment, though I could be wrong, that it will not be a long bate, although I suspect from the vantage point of the committee serious one. If you are watching clocks or bells in the building or even in this om, in all probability the first two bells or two light signals will the vote on the final passage of the funding resolution. We do t anticipate any amendments to the resolution. My Therefore, if you want to gear or time your own activity, I would ess you can probably tell when the next two lights go on that at will be a vote. There will be a 15 minute voting period follow- 348 ing that and the committee should be then back in session within 15 minutes of the next two bells. If you want to be very scientific about it, dial 57400 and find out whether or not that is the final passage vote. : The committee stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair I am told that we might be done by 2:30 p.m. : [A brief recess was taken.] Chairman SToKEs. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. Buakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Early in 1978 the committee convened a panel of experts wit varied backgrounds in the photographic sciences to study all phot graphic evidence related to the assassination. The panel’s expertis included: Analog photographic enhancement, digital image process- ing, photogrammetry, photo interpretation and forensic photogra phy. Resolving the controversy of the backyard photographs was prime objective. Because the quantity of material to be examined was large, th technical projects were contracted to several laboratories. Th photo-optical, analog enhancement work was done by a team o professors at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The imag processing work was done by the University of Southern Californi Image Processing Institute, the University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, and the Aerospace Corporation. The photographic panel met with representatives of the laborato- ries in February 1978. The analytical work began in March an proceeded, subject to the panel’s review, until mid-July. The most advanced technology available to the committee w applied to the photographic evidence. In addition to the origin negative and first generation prints of exhibits 183-A and B exam ined by the Warren Commission, the panel examined the firs generation prints obtained from Dees, De Mohrenschildt and St vall. The additional prints allowed a more comprehensive investi gation than that of the Warren Commission. Two representatives of the photographic panel are here today t present the panel’s findings: Mr. Calvin S. McCamy whom th committee has heard from previously and Sergeant Cecil W. Kirk Sergeant Kirk has served 17 years with the Identification Branc of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. He supervises th branch’s mobile crime laboratory and the Photographic Service Sergeant Kirk has studied forensic photography at the Universi4 ty of Louisville Southern Police Institute, the FBI Academy, an the University of Maryland. He has received the Photographi Craftsman Degree from the Professional Photographers of Amer ica. 349 the Evidence Photographers International Council and who I hould note, Mr. Chairman, has been extremely helpful to this committee in producing photographs in connection with these hear- ings. Mr. McCamy received his B.S. degree in chemical engineering and an M.S. degree in physics from the University of Minnesota. He has taught mathematics at the University of Minnesota and physics at Clemson University. For 18 years he was with the Na- tional Bureau of Standards where he was chief of the image optics and photography section. He is the author of the National Bureau of Standards handbook on the examination of microfilm. Currently he is vice president for service and technology of the Macbeth division of Kollmorgen Corp. _ Mr. McCamy is chairman of the photographic standards manage- ment board of the American National Standards Institute. That board is responsible for all photographic standardization activity in the United States, including such matters as ASA film speeds. He is also chairman of the standards committee of the American Soci- ety of Photogrammetry. Mr. McCamy is a fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, and the Soci- ety of Photographic Scientists and Engineers. He has served on the editorial review boards of several technical journals and has auth- ored numerous professional papers. He has, of course, already testi- fied before the committee. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate at this time to call Mr. McCamy and Sergeant Kirk. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls both of these gentlemen at this time. I am going to ask you to raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? TESTIMONY OF CALVIN S. McCAMY AND SGT. CECIL W. KIRK Mr. McCamy. I do. Sergeant Kirk. I do. Chairman Stokes. Thank you, you may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel, Mr. Genzman. Mr. GoutpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am going to be handling the questioning this afternoon. Chairman STOKEs. I am sorry. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Thank you. Sergeant Kirk, would you state for what purpose the committee’s photographic evidence panel was asked to examine the backyard photographs showing Lee Harvey Oswald and a rifle? Sergeant Kirk. To make a determination whether the photo- graphs were authentic or fakes. Mr. Gotpsmirtu. I would like to refer your attention to what has been marked as committee exhibit 178 which is the flow chart on the right. é I would like to ask you how many different backyard pictures showing Oswald with the rifle was the panel given to examine: 350 Sergeant Kirk. We examined the original 183-A and B and 133 negative which were examined by the Warren Commission. In | addition, we examined four additional photographs that were re- covered by investigators from this committee. Mr. GoupsMITH. Would you step to that chart and point to the other photographs that were investigated by the panel? Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this item. Chairman Stokes. Without objection it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 133-A NEGATIVE NOT RECOVERED de 33. rey an eas stovall re Tae 1336 * negative NEG LIVE Nor RECOVERED 0 1336 JFK Exuisit F-178 Sergeant Kirk. These are the two photographs that were sen over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Dallas Polic Department as a result of the execution of a search warrant on th Paine residence. In addition, they also turned over to the FBI thi photographic negative. These are the three elements that wer examined by the Warren Commission. In addition, the photograhic panel also was asked to examin 133-A, De Mohrenschildt, which was recovered by the committe investigator from the deceased estate of Mr. De Mohrenschildt, an also requested to examine 133-C, Dees, which has been establishe to be from a deceased Dallas police officer, and also asked to b examined 133-A, Stovall, and 133-C, Stovall, which was turne over to the investigators by retired Officer Stovall who execute the search warrant at the Paine residence. Mr. Go.tpsmiTuH. Are all the materials represented on that flo chart either original negatives or first generation prints? 351 Sergeant Kirk. The camera panel established that the 133-B /negative is the original camera negative material and all the other photographs on this chart are first generation prints. _ Mr. Go.psmitH. To what extent, if any, did the panel base its analysis upon materials that were not original negatives or first -generation prints? Sergeant Kirk. The panel agreed to only investigate first genera- tion prints and original negative material. Mr. GotpsmitH. What was the reason for the panel taking this ‘approach? Sergeant Kirk. When you move away from first generation mate- ‘rial, you lose in tonal quality. You are likely to pick up artifacts in the copying material and lose detail in the highlights and lose detail in the shadows. Mr. GotpsmitH. What do you mean by tonal quality, sir? Sergeant Kirk. Tonal quality is the full scale that the photo- igraphic film is able to give you in a photograph. If you copy a ‘photograph, you will lose some of that scale. Mr. GotpsmitH. Referring to that flow chart, can you explain why these pictures are not all the same size? Sergeant Kirk. They were produced by different mechanical “means. Mr. GotpsmiTu. Is there anything unusual about the differences ‘in size? Sergeant Kirk. No. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Thank you. Would you resume your seat at this point. I would ask that ‘Sergeant Kirk be given, to examine, the original negative to 133-B sand Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B. _ Sergeant Kirk, would you please identify the items that have just ‘been given to you? Sergeant Kirk. These are from the National Archives. They are ee original photographs that have been identified in the Warren Commission Report as 133-A and 133-B. This is the photographic speeative from the Archives. It is identified as the negative that produced 133-B. __ Mr. Go.tpsmitu. To your knowledge are these materials available ‘for anyone to examine? _ Sergeant Kirk. It is my understanding that anyone who wants to )walk into the Archives and has the proper identification can exam- ‘ine them, yes. Mr. Go.psmitH. I would ask at this time that what has been ‘marked as JFK F-179 and F-182 be shown to the witness. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of F-182. Mr. Dopp [presiding]. Without objection it is so ordered. [The information follows:] 352 Wl F383 -\. Z (A te Pappy) > avrege CEI33B (ye 2) JFK Exuisit F-182 Mr. GoLpsmitH. Thank you. Would you identify these two exhibits? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. They are true and accurate reproduc- tions of the front and reverse side of Commission exhibits 133-A and B. Mr. GotpsmitTu. You indicated earlier that the differences in size in these photographs as they are depicted in the flow chart is attributable to the manner in which they were produced. In your opinion, would you tell us now how Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B were produced? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. These were referred to in the panel as the drugstore prints. It was determined that they most likely were produced on a commercial printer, the type which we would find in processing houses that do printing for camera stores and drug- stores and so forth. The masking on the front, even though it looks square, is a 32d of an inch off. In the top lefthand corner you can see where the convertible mask and the automatic printer has come together. On the reverse side of the photograghs in the lefthand corner there is a little graphite mark almost obscured by someone who has written their initial and data on it. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mrs. Downey, would you take the pointer and refer to that mark? Sergeant Kirk. That graphite mark is placed on the automatic printer. It is used as a signal for the automatic cutter. When the roll of paper is processed, the automatic cutter has an electric eye that picks up the signal and tells it to cut the roll of paper up into snapshots. 353 |} Mr. GotpsmirTu. Examining these two prints, are you able to | state whether these two prints have been cropped in any way? 7 Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir, I can. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Have they been? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, they have. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Would you state your opinion as to in what way these prints have been cropped and for what purpose? Sergeant Kirk. Well, at that time of day or time of year or that year, people prefer white borders on their photographs. The crop- ping or masking is done in the printing process at the processing inouse to create a white border around the photograph. So the mask is somewhat smaller than the actual image size of ithe negative. Thusly, the cropping takes place for aesthetic pur- poses only. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. Now, you made reference to the negative in ront of you. Is there any indication that that negative was improp- erly processed? _ Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. The panel found that the negative had foeen abused in the process. Mr. Go.psmiTu. It was not properly processed? Sergeant Kirk. No, sir, it was not. Bee cPLnSMaTH, Would you indicate to what extent it had been abused‘ Sergeant Kirk. Originally there were emulsion tears. Emulsion is the substance of the photograph that contains the light sensitive grains of silver there suspended in the gelatin base. When the negative is becoming processed, it becomes wet, very sensitive to touch, very soft. We have on this negative torn emulsion. Also, there are probably some other artifacts that were entered onto the negative as it was processed, probably by hand or at least in something that was not designed to process film of this size. Also, there are indications that the negative has not been washed properly as there are water spots on the negative surface itself. Mr. GotpsmitH. Thank you, Sergeant Kirk. Now, according to the record, are these materials before you all the materials that the Warren Commission evaluated when the authenticity of backyard pictures was examined? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, it is. ; Mr. GoutpsmituH. At this time I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be iven JFK exhibits F-380 and F-390. For the record, those are the copies of 183-C, Dees and Stovall. Sergeant Kirk. This is a first generation print of the photograph shat was identified as 133-C which was recovered from Mrs. iGeneva Dees who is the widow of the deceased Dallas police officer, }Roscoe White. Mr. GotpsmiTH. You are referring now to JFK F-380? Sergeant Kirk. 380. Mr. Go.psmiTH. Would you now examine JFK F-390. Sergeant Kirk. This is identified as JFK F-390. It is also a first generation print from 133-C. This was recovered by committee mvestigators on April 14, 1978 from the retired Dallas police offi- cer, Richard Stovall. 354 Mr. GoutpsmiTH. You say both of these first generation prints were obtained by the committee from either Dallas police officers or a member of a family of a former Dallas police officer? Sergeant Kirk. That is correct. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Would the witness now be shown what has bee marked as JFK F-180. Sergeant Kirk, would you identify that exhibit? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. It is an enlargement from 133-C, Stovall identified as JFK-180. | Mr. GoupsmiTu. Mr. Chairman, I move that JFK F-180, and JFK F-390 be admitted to the record. Chairman Stokes. Without objection they are entered into the record. [JFK exhibit F-180 was entered previously.] Mr. Gotpsmitu. Sergeant Kirk, I would ask you to explain how these two 133-C prints were produced. Sergeant Kirk. Through close analysis of the two photographs we were able to establish that they were first generation prints. The negative that produced these prints suffered the same abuse as 133-B negatives and that we have emulsion tears, artifacts on thel film plane itself, rather than within the image. They are consider4 ably sharp, sharper than the image itself. | Also, there are other artifacts within the photograph that the panel believes or suggests that they are first generation prints. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Have these prints been cropped? | Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. | Mr. Go.tpsmitH. Are you able to state in what way, for what purpose, these have been cropped? Sergeant Kirk. The pictures are square and we have rectangula photographs. To make a full enlargement from a 24 negative, this} should have been an 8 by 8 photograph. Since we have an 8 by 10 | we did have cropping. | Mr. GotpsmiTH. Are you able to state whether the white border, which is an indication that the photograph has been cropped, we intended to serve an esthetic purpose? Sergeant Kirk. It looks as though the print was put into a conventional 8 by 10 print easel. Since the easel is smaller than an 8 by 10 image, it esthetically would create a white border. Mr. GotpsmiTH. According to the record, was either one of these prints ever provided to the Warren Commission? Sergeant Kirk. No, they were not. Mr. GotpsmitH. What about the original negative, was that pro- vided to the Warren Commission? Sergeant Kirk. No, it was not. Mr. Go.tpsmitTu. Has it been provided to this committee? Sergeant Kirk. No, it has not. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Do you know where the negative is today, Ser- geant Kirk? Sergeant Kirk. No, sir, I do not. Mr. Goupsmitu. Sergeant Kirk, it was your testimony that in your opinion these prints, which we have designated as 133-C,} which were in the possession of former Dallas police department} personnel, were made from the original negative? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. 355 Mr. Go.psmiTH. At this time I would ask that the wi iven JFK-183 and 184 to examine. bise sage Sergeant Kirk, would you identify that item? } Sergeant Kirk. It is not identified by number but it is the origi- nal photograph identified as 133-A, De Mohrenschildt. Mr. GotpsmiTH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given a chance to see what has been marked as JFK F-382 and F-383. Would you identify these two items? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir; they are a true and accurate representa- sion of the original photograph which is identified as 133-A, De Mohrenschildt. | On the left is the front or image side and on the right is the veverse side of that photograph. Mr. GotpsmiTH. In your opinion, Sergeant Kirk, how was that orint produced? Sergeant Kirk. This photograph is a contradiction. It is a contra- fiction in the fact that a good quality enlarger with good optics was used. The person who printed the photograph knew what they were doing when they exposed the paper, and made the enlarge- nent. The contradiction comes in because it has turned yellow. On the everse side almost in the center of the photograph is a big blob shat you see here, but on the original are yellow stains. This is ndicative that probably the photograph was exposed or enlarged ‘rom the negative by someone who knew what they were doing. But yet the person who was given the task of washing the print sither didn’t follow instructions or was never instructed on how to wash the print properly because the type of paper that was used ack in those days had fibers in it and the chemistry and water ninerals adhered to the fibers and it required an excessive long ime of washing. If it was not washed properly, once it dried it had i tendency for the chemical residue that was left in the paper to surn yellow. Mr. Go.psmITH. Has this print been cropped in anyway? Sergeant Kirk. No, sir; it was not. Mr. GoitpsmitH. How are you able to make that determination? Sergeant Kirk. I will have to walk over to the easel. Mr. GoLpsmMITH. Please do. Sergeant Kirk. This committee heard testimony earlier today aying that this was probably a full negative print as indicated by he black border. The panel agrees with that testimony. Normal orinting will give you the esthetic white border that you would jave in normal enlarging. UY A common negative carrier used for ths type of printing would e used to hold the negative. This would do some of the cropping hat we talked about. Since it is glass, it would allow you to lay a negative or a strip of egatives into the negative carrier to hold it flat which would 356 allow you, but would cause you, unless you cropped it by moving a mask around the paper. Again, this would probably indicate that the photo laboratory it was processed in did not have a paper easel small enough. ; So when the photograph was printed, you had the comple negative area plus a black border that was created by the unex posed part of the negative. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Is this an unusual way of producing a print? Sergeant Kirk. It is not unusual when you are limited in equi ment. This technique is used to do down and dirty prints wher you want the picture editors to be able to see the full image area s they can determine what final cropping is going to be used. It i unusual; you would not find this technique in a commercial print ing house, no, sir. Mr. Go.psmirtu. Is the absence of cropping in and of itself unusu al? Sergeant Kirk. Yes. Mr. GoutpsmituH. Why is that? Sergeant Kirk. Because normally people like to have white bor ders as I said for esthetic purposes. Unless they were forced to us a larger negative carrier because they did not have another one carrier. Chairman Sroxes. Counsel, will you identify for the record th exhibit the witness is testifying about? Mr. Go.psmiTH. The witness was given F-183 and F-184 whic was the original De Mohrenschildt print and he is now referring an enlargement of it as well which is JFK F-382 and F-383 Chairman Sroxgs. Thank you. Mr. Go.psmirtu. Sergeant Kirk, if you will remain standing, w will give you the next exhibit to examine. Could Sergeant Kirk given JFK F-398, and could an enlargement of it, marked JF F-185, be displayed? Sergeant, would you examine that item and identify it? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. This item marked as JFK F-185 is photograph recovered from retired police officer Richard F. Stovall. It was recovered on April 14, 1978, by committee investigators. It i identified on the flow chart as 133-A, Stovall. Mr. GouipsmitrH. This is the second Stovall photograph; is tha correct? Sergeant Kirk. That is right. Mr. Gouipsmiru. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of th exhibits. Chairman Stokes. Without objection they may be entered in the record at this point. (The information follows:] e-e-5 Suva | eb “2 a CO CO — & | — | € rT SN . O|. al at JFK Exuisit F-185 Mr. Go.tpsmitH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be given an »pportunity to examine JFK F-185. Sergeant, would you identify that exhibit? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. That is a photographic enlargement. It is in actual and accurate copy of 133-A, Stovall. Mr. GoipsmitH. Would you explain how the Stovall print was »roduced? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. This has some unusual artifacts on it as well to tell you it was made other than as a normal photograph vould be. I would draw your attention to the black circle and the ‘lack border that exists on the bottom of the photograph. This is 398 indicative of someone taking a sheet of 8 by 10 enlarging paper and cutting it in half into two 5- by 8-inch pieces of paper. We have established it was placed into a convertible easel known as a three-way easel. This is an air-quipt four-way, one which was in production and in use extensively in the country during 1963, The circle was caused by a popper which holds the bumper onto this easel, so that when it is used on the other side, these bumpers serve as feet and it is clear where light is allowed to pass through. When the individual who wanted to make some 5 by 7’s and didn’t have 5 by 7 paper, he or she took 8 by 10 paper and cut it in half and probably was in a hurry because they did not bother to cut off the bottom part of the paper because what happened was that part of the paper was sticking out from the bottom of the easel. This is exposed by the negative, by the overspill from the enlarger. So that the image area of the enlarging easel received the photo- graph and there was still light hitting the entire part of the easel so some of the light went down into the hole that holds the foot onto this easel creating the circle and the overspill created the black border across the bottom. I inserted this at the beginning of today’s hearings and left it under these photographic lights. As you can see, you can see the border on the bottom of the print and if you look closely, there is the circle that was created by the light striking the paper today. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Sergeant Kirk, was that print produced from the original negative? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir; it was. Mr. Gotpsmiru. In other words, it is a first generation print? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir; it is. Mr. GotpsmiTH. How can you tell that? Sergeant Kirk. We find the same information in it we found from the other first generation prints. The negative shows the same type of abuse, emulsion tears in it. They are sharp and well defined and so are the scratches sharp and weil defined. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Is this print cropped? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. Mr. GoipsmitH. Can you explain in what way it has been cropped? : Sergeant Kirk. We are still dealing with a Square negative and we got a rectangular image so we had to have cropping somewhere. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Can you tell the purpose for which it was cropped? Sergeant Kirk. I suppose somebody wanted some 5 by 7’s as opposed to two 5 by 5’s or 7 by 7’s. Mr. GoLpsMITH. You testified this print was made from the origi- } nal negative. Was that negative also used to produce the De Moh- renschildt print? Sergeant. Kirk. Yes, it was. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Was that negative ever provided to the Warren Commission? Sergeant Kirk. No, sir; it was not. Mr. Go.psmiTH. Has it been made available to the committee? Sergeant Kirk. No, sir; it has not. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Do you know where it is today? 359 Sergeant Kirk. No, sir; I do not. Mr. GotpsmiTH. Let me rephrase that. Your testimony then is hat the print which was given to the committee by a former Jallas police officer was derived from an original negative? - Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir; it was. Mr. Go.psmiTH. Sergeant, have you summarized at this time the tae that were reviewed by the committee’s photography yanel? Sergeant Kirk. We examined all the photographs that are depict- ‘d here on this flow chart and it is the opinion of the panel that hese are all first generation photographs. Mr. GotpsmiTH. And of the three first generation photographs hat you examined, there were three negatives. Of those three ‘riginal negatives, only one has been made available to the Warren Jommission and to this committee; is that correct? Sergeant Kirk. That is correct, sir. Mr. GotpsmiTtH. And the other two negatives were at some time, t Bago in the possession of Dallas Police Department person- iel‘ Sergeant Kirk. That could be a fair assumption, yes, sir. Mr. GoLpsMITH. Sergeant, have any other first generation prints yeen discovered? | Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. Mr. Go.tpsmitH. What print are you referring to now? Sergeant Kirk. It is identified in the Warren Commission report is Commission exhibit 134. Mr. GoupsmitH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be handed Warren Commission exhibit 184 which corresponds with JFK 4-398. Would you identify that? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. This is a photograph that is presently in she custody of the National Archives. It was reproduced in the Warren Commission report and identified as Commission exhibit 134. Mr. Gotpsmiru. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this tem. Chairman Strokes. Without objection it may be entered into the record. [See exhibit F-185.] Mr. Gotpsmiru. I will also note for the record that Warren Sommission exhibits 133-A and B as well as the negative will be introduced into the record at this time. To my knowledge they have not been assigned exhibit numbers, or at least I will ask you to admit them into the record. [Warren Commission exhibits 133-A and B are on file on perma- nent possession at the National Archives.] | ; Sergeant Kirk, how was this particular print discovered? Sergeant Kirk. This past weekend I was reading over some of the as Warren Commission reports. I detected a sentence In there that investi gator did not corresp ond with what I thought a police officer would be proper investigative techniques. Lee In the report it quoted Captain Fritz as saying he showed Harvey Oswald one enlargement and one small photograph. When 134 as it was identif ied in the Warren Commis sion I looked at the I thought report I could see that it was an enlargement of 133-A. 360 at first this might be a reason why Mr. Oswald said that is a fakes picture, because as you copy photographs, it gives the illusion that) they have been tampered with. I thought, why would someone go to the trouble of copying al photograph if they had the original evidence to approa ch a suspect} with. I thought this kind of strange. So I asked the committee if I could go over to the Archives on Monday and look at Commission exhibit 134. Sergeant Kirk. I looked at the photograph and formed ion. As has been the policy of the panel, we seek anothe an opin- r opinion from another member of the panel and I withheld my conclusion sion, that 134 is a first generation print. Mr. Goxpsmitu. By first generation print you mean it came from Sergeant Kirk. There is an impression from a rubber identifies this as a Dallas Police Department photog stamp that} raph. It is dated 11-23-63. Mr. Gotpsmitu. That print comes from the same | original nega- tive as De Mohrenschildt 133-A and 133-A, Stovall . | Sergeant Kirk. Yes, it does. Mr. GotpsmiTu. Sergeant, if that print is a first genera ! which means it came from the original negative, tion print, } are you able to | Sergeant Kirk. This photograph is stamped Dallas ment photograph and it is identified as the photo Police Depart-f graph that Cap-| tain Fritz showed to Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Go.tpsmitH. Does this photograph come from negatives that has not been made available to one of the the Warren Commis-} sion and to this committee? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir, it does. Mr. GoutpsmituH. After reviewing these materials, next step in the panel’s analysis of the backyard what was the | pictures? || Sergeant Kirx. The panel thought it best then to examine the : camera that is purported to have been used to take the backyard } photographs. Mr. Gotpsmitu. At this point I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be nc given what has been marked as JFK F-381, it is sion exhibit as well. I will ask him to identify it. a Warren Commis- H 4 vee I do, Sergeant, would you prefer to remai n standing or be If seated’ Sergeant Kirk. Whatever is more convenient to the committee. I can work either way. 361 Mr. GoLpsMITH. Why don’t you stand for now and let me know if you would like to sit down. Why was it necessary for you to examine the camera? Sergeant Kirk. First of all, Marina Oswald testified that she took the photographs with this camera. Second, it was important to the anel, if we could establish that this camera was used to take the hotographs, it would establish the parameters as far as equip- ment-wise on how the photographs had to be taken, whether or not they were authentic or fake. Mr. GoLpsmMITH. When you were examining the camera, what was the specific purpose of examining it in terms of the materials that you were working with? In other words, did you want to see Becther those materials had been originally exposed in the Oswald camera: Sergeant Kirk. Yes, we had one negative and we also had the De Mohrenschildt which was a full frame negative print. We distin- guished certain identifiers or the signature of the camera was found on the negative. ae GoLpsMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of JFK purman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record. [JFK exhibit F-381 was entered previously. | Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Sergeant, was this the subject of your analysis? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir, it is. Mr. GOLDSMITH. How did the panel attempt to establish whether she negatives to the backyard pictures had originally been exposed n Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera? Sergeant Kirk. There were twc tests conducted, one by scientists at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an independent exam- nation conducted by myself here at the Washington, D.C. Metro- oolitan Police Photographic Laboratory. Mr. GoLpsmITH. What characteristics were you looking for? Sergeant Kirk. We wanted to see if this photograph produced the dentifiers or the signature that was detected on negatives 133-B and 188-A, De Mohrenschildt. Mr. GoLpsMITH. You made reference to identifiers or signature. hat do you mean when you use those terms? Sergeant Kirk. Most cameras, particularly inexpensive cameras hat have been manufactured by molded plastic, have certain im- erfections in them. A lot of imperfections are found around the ilm plane aperture, as some call it, the part of the camera the film ays against to be exposed. Now people who manufacture these types of cameras do not worry too much about the frame-edge markings because they know he type of person who would buy this camera would send the film © the corner drugstore and they know the frame is going to be ‘ropped off anyway to create the white borders I referred to earlier. Mr. Gotpsmitu. So are frame-edge markings one of the identifi- »rs to which you referred? Sergeant Kirk. We wanted to find out and we asked the Roches- er Institute of Technology to obtain two replica cameras like this. hey obtained two cameras from the International Museum of 362 Photography located at Eastman House in Roches ter, New York and conducted tests with those cameras for us. Mr. Gotpsmitu. My specific question was: What do : you call these} identifiers, these terms that you referred to as being the equivalent} of a signature? One I take is frame edge marks. Sergeant Kirx. That is correct, and scratches that | were intro-} duced into the image area itself by the fact that the film was} dragging across its plastic. Mr. Go.psmitu. Those would be camera scratch marks ? Sergeant Kirk. Yes. Mr. Gotpsmitu. I would ask that you refer now to what has been marked for identification as JFK F-187. I move for the admission } of this item, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. Without objection it will be entere d into the} record. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisir F-187 Mr. Go.LpsmituH. Mr. Chairman, may I have a moment? Sergeant, would you identify this exhibit? 363 Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. It is a photograph of the film plane of the Imperial Reflex camera identified as Commission Exhibit 750. ‘To orientate you, this is the supply well where the fresh film is inserted. The film is drug across this plane to a take-up reel at the top of the camera. Mr. GotpsmitH. Are you able to explain from that exhibit how camera scratch marks frame edge marks are caused? Sergeant Kirk. More expensive cameras would have a stainless ‘steel roller to keep the film from actually dragging across the surface. Since that does not have a case, the film is forced to be ‘drug across this film plane which would produce scratches. Also, you can see here, these are the points where the plastic mold was attached and when the mold was removed, it will bring certain fragments of the plastic away from it that will spill out of the ‘mold. It makes an imperfect edge around the image area of the camera. | Mr. GotpsmiTuH. At this time I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be shown what has been marked for identification as JFK F-190. Sergeant Kirk, I would ask that you identify this exhibit and ‘explain how the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks for Oswald’s camera were established? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. This is a test exposure that we made off the roof of police headquarters on August 1 of this year. To orientate you, this is the new Labor Department Building and, of course, the Capitol Building is in the background. We found after developing the negative and intentionally under- ‘exposing it so that we could see the frame edges, because this camera tends to put more exposure on the center of the negatives than around the edges, we found the signature or identifiers around the frame edge markings and two distinctive scratches, that regardless of how many times we ran film through the ‘camera, all showed up in exactly the same location. Mr. Go.tpsmitu. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of JFK F-190. Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the ecord at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exurisir F-190 365 Mr. GotpsmitTu. Sergeant Kirk, why are frame edge marks and /camera scratch marks useful in determining why a particular camera was used to take a particular picture? Sergeant Kirk. Well, throughout the years it has been pretty common knowledge in the forensic sciences that cameras do leave their signatures, especially in inexpensive brands. Years ago ‘during World War II when they were trying to identify what footage was shot by what cameras, laboratory technicians actually etched markings into the frame so they could identify one camera ‘from another. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. What effort, if any, was made to verify whether ‘the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks produced by 'Oswald’s camera were really unique? _ Sergeant Kirk. As I said, RIT scientists obtained two duplicate ‘cameras from the International Museum of Photography located at ‘the Eastman House in Rochester and exposed some test negatives. Mr. GotpsmitTu. I would ask Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK F-191. Would you explain now, Sergeant Kirk, what type of comparison was made? _-Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. This is exemplary of the types of nega- tives obtained from the two test cameras. One of the things that are obvious here, that you have identifiers at approximately the same location as the Oswald camera. That is because you have ‘these three corks here for the plastic to go into the mold, but they sare unique and different from this in the other camera. Indeed you will see more in the other camera because this camera had not been used much before it was placed in the museum. As film drags across this camera, it wore off some of the small pieces of plastic that were sticking out. Mr. Goupsmitu. Why does this exhibit not have numbers where- the one to the right does have numbers? Sergeant Kirk. I didn’t want to confuse the committee by think- ing that I was trying to tell them that point one in this chart was identical to point one on that chart because they are nowhere near similar. They are totally different and unique. . Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of JFK F-191. Mr. FITHIAN [presiding]. Without objection it is so ordered. [The information follows:] 366 JFK Exuisit F-191 Mr. GoupsmitH. At this time I would ask Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK F-188 and F-397. Would you identify these two exhib- its? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. The enlargement on the top is a print made from the 133-B negative, the only negative that we had to work from. The photograph on the bottom is made from a copy photograph and enlarged from 133-A, DeMohrenschildt. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of these items. Mr. Firuian. Without objection they may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exnuisit F-188 368 JFK Exuisit F-397 Mr. GotpsmituH. Would you explain in some detail what analysis you did with these two exhibits? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. We intentionally took the 133-B nega.- tive and withheld the exposure around the edge markings. As | said earlier, the camera tends to expose more in the center than around the edges. We wanted to be able to see if we could pick up the same identifiers or the camera signature in the 133-B negative as was in our test negative exposed this year. Mr. GotpsmitH. What was the result? Sergeant Kirk. The identifiers are there, all of them, and in my opinion the same camera that produced the test photograph this year produced the 133-B backyard photograph. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Of the backyard picture showing Oswald with the rifle, were only the DeMohrenschildt print and the 133-B negative studied for frame edge markings? Sergeant Kirk. That is correct, sir. Mr. Go.tpsmitu. Why is that? Sergeant Kirk. Because those were the only material we had to show the frame edge markings. Mr. GoupsmitH. Does the DeMohrenschildt print have fewer identifying frame marks on it than the 133-B negative? Sergeant Kirk. It does if you look at it with this type of lighting under which it was photographed for the exhibit today. Items 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are visible if you look at the photograph under reflected light. However, if you place the original print on a light box and look at it from light projected through the print, if you look at it using a 369 small power magnifier you would be able to pick up the other identifiers that I put in here with dashes. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. I understand the photography panel was able to study only the DeMohrenschildt print and the 133-B for edge marks. What materials were studied for the scratch mark analysis? Sergeant Kirk. All of the prints. Mr. GoLpsMITH. Why is that? Sergeant Kirk. Because the scratches we were looking for were in the part of the photograph that would not be cropped out in any of these areas. We found the same scratch marks precisely the _ distance apart in the same location in all the first generation prints. Mr. GoOLpsMiTH. I am sorry. I missed the last part of your answer. Would you state the results of your scratch mark analysis? Sergeant Krrx. We found the same scratch marks in the image area such as identifiers 10 and 11 in all the first generation prints ‘on this flow chart. Mr. GoLpsMiTH. Sergeant, have you investigated the allegation ‘that the Oswald Imperial Reflex camera was used only to take the backyard pictures of Oswald with the rifle? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir, I have. ‘Mr. GoutpsmitH. When did you do that? Sergeant Kirk. August 1 of this year. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Exactly how did you go about examining this ‘issue, Sergeant? Sergeant Kirk. I went to the National Archives and requested to see all of the photographs and all of the photographic negatives ‘that were turned over to the Warren Commission and listed as that material that was taken during the execution of search warrants ‘from the personal effects of Lee and Marina Oswald. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. What did these photographs portray, Sergeant? Sergeant Kirk. Most were family-type snapshots, scenes, an older ‘child and a baby in a crib. They depicted Mrs. Oswald and a child playing with a hose pipe, spraying water on each other. It depicted Mr. eves holding an infant in his arms, family type photo- aphs. Mr. GoLpsMITH. I would ask that Sergeant Kirk be shown JFK -189. Sergeant, would you identify that exhibit? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. It is a first generation print made from a negative obtained from the Archives. It is from one of approximate- ly two dozen negatives that were on file at the Archives. It is a photograph of a young child. The child has been identified by ‘Marina Oswald Porter as being one of the children of she and Lee ‘Harvey Oswald. ay Go.psMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this exhibit. Mr. FiTHIAN. Without objection it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 370 JFK Exuisir F-189 Mr. Gotpsmitu. Was this exhibit compared with any other mate- rials or photographs exposed in Oswald’s camera? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir, it was. Mr. GotpsmitTu. What was the result of that comparison? Sergeant Kirk. The comparison was made with the test negative, the 1383-B backyard photograph, the 183-A DeMohrenschildt photo- graph, and they were found to contain the identical identifiers and scratch marks. It is our opinion that the same camera produced the baby pic- ture. | Mr. GOLDsMITH. What were the panel’s overall conclusions re- garding the frame edge marks and camera scratch marks that it evaluated? 371 Sergeant Kirk. That it is a reliable source of identification and it J is on opinion that the camera did indeed produce these photo- ») grapns. = Mr. Gotpsmitu. When you say these photographs, you are refer- ) ring to the backyard pictures? Sergeant Kirk. The backyard pictures and the baby picture. Mr. GoutpsmiTH. Thank you. Sergeant Kirk, please resume your seat. } I might state, Mr. Chairman, that the agenda for today has been § changed somewhat. We have a witness here to give testimony on ‘the issue of handwriting analysis. For that reason I have been # asked to request of Sergeant Kirk and Mr. McCamy that we defer # the remainder of their testimony until tomorrow so that the hand- ‘writing expert can testify today. He informs us that he has to } appear in court tomorrow and would not be available to be here ‘tomorrow. Sergeant Kirk, Mr. McCamy, would you be available tomorrow? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. Mr. GoutpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to request that K F-188 and F-397 be admitted into the record. ~~ Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection it is so ordered. oe exhibits referred to were previously: admitted into the ‘record. _ Mr. Goupsmitu. Thank you. Mr. BuaAkeEy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the case of the photo- graph turned over to the committee, the backyard photograph by ‘Mrs. DeMohrenschildt, exhibit 133-A, the committee decided to }attempt to verify that the inscription on the back of the photo- graphs was indeed written by Lee Harvey Oswald who had appar- rently signed it. To this end, 45 samples of Oswald’s handwriting were selected and experts in the field of document identification )were asked to examine them Today an expert will discuss the three samples. They are a ‘signature from Oswald’s fingerprint card when he was arrested in New Orleans in August 1963; his passport application dated June 24, 1968, and a list of handwritten questions found among his possessions. A member of the committee’s panel on handwriting experts is here today to discuss the findings with regard to the inscription. He is Joseph P. McNally. Mr. McNally received his B.S. and an M.S. in police science from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, University of the City of New York. He started in the field of questioned document identifi- vation in 1942 with the New York Police Laboratory. He has been supervisor of the Document Identification Section of the Police Laboratory, training officer in the Policy Academy, commanding officer of the Police Laboratory and handwriting expert in the District Attorney’s office of New York County. He retired from the ‘Police Department with the rank of captain in 1972 and entered private practice in the field of document identification. He serves as consultant to New York’s Human Resources Administration. Mr. McNally is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic iences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Docu- a] ent Examiners, the International Association for Identification, 372 and the American Society for Testing and Materials. He has lec tured at the University of the City University of New York, Rock land College, and the New York Police Academy. Mr. McNally has been involved in thousands of cases wher document evidence has been supremely important. It would be appropriate at this point, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr McNally. Mr. Fauntroy [presiding]. Mr. McNally, do you swear the testi mony you will give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing bu the truth, so help you God? TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. McNALLY Mr. McNALLy. I do. Ms. Brapy. For the record, would you please state your full name? Mr. McNALLy. Joseph F. McNally. Ms. Brapy. Mr. McNally, who were the other members of the handwriting panel on which you served for the committee? Mr. McNA tty. David Purtell and Charles Scott. Ms. Brapy. To the best of your knowledge, have they both been qualified as experts in the area of handwriting examination? Mr. McNALLy. They have been. Ms. Brapy. What analysis was the panel asked to perform? Mr. McNALLy. We were asked to examine and compare certain writings and signatures and also to determine whether there were any alterations, falsifications, or eradications on these particular documents. Ms. Brapy. Whose samples of handwriting did the panel exam- ine? | Mr. McNALLy. We examined samples of the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and also of Marina Oswald. Ms. Brapy. How many documents allegedly written by Lee Harvey Oswald did the panel examine? Mr. McNAtiy. We examined 45 approximately, some quite lengthy. ) Ms. Brapy. Did you examine the originals or copies of those documents? Mr. McNALtty. In the cases where originals were available, we examined the originals. In cases where only the copies were availa- ble, we examined those also. Ms. Brapy. At this time would the clerk please hand the witness exhibit JFK F-183? Mr. McNally, do you recognize this document? Mr. McNALty . I do. Ms. Brapy. Would you identify it for the record, please? Mr. McNatty. This is JFK exhibit F-183. It is a photograph ostensibly of Lee Harvey Oswald. On the back it contains some writing. Holding it in the way I am holding it, down in the lower lefthand corner is writing , “To my friend George from Lee Oswald, 5/IV/63.” In the lower righthand corner is the writing, “Copyright G. deM.” 373 In the upper center of the back of this photograph are three lines of writing which have been described as being in the Russian anguage. To the lefthand side of the back of this photograph are the initials JJM with a line under it and a date 4/1/77 which is apparently an identification marking. Ms. Brapy. At this time may the witness be shown the enlarge- ments which are marked JFK F-382 and F-383? Mr. McNally, are these accurate enlargements of the photograph you have just described? Mr. McNALLy. They are. Ms. Brapy. Mr. Chairman, JFK F-183 has previously been en- tered into the record. At this time I would ask that F-382 and F-383 also be entered into the record. Mr. Fauntroy. Without objection it is so ordered. [Exhibits referred to were previously entered. ] Ms. Brapy. At this time would the clerk please hand the witness the original of F-401 which is identified as the U.S. passport appli- cation dated June 24, 1963 and designated Warren Commission exhibit No. 781. “Do you recognize this document, Mr. McNally? Mr. McNALty. I do. Ms. Brapy. Was it also examined by your panel? Mr. McNALLy. It was. Ms. Brapy. May the witness also at this time be shown the enlargements of that document designated as JFK F-401. Mr. McNally, are those enlargements accurate enlargements of the passport application you have examined? Mr. McNALLy. They are. Ms. Brapy. At this time, Mr. Chairman, may JFK F-401 be entered in the record? Mr. FaAuntrROyY. Without objection it is so ordered. [The information follows:] 374 {PR EO wey Teeny SO FERED YW EE (Passport Office Use Only) od MENT OF STATE BUDGET HUREAU NO. 47-MORT1 PASSPORT APPLICATION n, Read information for Passport Applicents on Page 4} {Before Completing thig Applicatio PART 1- TOBE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS iFirst nome) Middle name) (Last name} i Eat nee Br eee Pe HEV Ee CLS a CRIT, Deportment of State for o passport. efiba United Stores, do hereby apply to the MAIL PASSPORT TO STREET. STATE ; [WisisLepistiNGuISHING MARKS ho ALP MY PERMANENT RES! DENCE (Street askiraes, City, oo oe PERSONS T | This section to be complated only if wife orhusband is te b TWiFE*S) (HUSBAND'S) FULL LEGAL NAME — - :} oe ; es - PA PRE ae - =: : | — : ae Nate ty oa ee A Poe - aS ee : innate ete OSP.4) : : : (OVER -YOU MUST COMPLETE PAGE 2 JFK Exnuisit F-401A 375 (PART | - Continued) LOM ME ell ee eS ‘. Boke ss Rae i FORMER HUSBAND OR WIFE WAS U.S. CITIZEN _ WITHIN LAST12MONTHS PROMO — 2 ON Lh K rv) * id MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION | PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER YOU EX- |PROPOSED LENGTH OF STAY PECT TOTAKE ANOTHERBe TRIP ABROAD o's.eX a Ao a iat £ Arn sg Lien og air OTHER ce pe 1 ily 3 PIONS ~ PVR, # IIL : years {_]s yeas POLL LEON PIII ALOT. Ine 8A) ASA pope heFa ; _Uhave not (and no otherEtslgee to be included in the passport has), since acquiring Ms re, a citizen of a foreign United States citizenship, been naturalized as state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to # foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed the duties of a foreign state of political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election ofin any office, post, or a foreign employment under the government scite to determine the prening over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of state or participated in an election or plebi- diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or nationality cither in the United States or before a state; been convicted by # court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign any act of treason _ to overthrow, of bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy against, or attempting by force by force, the Government of the United States; or departed from or remained outside of the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of evading of avoiding setvice in the milicasy, ait or naval forces of the United States; i calendar months preceding the date of this application (and no otherand1 am not and have not been at any time during the period person to be included in the passpore is or has been at any ig the said period) @ member of any organization registered or required to register as a Communist organization under Section 7 Subversive Activities Control Act of 195: , as per 5 (50 U.S.C. 786) : (if ony of the above-mentioned acts ot conditions have been performed by or apply to the spplicant, or to any other person to be in- _ eluded in the passport, the portion which applies should be struck out, and a supplementary tion) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made exp anatory statement under oath (or affirma- a part of this application.) _ I solemoly swear (or affirm) thar the statements made on all the pages of this application are true and that the photograph _ is a likeness ofme and of those persons to be included in the passport. attached and es n : gree: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE | _, Farther, I do solemaly swear (otaffirm) chat {will su and defend theConstitution of the UnitedStates ag yovy Pal og pe a rh ay and allegiance to the sare; and that etpumose ofevasion; Sohelp meGod 8 9 I take this chlignien Bede oe "4 ; , ee See Presence. o| a ce bs pt ae : 303 ie piles Auvtsiana JFK Exuisir F-401B 376 Ms. Brapy. Mr. McNally, did the handwriting panel compare the writing on the rear of the photograph with the signature on the passport application? Mr. McNALLyY. Yes; we did. Ms. Brapy. What conclusion was reached by the panel about those two documents? Mr. McNAtty. We concluded that the writing—particularly the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald on the lower lefthand corner on the back of the photograph and the signature Lee H. Oswald on the passport application—all of these signatures were written by one, the same individual. Ms. Brapy. Will you please describe the techniques which were used to make that determination? Mr. McNAtty. In making this examination and comparison, the overall approach to it is to actually look at the signatures anc writings in juxtaposition one with the other. Taking into considera tion, first of all, the gross characteristics involved in the writing process—that would include the skill of the writing, the slant pattern of the writing, the speed of the writing, the proportions of the letters within the name Lee H. Oswald, the ratio of the small letters to the capital letters insofar as height is concerned, the signature on the placement of the individual letters which make up the names Lee Harvey Oswald, the overall writing pattern of the writing in both the passport application and on the back of the photograph. Much more specifically, we examined and compared the individu- al letters which make up these signatures Lee H. Oswald as to their design, form, construction, and execution of stroke. We looked for any particular differences or significant differences which ma have occurred between the signatures and the writing on the back of the photograph versus the writing of the signatures Lee Oswald on the passport application. Also, an examination using a low power microscope was done of the letters that make up the signa tures and the writing Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee H. Oswald te determine whether there were any interruptions in the line of writing, any discontinuity, any tremor, hesitations, or any indica tions of tracings or alterations on these particular signatures. Specifically, the signature as written on the back of the photo graph of Lee Oswald has been written in a firm, even handwriting There is no interruption in the writing stroke other than what is occasioned by a natural gap in between the capital and the smal letters; no indications of any uncertainty. It is a completely norma signature, consistent with the writing Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee H. Oswald on the passport application. Ms. Brapy. Mr. McNally, if it would help, please go up to the illustrations and use the marker to identify what the points of comparison were. Mr. McNAt ty. The writing at the lower lefthand corner of the back of the photograph is rather dim and rather faint. As a matte of fact, it starts off very faintly, ‘To my friend George from Lee Oswald.” As the writing goes on, of course, it becomes appreciabl heavier and more legible. It sort of fades off at the date 5-IV-63. 377 The writing on the lower lefthand corner of this particular pho- ograph is written in a fluent, even, free-flowing style. It is rather arelessly written as most normal handwritings are written. The overall writing pattern of this particular area here agrees ith the writing that we find here of Lee Oswald on this photo- raph and also over on this photograph. That free-flowing, com- letely normal style of writing in both of these signatures is repeat- d over here in the writing of Lee Oswald. The specific area of letter design; the design of the capital L as ve find here in the photograph, is repeated over here in the capital | of Lee on this particular photograph and also on this signature ver here. The open, small groups of the “e’s” in both of these ignatures which tend to end abruptly here, of course, here in the nding part of Lee, is repeated over here in the writing of Lee on ais particular document here, the photograph. On the photograph, of course, there is no middle initial and we rould have to move into the capital O of Oswald. In the signature n the photograph the “O” is written independently of the “s”. It oes not follow right through so there is a slight gap in between aat capital “O” on the following “s’’. On this particular photograph here on the passport application re have the same design of “O” and a gap, and we have the “s” eparated from the “O”. But the design form of the “O” here grees with that over here. The other signature of Oswald on the passport application is a lightly alternate form of signature which is actually a normal currence among individuals. There ‘“O”’ joins right into the “‘s’” so nat we have a variation between this particular signature and the ne over here. Of course, it also quite obviously varies from the signature that ve have in this particular section shown here. In the “wa” combination of the signature here on the Oswald assport application as also the “wa” combination of this passport pplication on the photograph, is a slight weakness or slurring off 3 the “w” joins the “a”. It occurs up in here and it occurs also in ere. That same design formation occurs in the “wa” formation of *swald over on this particular signature here on the photograph. he “Id” combination on the passport application, the signature nere and the signature over here on the photograph, in each case ne “!’” is appreciably smaller than the following “d’”. The “d” sort f goes up. It is very tall here and the loop or the line which forms ne loop on the lefthand side of that ‘“d’’ does not go all the way own to the base line of writing. It sort of hangs in mid-air and it quite a unique form. That occurs in this ‘“d”. It occurs in this qd”. It also occurs in the “d” as written in Oswald over on the hotograph. We have that same situation there on the photograph there the “” is appreciably smaller than the ending “d”’. As I remarked before, it is a free-flowing, fluent style written in careless fashion. The signatures are consistent one with the other nd, in effect, the writing on all three of these documents, or all aree of these signatures, have been done by the same individual. 378 Ms. Brapy. Mr. McNally, was there any evidence of imitation, tracing, or alteration in any of the three signatures you have just discussed? ; Mr. McNA tty. Absolutely not. Ms. Brapy. Thank you. Would you please resume your seat. ; mr At this time would the clerk please hand the witness the original of the exhibit marked JFK F-400. For the record, this exhibit is identified as the New Orleans fingerprint card from New Orleans police dated August 9, 1963. Do you recognize this document, Mr. McNally? Mr. McNA tty. I do. Ms. Brapy. Was it also examined by the handwriting panel? Mr. McNA Ly. It was. Ms. Brapy. Did the panel examine the original or a copy of that document? Mr. McNALLY. The original. Ms. Brapy. May the witness be shown the enlargement of JFK F-400? Is this an accurate enlargement of the fingerprint card you examined, Mr. McNally? Mr. McNALLyY. It is. Ms. Brapy. At this time may JFK F-400 be entered into the record? The record should also note that even though the finger- print card is being entered into the record here, the fingerprint card will remain on permanent file at the FBI. [The information follows:] MALE ;W8ITE bes NAME MIDDLE NAME ee e : peta! | ahr Gnches} | Wt { OSWALD “J CONTRIBUTOR ANDADORESS LEE ] auases Poe ee eee. . ae 1336 2 |DATE OF agi (10-16-39 PLACE OF BIRTH N.O.La. ee LEAVE THIS SPACE BLANK ie Se Ee Wo Has : 5 ; :— ae a Me No eg) a LL Go” LEFT THUMB | RIGHT THUMB Me JFK Exuisit F-400 Ms. Brapy. Did your panel compare the signature Lee H. Owsald hich appears on the fingerprint card with the signature on the sar of the photograph? Mr. McNALLY. We did. pis. Brapy. What conclusion was reached about those two signa- ires’ Mr. McNALtty. We found that both signatures were written by ae same individual. Ms. Brapy. Did that contain the same investigation that you cussed about the passport application? Mr. McNALLy. Yes, it did. Ms. Brapy. Were there also characteristic of points of compari- m similar to what you just discussed? ‘Mr. McNatty. Yes. They fit into the same area I mentioned veviously. The writing of the capital L, the two small e’s, the “Os” bination on this particular fingerprint card agrees with the assport application, but, of course, we have the alternate form of Js” written on the photograph of Mr. Oswald which agrees with sat “Os” combination on the lower left of the photograph of swald holding the gun and newspaper. 380 s We, again, have in this particular fingerprint form the weaknes on the connecting stroke between the “w’” and “‘a” as that connect ing stroke slurs off into the “a” and we have the combination of small “1” and a quite large “d’”, with the ending section of the ‘‘d” that loop section of the “d” ending above the line of writing. That. is a characteristic in all the signatures of Oswald. Ms. Brapy. Mr. McNally, was there any evidence of tracin alteration, or imitation in the signature on the fingerprint card? } Mr. McNAtzy. No, it was a completely normal signature written | quite fluently. Ms. BRADY. Would the clerk at this time please hand the witha the original of the document marked JFK F-402. This is identified as a self-questionnaire consisting of a series of questions and an- swers about reactions to life in the Soviet Union. The document was previously designated Warren Commission exhibit 100. Y Do you recognize this document ? | Mr. McNA Ly. I do. | Ms. Brapy. Was it also examined by the handwriti ng panel? Mr. McNALLy. It was. | Ms. Brapy. Did the panel see it in the original? Mr. McNALLY. They did. Ms. Brapy. The pages of the original are discolored. Do you kno what caused that? Mr. McNatty. Apparently this has been processed for the pres ence of latent fingerprints used in the chemical process describe as silver nitrate. : What has happened here as always occurs with silver nitrate, i the silver nitrate is not bleached out it continues to.develop so tha’ actually it discolors the particular document on which it is applie over a period of time. Ms. Brapy. Did that discoloration affect your ability to examin the document? | Mr. McNaAtty. It makes it a little more difficult, particularly 1 you are taking a photograph of it because it is a very serio discoloration. __However, it has not obliterated the writing to a point where the identification is impossible. Ms. Brapy. At this time may the witness be shown the enlarge ment of exhibit JFK F-402? i Are these enlargements accurate enlargements of the pages of the self-questionnaire? 7 Mr. McNA tty. They are. t _ Ms. Brapy. At this time I would ask that JFK F-402 be entered into the record. i paman Stokes. Without objection it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 381 iCommission Exhibit 100 entification * pxnibit\& for ja scene a 7o Tne Vssre 90 od tne Chic; MM aleel athos séTEs 3S nally no LeLb,, adhe hiner oe 48 ae , 463,32 142 yt YOu mete - sswrmewl eres me ws Renn news gre7 rte 2 wither lt ot Lips Sas Aeceye 3 : 3 Pies Aico o, oS oto D 69 ae ee oS Fee % 0,0 g 75puny tes fies“ YOu Bonn 4 ub, Ws tend) 5 Py Pres, hove 2. a. 7 Aewroe m He wimad 7. se sedea Site wv oe Pee es pe i se ho ns na wep Like an ber yt CI os BS irre! j ke ow bs eC Bi Et cae: Harr Apis te Ara ors Cini. 4 UKs. Aten ake dca: = vt ares ‘ ware LA ms is ree 7] Kat J f Worse Aue bent Gens we . dante ah vaseveveee:, we ee tothad pay r thin Ae ot AS fa AY oe el gabe presage? wel cand hen cand om arod Thor J. whe acel Jaren we es , 4A fad Shs rl He ong Tete te ee acyen he An Mang Exuisit F-402A 382 ; 2 vevlads . aho USS@ 0f Lhe ers bneT to USA G. what ont Bi site hom Yipee pee fresdon; Anne’ tilel atop thas protiite ER 46 Dib t ne god. Pe cose, 2 ¢ ~ e. tyaen E ee Ait ponerse " Exuisit F-402B 383 : he oe eeperd Aad e 4 a i Dy, OP ees 4F Lb er 4 4 Ge ‘ yxorg alana . ¢ Ke USS hod ja arte iyaaliges Aa CV rin wort noccatiof ytln W ; Tha Ge 7 harcandans a : 4 C e ac & Exuisit F-402C 384 ete Aet 7 die a : a : ” af 4U-: + i Mra , +4 capt” < fas PCE Letra , gtid Exuisit F-402D 385 Ms. Brapy. Did the panel also compare the writing in this self- questionnaire with the signature on the rear of the photograph? Mr. McNALty. We did. Ms. Brapy. What conclusions were reached by the panel? Mr. McNALLy. We found that the writing on the self-question- naire and the writing at the lower left of the photograph were written by one and the same individual. Ms. Brapy. What characteristics or points of comparison existed in the two documents? Mr. McNALLy. We were able actually to make a composite, so to speak, of the writing which exists in the lower part of that particu- lar photograph in question. There is a great deal of writing on this particular self-questionnaire. Actually, the only particular letter which does not exist for comparison purposes on the self-question- naire is the capital G in George which is written on the lower part of the back of the photograph. Ms. Brapy. But there were still sufficient characteristics for a conclusion; is that correct? ~ Mr. McNAtty. There are. . Ms. Brapy. Is there any evidence of tracing; alteration, or imita- tion on the writing in the self-questionnaire? Mr. McNAtty. No. That is a prime sample of a person scratching out a series of notes. It is very carelessly written and there is no indication of any artificiality about it at all. It is completely normal in appearances. Ms. Brapy. Did you also examine the handwriting appearing in the lower righthand corner of the photograph which reads, “Copy- right G. deM.?” Mr. McNALty. I did. Ms. Brapy. Were you able to reach any conclusion about that writing and the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. McNatty. That particular writing in the lower right hand corner was not written by Lee Harvey Oswald. Ms. Brapy. On what did you base that determination? Mr. McNatty. A comparison of that particular writing there with the hand printing of Mr. Oswald on the passport application reveals absolutely no similarity between these two writings. Ms. Brapy. Did you examine the handwriting of George De Moh- renschildt? Mr. McNAtty. I did. Ms. Brapy. Based on that examination, were you able to make any comparison between the writing on the photograph and the writing of George De Mohrenschildt? Mr. McNatty. I was not. Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s writing is Spidery, quite tremulous, and quite angular. The writing here is much firmer and the writing pattern is more rounded rather than angular. Ms. Brapy. Did the writing in the lower righthand corner have any of the same pictorial aspects of the handwriting of George De Mohrenschildt? Mr. McNA Ly. It does not. Ms. Brapy. Directing your attention to the writing appearing on spe top portion of the photograph, did you also examine that writ- ing’ 386 Mr. McNAtL-y. I did. Ms. Brapy. Do you know what language it is written in? Mr. McNA LLLy. Russian. Ms. Brapy. Are you able to read and translate Russian? Mr. McNAL_Lty. I am not. | Ms. Brapy. Mr. Chairman, Marina Oswald Porter has previously | testified that the Russian writing translates to read, “hunter of Fascists, ha, ha, ha.” Additionally, at this time I would like to enter into the record an affidavit by Tadeusz Sadowski of the European Law Division of the Library of Congress, who is a special- ist in the Russian language. Mr. Sadowski also affirms that he has examined the original on the photograph and that has also trans- lated the Russian writing as “Hunter of Fascists, ha, ha, ha.” Mr. McNally, were you able to form an expert opinion about this Russian writing even though you cannot read or translate Russian? Mr. McNALLyY. To a certain extent I was, yes. Ms. Brapy. Were you able to compare the Russian writing with the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. McNAtty. I compared the Russian writing the Cyrillic sec- tions of the alphabet here and there are also some Latin alphabet forms there with the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald. I found that the writings which are comparable, there are certain sections here which in a Latin alphabet would be translated as an “m’”. That is in the upper section of this particular writing at the top, and the letter in the latin alphabet would be ‘‘a” and that appears about seven times. Also, the letter “x”, of course, which means something else in the Cyrillic alphabet. Those particular letter design forms as compared with their counterparts in the Cyrillic alphabet as done by Mr. Oswald do not conform. They are entirely different. I also examined and compared these particular forms with the writing of Marina Oswald. I found in that particular case also that the particular design forms which are here as compared with Marina Oswald’s writings are completely different. They matched neither Marina or Lee Oswald’s writings. Ms. Brapy. Did you examine samples of Marina Oswald Porter’s writing in Russian? Mr. McNA Ly. I did. Ms. Brapy. Were you able to note any other characteristics of the Russian writing? Does it appear to be any type of tracing? Mr. McNAtty. In this particular case here: those three lines of Russian writing are in pencil. Actually, they are in pencil which is written over pencil; which is either faded away or written lightly or had been obliterated. Pencil on a surface of this particular nature was written with a soft pencil; just by handling alone it may disappear. What has occurred here, in my opinion, is that somebody who was apparently not conversant with the Cyrillic alphabet has re- constructed what was written on here previously. In reconstructing it, we get all of these particular forms which actually, I assume from Mr. Fithian’s comment this morning; it is Russian as written by somebody who is not particularly conversant or is below a grammar school level. That would account for the fact here; a reconstruction by somebody of the writing which had originally 387 been on here by somebody not conversant with the Russian lan- guage or Cyrillic alphabet would turn out something like this begs can be translated, but at the same time looks a little pecu- lar. The writing which we have here looks to be a tracing; looks to be copied. It is written very slowly. There is a very hesitant line quality in it and it is very uncertain. The party doing this was trying to make sure what he was doing, so the whole thing has deen written very, very, slowly. Ms. Brapy. Does enough of the original writing remain for you to be able to make any type of analysis of it? Mr. McNAa tty. In the process of actually trying to cover some- oody else’s writing, it has been effectively disguised. In writing over somebody else’s writing, it has effectively obliterated the origi- nal writing that was there and makes this whole particular section unidentifiable. Ms. Brapy. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have no further ques- tions at this time. Chairman Stokes. The reporter will suspend for a moment to record a change. Does counsel have something further? Ms. Brapy. Yes, I would ask that the affidavit of Tadeusz Sa- eee be designated JFK exhibit F-312 and be entered into the record. Chairman Stokes. Without objection it will be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 388 District of Columbia: ss AFFIDAVIT I, Tadeusz Sadowski, do hereby affirm the following: 1. I am employed as a Senior Legal Specialist of the European Law Division of the Law Library of the Library of Congress. 2. I am employed as a specialist in the Russian language. 3. On September 7, 1978 I was shown a photograph which has been designated as JFK Exhibit F-183, by Surell Brady, Staff Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassi- nations. 4. I read and translated the Russian writing which appears on the rear of the photograph as follows: "Hunter of fascists ha-ha-ha:::" Signed: (oda eS te | ws, Subscribed and sworn to before me on this ig day of September, 1978. eon as Notary Public a ast My Commission expires: Qugesl 7 Ib 177 ;! JFK Exuisir F-312 Chairman Sroxes. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian, for such time as he may consume, after which we will then go to the 5-minute rule. Mr. Firutan. Mr. Chairman, this sounds like an unusual request, but may I move down there with the exhibit and the witness? Chairman SToKEs. Certainly, as you so desire. Mr. Frru1an. First, Mr. McNally, I would like to ask you to reaffirm what your conclusion is with regard to only these three phe I am raising no question about your analysis on all the rest of it. Mr. McNALLy. I examined and compared those letters in the three words at the top of the document with the Russian Cyrillic writing as done by Lee Harvey Oswald and also with the series of pb gs done by Marina Oswald. I was unable to make any identi- ication. 389 a McNALLy. What we are seeing there are definitely not done ry them. Mr. FITHIAN. It was definitely not done by them? Mr. McNa tty. The writing which is visible now was definitely 1ot done by them. Mr. FirHian. Let me just ask you whether or not it is your Bosment that the same person wrote all three words plus the “ha, 1a, ha?” Mr. McNALLy. I believe so. Mr. Firuian. Mr. Chairman, I tread on pretty thin ice because I 1m a long way from a handwriting expert, but would you look at it ust from my point of view for a couple of minutes and look very arefully at the first word, ‘‘o-k-h-o-t-n-i-k,” printed almost painful- y and with a great deal of uncertainty, particularly the Russian e’ in here almost sort of squeezed in. That is an unusual way of putting that particular letter in place, 0 say nothing of the breaks in the Russian ta or ‘‘t” here, the hree parts. Normally it is written just like an ‘“m” with a bar icross it. Now just disregarding the other sections and just looking at that, oth in terms of the painful way in which it is drafted and on rarying levels of height in the row, or if there were a line under- ieath it, clearly it seems almost not like a child but it seems much vorse than the other words. Now compare this word with faschistame, in the third word, vhich looks to me like leaving out the ‘“za” that it flows much nore readily. It looks like somebody wrote that word who knew at east which Russian letter was supposed to come up. Am I seeing it altogether wrong? Mr. McNAtty. Actually, you are looking at it from a different erspective. My own particular feeling about this, not only a feel- ng but this actually has occurred is that we have faint traces of vriting which are on this particular paper. The probability is that he writing which was on there originally in Russian either was ‘rased or it was written there very lightly, or because of handling ictually practically disappeared. In my opinion, somebody at a later date came along and in order 0 make it legible, went over the writing or the pieces and bits of yriting which still remained on there and they turned out this darticular product. _ My own feeling is that in the areas, for instance, in that letter, he fourth letter on the top line there which approximates an “m”’, s that I think there that the party was not sure of what that yarticular formation was. It is somebody not conversant in Russian vho turned out that particular letter design which in essence is not in “m” and it is not either the equivalent in the Cyrillic alphabet. The other writings I think were done in somewhat the same ashion. The reason for more continuity and more fluency in the second line may be occasioned by the fact that maybe there was 390 more of the original writing there and they saw the letter forma- tions a little bit clearer. In the third line, of course, it is at the end at least much clearer because on the original document anyway, you can see the vertical lines that make up the exclamation points just to the right of eac one of the exclamation points. | I think actually the reasons for the change in tone, as it were, 0 the writing from the first to second to third line is occasioned b the fact that I believe there was more legibility of what writin that was left on the second and also on the third line. Mr. Firutan. Is it your opinion that the word faschistame w also written in pencil prior to the overwriting using the same lette construction? Mr. McNALLy. The letter constructions I am unsure of becaus there is only fugitive traces of pencil writing there because in som places you only get an indication to the right or to the left of thes words. Mr. Firuian. Let me talk about one letter in there which I thin you can see behind. First of all, I was struck by the fact that the same person writin two words in Cyrillic would use two different kinds of “t’s’”’ in th interior of the word. This one which is a kind of a broken versio of an old style Russian “‘t’’ and this one, which is a more moder version, though written a little peculiarly but clearly the two “Cs are not the same. Will you agree with that? Mr. McNALLy. I agree with that; yes. Mr. Firutan. Now look just behind the “t’” in faschistame. D you have the original there? Mr. McNA Ly. I have it. Mr. Firu1an. Are my eyes playing tricks on me or does it loo like an English “‘l’’? Mr. McNA tty. Just slightly to the left of it, it does look like loop formation like the letter “1.” Mr. Firu1an. I have some problems with your conclusion becaus if in fact this word is written by the same person as that word, no only do you have two different ‘‘t’” constructions which is reall quite unusual in my judgment, but in addition to that, when th person got to that part of the word faschistame, they chose not t follow the pattern that is underneath. I think it is a little unusual, but I don’t really want to push tha that a person makes the Russian ‘“‘t” by the modern method with large loop like the English “‘1.’’ That is not what set me off so muc as the fact that the overlay is entirely differently formed in thr ways: One, the underlay “1” or we could say “‘l” for this point looks t me very much like it is hooked onto whatever preceded it whic would have been under the Russian ‘‘s” which is the English lette “ce” is the Russian “‘s.” If you look very closely at the underlay, it looks like someon would have been writing the word whatever it is and then ju have onto the “1” in a cursive style, moving from one letter to th other. 391 Here there is no question about it. There is a clear break be- ween the Russian “sh” which is a kind of inverted ‘“m” with a bar inder it translated as a “sch” sound in the English, and the Russian “s’’ which follows and the Russian ‘‘t”’ which follows. All three of those are clearly separated from one another. There is no sursiveness about them. That is why I had problems about them with Mrs. Porter who could not tell whether it was her writing or 1ot. I think it is clear it is not her writing, I don’t think there is any question I am in total agreement with you. That is not her writing, nor is it the writing of anybody who has written much Russian by and large. Certainly, this first word, but—— To go back to this underlay “1,” I find it very difficult to arrive at the same conclusion that you do that this was simply a printing ver the letters that were already there. This leads me to kind of an open-ended speculation. You know, one could theorize all sorts of things. One could theorize that someone wrote—just try this one m for size—someone wrote the word “okhotnick” which is fine oecause that translates as hunter and if you had a guy in the garb shat Oswald is in on the opposite side of this, he might have drinted on the word “hunter.” If in fact the word faschistame and the ha, ha, ha, were written by someone else, which I think is dossible and I might argue even probable, we might take away rom this a wholly different historical interpretation as to how this varticular inscription came about. That was not even a question, I zuess. Mr. McNALLy. No. ) Mr. Firnian. Do you have any explanation from your expert dosition on this as to why the open ‘“l” appearing to be hooked on so the letter which precedes it, and I might stretch my eyes and say it seems also to be hooked onto the letter which follows but I am on shakier ground there? Mr. McNAaLtty. When I looked at this, I had no idea actually as to hat the translation was. I looked at it from the standpoint that we had a series of letter designs here which were in the Cyrillic alphabet which I am not that familiar with. But the writing pat- ern of these particular things is written in a very slow, hesitating fashion as if the party involved in this particular process here was 4ncertain as to the formations, it seems to me, of the various etters that he was writing. I think from the evidences of the pencil writing which still ‘emained there, from what I can see of them, that that individual as, in effect, following some letter design forms which he had een there previously. That would account for some of the vari- ations we have there. The incidence of that particular form appearing in between the ‘s’ or the “‘c,”” what would appear to be a Latin alphabet “c’” and a Uatin alphabet ‘‘t”; I cannot explain that particular formation, but really don’t see any great deviation or change in that writing. It ms to have to me the same flow and the same continuity from she top to the bottom. Mr. FirHIAn. It doesn’t seem to you that this was written some- hat faster than the first word? 392 Mr. McNAtty. In the sections there which actually are sort of the double “u” formation there and the “c’” and the “'t’; yes, those sections there do seem to be written appreciably faster. The begin- ning of it seems to me to be a little uncertain starting off, and then it has speeded up. It could be—and, of course, I am theorizing, I am not too sure of actually what is under there—it could be created by the fact that there was more there to follow than there was in the original when they started off. Mr. Frruran. Is it your opinion that both words are sort of overtraces or overwritten? Mr. McNALty. They are overwritten over original pencil writing, | most of it gone. | Mr. Firutan. Do you have any theory as to why the same person either writing in pencil to start with or writing the overlay would use an internal “‘t” in an altogether different style letter? Mr. MCNALLY. I have not the faintest idea, but people do strange things. Fortunately, I only have to identify handwriting. I don’t have to look into the psyche of the individual involved. But I have found in my experience that trying to rationalize what an individu- | al does in one particular letter and another particular letter, it is | the same as writing a signature. You write it one way the one day and the next day there is a twist thrown into it. The rationale behind it is hard to fathom. It is people with individual quirks. Mr. Frru1an. I guess my problem was that this was more than just a little shift in the way you pointed your pen or pencil. It was an altogether different writing of the Russian “t”? which I am told could stem from being trained at altogether different times in the Soviet system of schooling. But put that aside. I find it very difficult to understand why we would get two very different “‘t’s’ used. I didn’t catch everything you said. Had you analyzed Lee Harvey Oswald’s Russian script in some other writing? Mr. McNALLyY. Yes. Mr. Firuian. Did you find these characteristics in them? Did you find places where he wrote internal “t” in other words? Mr. McNatty. No, I found that actually he writes unlike that formation which appears to be an “m,” sort of split apart on that particular document. He writes that as you would write the Eng- lish “m.” That formation at the end of the top there, he writes that in entirely different form. His “x’s” are different and the “aa which in this particular instance is a “c” and there is a gap and you have that little curve. He writes it as you write an English “a.” Mr. Firutan. Did you find any other English style “t’s” in his writing? Mr. McNALty. I didn’t find anything in his writing. There are one or two situations where you run into some similarities, but there are more differences than similarities between the writing 0 Marina Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald as opposed to this particu- lar writing. I am of the opinion that the writing to me seems to be done b somebody who is not conversant in Russian and I think wer following the forms they saw on that page. That occasions th deviations from the original Cyrillic alphabet. 393 Mr. Firuian. Did you find it strange that the formation of the “a” in the three last words, that the two, this one and this one, seem to match each other and the internal ‘a’ doesn’t seem to match either one of them? That is, the body of the “a” is made by almost square lines as you follow it around with kind of sharp corners at three or four different places and the tail of the “a” is very clearly almost like a shortened English “1,” whereas in the ysecond “a” it is much more like we might write it in English. Were you troubled at all by the inconsistency of the ‘“‘a’s’”’? Mr. McNAtty. No; you have three, four, five, or six which pre- cede it. There is a lot of variation among them. Essentially they are all written in the same manner, written as a ‘“c’”’ with a curved loop after it, but at the end of each one of these “a’s’” there is a slight variation, one from the other. Mr. FirHian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply have two questions. The first has to do with your earlier statement that some of the writings that you examined were photo- copies and some were originals? Mr. McNA ..y. That is right. Mr. Fauntroy. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes? Mr. McNALLy. No, never. Mr. FAauntTroy. I wonder if you would care to tell us which analyses were made of originals and which were made of photocop- ies? Mr. McNatty. On the photocopies, none of these actually are photocopies that we are talking about here. Among the various documents there are a number of photo reproductions. Mr. STAUNTE OS, But you examined the originals of those docu- ments: Mr. McNA tty. All of these documents which I have talked about at this particular juncture are all original documents. Mr. Fauntroy. Second, is it your testimony that the Russian script on the back of the photograph is neither that of Lee Harvey Jswald, Marina Oswald, nor Mr. De Mohrenschildt? Mr. McNALtty. I don’t know about Mr. De Mohrenschildt. I have seen none of his Cyrillic writing. All I saw of his writing was written in the Latin alphabet. Mr. FauntTroy. I see, is it your testimony that the “G. de M.” at the bottom is not in his—— Mr. McNatty. No; it does not correspond to his writing. He writes very spidery, with quite a bit of shakiness in his handwrit- ing, and in an angular fashion. This is more rounded. That particu- lar “G” that we see up there I saw quite a bit of his writing and I couldn’t find it anywhere in it. Each time he writes his name, I have seen a couple of his signatures and he has never written a “G” in that particular fashion. This is much more firm than his Writing. Mr. Fauntroy. And “copyright” by the same token? Mr. McNatty. Yes. I looked at it overall. Not only the “G. de M.” but also the word “copyright.” The “copyright” is also more 394 rounded. I can’t find a “p” that is written in that particular fash- ion or an “r” or an “h” written in that fashion in all of his writing. He writes an “h” instead of as you see it there where it looks like an inverted “u.” When Mr. De Mohrenschildt writes, he turns it around the other way. It looks like a regular “y.” In other words, out of context. When he writes an “‘h,” it looks like an seLier Mr. Fauntroy. The script in the lower lefthand corner, were you able to identify that? | Mr. McNatty . Yes. In my opinion that was written by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Fauntroy. Finally, if we were to secure a copy of handwrit- ing by Mr. De Mohrenschildt in Russian, do you think you would then be able to tell us whether or not the Russian there is in his handwriting? Mr. McNALLY. It might give us some indication because there are some peculiar forms in there. The way the “a” is written is rather peculiar. I don’t see that particular “a” in the writing of Marina Oswald. I imagine she writes in a regular Russian script. It is an odd kind of “a.” Again, it looks like it has been constructed over some other writing. That is why it turned out in that form. If that has happened, then it may get to a point you would never be able to identify who wrote this because it’s a combination of say, No. 1 writing with No. 2 writing put on top of it, in order to make it more legible. Mr. Fauntroy. The fact is, however, that having looked at Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s writing in English, you are not able to identify his English “a” with the Russian “a.” Mr. McNAtty. Well, his English ‘“‘a” form is entirely different from the “a” form that we have up there which is an approxima- tion of the Latin alphabet. Also, that other form there looks some- thing like a “k” on the first line just before the three “a.” At that particular form up there it is made up of three separate lines, a vertical and two diagonals. One is separated from the other in the writing of De Mohrenschildt and the other people I mentioned, none of them make a “k” in that fashion or make a design form in that fashion or make that design form in that fashion. Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the bal- ance of my time. Chairman Strokes. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you see any similarity between the Russian writing at the top and the copyright and so on down at the bottom? Mr. McNAtty. No. The copyright is written much more firmly, dashed right off. The other one, it looks like they labored to write that Russian writing. Mr. Sawyer. Not being an expert, as I look at the “c” up in the Russian writing which is actually an “s” in Russian but looks like our “c,” it bore just to my eye quite a resemblance to the way the “co”? was written in “copyright.” Mr. McNALty. You will always pick up one or two letters. Some- thing like. one swallow does not make a summer. Mr. Sawyer. Was your panel unanimous in agreeing on the writing that you say was written by Lee Harvey Oswald? 395 Mr. McNALLyY. Yes. Mr. Sawyer. There was no difference of opinion on that? Mr. McNALLy. No; we practically agreed on everything. Mr. Sawyer. Thank you. That is all I had, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dopp. Just one question: From what I have gathered you have said here for the past 20 minutes or so that you have identi- fied the writing on the left as that of being Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. McNA zy. Right. Mr. Dopp. You have identified negatively the writing at the top in Russian as not being of either Marina or Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. McNaA ty. That is right. Mr. Dopp. And you are unable to identify the writing on the bottom of being of anyone? Mr. McNA Ly. That is right. Mr. Dopp. And you don’t see any similarities between the Rus- sian writing, the copyright writing, or the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. McNA zy. I do not. Mr. Dopp. So it would appear to you, can we conclude, that there are possibly three people or more who could have written on the back of this picture? Mr. McNALty. There are three different handwriting patterns on there. Mr. Dopp. It is definitely three different handwriting patterns? Mr. McNaA zy. That is right. Mr. Dopp. Did you see any dissimilarities in the Russian writing? It appeared to you it was all done by the same person? Mr. McNALLy. I believe so; yes. Mr. Dopp. Did the panel address that issue as to whether or not there could have possibly been more than one person writing the Russian? Mr. McNAaA tty. No; I do not think so. Mr. Dopp. As for the “copyright”’ and the “G. de M.,” that was all done by the same person? Mr. McNALLy. That particular one in the lower right hand corner. Yes, all by the same individual. Mr. Dopp. And it is all the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald? You didn’t detect anything in there that would indicate—— Mr. McNAL ty. The lower left is the same individual. Mr. Dopp. So it is three distinct? Mr. McNALty. Three distinct writing patterns there; yes. Mr. Dopp. Thank you. Chairman SrTokEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McNally, when you describe the techniques which were used to examine the writing, were there any blowups with the Oswald writing and his wife, Marina, compared to the writing on the back of the picture? Mr. McNatty. Blowups in what way? During the examination process? Mr. Forp. During the examination process? 396 Mr. McNALLy. Yes. As a matter of fact, for most of this examina- tion, I had taken photo macrographs of these and I studied projec- tions of them on a screen. This particular writing was made actual- ly much larger than it is now versus other signatures of his. Mr. Forp. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STokEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Epacar. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. Mr. Firu1an. May I have 1 more minute? Chairman STOKES. Surely. | Mr. Firuian. Mr. McNally, would it be fair to surmise that since © George De Mohrenschildt was educated either in Poland or Russia — and therefore would have from boyhood written in that alphabet, that it would be at least highly unlikely that George DeMohrens- childt wrote any of those Russian words on the back of that? | Mr. McNA ty. I think if he knew Russian, he would have just © rewritten it, period. I get right back to where I started. I think this © was written by somebody not very well conversant with the Cyrillic — alphabet and that is why they had such problems in writing these © letter designs. Somebody like Mr. De Mohrenschildt I think would — have puree out a product which would be much more Russian, so © to speak. ) Mr. Firuian. We have had testimony that Mr. De Mohrenschildt © was fluent in Russian and his earlier education pattern would have — been with that alphabet. So I just wanted to get that into the record that at least it would be my guess that De Mohrenschildt could not have written that or would not have written that. Mr. McNatty. I don’t believe somebody conversant with the Cyrillic alphabet would have turned out a product like this. Mr. FITHIAN. So it is your conclusion that it was a beginning or somebody not very familiar with it? Mr. McNALLy. That is right. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stokes. Mr. McNally, my understanding is that you will be called back later in our hearings for further testimony in another section. Since you have concluded this section of your testimony, would you like to have 5 minutes to explain your testimony or make any comment with reference to your testimony? I would extend to you ©) minutes at this time for that purpose. Mr. McNALty. Well, I don’t think it will take 5 minutes. Actually, to recapitulate, in my opinion the writing in the lower lefthand corner of that particular photograph was done by Lee Harvey Oswald. The Russian writing at the top is an overwriting of pencil writing which had either been erased or faded away or had been written lightly to begin with. I was unable to identify that writing as being done by Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina Oswald, or Mr. De Mohrenschildt. The writing in the lower righthand corner cannot be identified with the writing of Mr. De Mohrenschildt. In sum and substance, this is my testimony. Chairman Stokes. Thank you very much. At this time you are excused. There being no further business to come before this committee, the Chair will adjourn this meeting. (Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Friday, September 15, 1978.] 397 INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1978 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The select committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:10 a.m., 1 room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes vhairman of the select committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, Fauntroy, awyer, Dodd, Fithian, and Edgar. Staff present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director; ary Cornwell, deputy chief counsel; Michael Goldsmith, staff dunsel; and Elizabeth L. Berning, chief clerk. Chairman Stokes. A quorum being present, the committee will yme to order. The Chair requests that Mr. Kirk and Mr. McCamy return to the itness table. Gentlemen, the Chair would remind both of you that you are ill under the oath administered to you yesterday. You understand that, do you not? TESTIMONY OF CALVIN S. McCAMY AND SGT. CECIL W. KIRK (Resumed) Mr. McCamy. Yes. Sergeant Kirk. Yes. Chairman Srokes. The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCamy, after the panel had established that the Oswald ickyard pictures had been taken with Oswald’s Imperial reflex ‘mera, what was the next step in the investigation? Mr. McCamy. We next addressed the issue of whether or not ese were fake photographs. Mr. Gotpsmiru. Were you familiar with the allegations that have en raised in support of the argument that the backyard picture owing Oswald with the rifle are fake? s ‘Mr. McCamy. Yes. ‘Mr. Gotpsmitu. Were these allegations considered by the com- ittee’s photography panel? Mr. McCamy. Yes, they were. Mr. Goutpsmitu. Mr. McCamy, would you define the term ‘“‘photo- minetry’’? Mr. McCamy. Photogrammetry is the science of ascertaining the Sitions and dimensions of objects from measurements of photo- (397) 398 graphs of those objects. It is widely used in making aerial surveys. It is used in mapmaking. It is even used by orthodontists to study the positions of teeth, and that sort of thing. So it is a fairly well established science. , Mr. GoupsmiTH. What qualifications do you have in this science? Mr. McCamy. Well, I am the chairman of the standards commit- tee of the American Society of Photogrammetry. Mr. GoipsmitH. Would you explain generally how photogram- metry was applied to the backyard pictures? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Measurements were made of the photographs, in particular, the shadows in the photographs were very carefully analyzed by well- known techniques in photogrammetry, and in fact our measure- ments led us to the conclusion that we had stereo pairs and we were able to view the photographs stereoscopically. Mr. GotpsmitH. We will get into the concept of stereoscopy later. At this time I would ask that the witness be given an opportuni- ty to examine JFK Exhibit F-270. Mr. McCamy, how did the panel address the allegations that) there are unnatural lines which are evidence of fakery in the vicinity of Oswald’s chin? | Mr. McCamy. We very carefully examined the original negative! and the first-generation prints of the negative. We compared the photograph of Oswald with other known photographs of him. To assist in our evaluation of the photographs, we had exposure series made to assure us that we would be able to see all parts of the pictures, and we used digital data processing on the photographs. Mr. GoupsmitTu. I believe you indicated that the photographs in the negative were visually inspected. What did that include? Mr. McCamy. Direct visual examination and examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes. We examined the negative with a phase contrast microscope, which would detect very, very small changes in thickness in the negative. Mr. GoupsmitH. At this time I would ask that the witness be given a chance to examine what has been marked for identification as JFK F-196. And, Mr. McCamy, I would ask that you step to the easel and take a look at that exhibit. Would you identify that exhibit for the record, Mr. McCamy? Mr. McCamy. Yes; we have a copy of 133-A and this is the 133-A Stovall. Here we have the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photograph. And here we have enlargements of these photographs. Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this exhibit. Chairman Strokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 399 JFK Exuisit F-196 Mr. GoutpsmitTu. Mr. McCamy, referring to these exhibits, would ou explain the results of the panel’s visual inspection of the chin ea in these photographs? Mr. McCamy. Yes; there had been an allegation that on a photo- raph of Oswald, there was a line directly across the chin, and this been cited as evidence that the upper part of the head had een added onto another chin. So we looked very carefully at all of ne original materials to see if there were any telltale line across ere. What we found was that on second and third and more neration prints, or prints that were published in books, there was tendency to build up more and more contrast here so that this »0ks more and more like a line. That line is nowhere near as ronounced on the original materials. paving examined it to that extent, it was called to our attention nat it was not this gross line that was of interest to some of the ritics but rather it was pointed out that there was a very fine line hat begins here and curves around and comes into here. This was ointed out to us, so we began a very careful examination of that, nd there is indeed a very fine line that comes from the ear, comes own here, and over into here. Now that fine line is actually too fine to be a photographic mage. The photographic image is made up of silver grains, and hese grains are distributed all through here, so we have a good dea of their size and distribution. This line is a line that is much iner than the silver grains themselves. It is much too continuous 0 be a photographic line. A line that had been photographed from ome kind of montage would have had the grain pattern of a 400 discontinuous line, but this line is quite continuous. Indeed we can follow this line down up to here and then back around to here. It is a closed loop. || That very fine line is in fact the edge of the water spot. When | | the film was processed, a drop of water remained there. When thef water dried, it deposited a very fine line of minerals, and that is apparent on the picture. I have seen exactly these same water| spots on the area of his shirt and on the butt of the rifle, so we know that these water spots exist all over. | Now this is Stovall and DeMohrenschildt 133-A. | You will recall we do not have the negative of that so we could} not examine that negative. We did see water spots on 133-B, but] we do see that this same spot occurs on both of these first-genera-j} tion prints of the A negative, so we know that the spot must havej} been on the negative. | Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. McCamy, were all of the Oswald backyard} pictures, by that I mean A, B, and C, examined to see if there wereff any unnatural lines in the vicinity of the chin? | Mr. McCamy. Yes. | Mr. GotpsmitH. And what was the panel’s final conclusion there?}} Mr. McCamy. We found no unusual lines or edges, and these} were very carefully sought. | Mr. GotpsmitH. At this time I would ask that Mr. McCamy be given an opportunity to examine JFK F-194. | Mr. Chairman, I move to admit this item. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered at thi time. i [The information follows:] DALLAS POLICE. 54018 ii 23 63 Posaporte WN DS Urmanenis: a ehis ee ee i ee eee ee JFK Exuisit F-194 402 Mr. GoLpsmITH. Thank you. Mr. McCamy, what additional information about the backyard I} pictures was obtained by comparing the backyard pictures with the photographs in this exhibit? Mr. McCamy. This photograph is quite remarkable. This was || taken by the Dallas police. It shows that it isn’t the picture that |} has a line across the chin. It is the man that has a line across the |} chin. He actually has an indentation right here, and that doesj} show up in these photographs, right in the center and right here. There is a crease there, so that is a natural thing we find, but I think that it is also important to note here the exact shape of his chin. It is quite flat across here, and rounds down in this way. So} that if that chin were illuminated from directly above, the light f would fall down to here, to about that point, where it would seem |} to cut off quite straight. So this photograph gives us a good reason why that chin seems to be so flat at the bottom. | Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. McCamy, you made reference earlier tof studying these photographs by applying a technique which you} referred to as varying exposures. / Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. Would you define that technique, please? | Mr. McCamy. Yes. It is often difficult on a single print to see all} the detail in a photograph. Sometimes not all the detail that is in} the negative is printed in the photograph. To assure that we had} all of the detail available to us for study, we had the Rochester Institute of Technology make a series of prints in which the expo- | sure was increased from one print to the next, and this allowed us to see all the detail. | Mr. GoLpsmITH. I would ask that the witness now be given JFK} F-192 and F-198 to examine. Mr. McCamy, are these copies of the varying exposure prints | prepared by RIT? | Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of these | items into the record. | Chairman SToKEs. Without objection, they may be entered into} the record. [The information follows:] 403 Tn ro Mae, ¢ JFK Exuisit F- 192 JFK Exuisit F-193 405 Mr. Gotpsmitu. Please explain the results of this varying expo- ure analysis. Mr. McCamy. Yes. In these illustrations, the greatest exposure gives the darkest print, and the least exposure, the lightest print. The advantage of doing this is that in the lightest areas of the sicture we can see detail here that cannot be seen up here. Con- versely, in the shadows, this is the best photograph on which to ook for the detail. So that is a print ideally exposed to look into the shadows. This one is ideally exposed to look into the highlights, 30 we can see all the detail there. _ Mr. Gotpsmitu. Would you please define that technique? Mr. McCamy. Digital image processing is computer-assisted pho- ographic evaluation. The negative or transparency or print is put mto a scanner. A scanner is a device that optically looks at each very small area on the photograph and determines the lightness of t. It assigns a number to the lightness, and these numbers are hen fed into a computer, into the memory. If you like afterwards, you can have that memory played back into a printing device that mill reprint the photograph. _ Sometimes we find it advantageous to utilize the capability of the *omputer while the information is in the computer to make a print yhat is different from the one that we put in. _ For example, we can ask the computer to increase the contrast, €crease it, or increase or decrease the lightness. We can indeed ;i ‘sk the computer to look for edges or look for lines. We can make ™ analysis of the nature of the grain pattern, and then the com- luter can print out its results. _Mr. Gotpsmitu. At this time I would ask that Mr. McCamy be on JFK F-197 and F-198 and that they be entered into the “€cora. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, so ordered. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisit F-197 JFK Exuisit F-198 Mr. McCamy. We had this work done by the University of Soutk ern California and at Aerospace Corp. They use these techn iques 1 407 tocessing the photographs that come back from satellites, et stera. Mr. Gotpsmiru. You have seen these two exhibits. Would you explain the results of the digital image processing ork done on these photographs? : Mr. McCamy. Yes. One of the things that we wanted to do was to uudy the nature of the silver grain in the areas above the chin and slow the chin, because of the allegation that these were two fferent photographs in some way. And so we did that. This is mply a printout from the computer showing the individ ual grains the film above and below the middle of the chin. And we studied e chin from the outside. © There had been one contention that this area on this post was inatural. Our inspection of this leads us to believe that the ap- ‘rent indentation is simply a shadow, because if you look very refully, you can see the post running down through that area, ‘d this is just a slight darkening. So that was merely a shadow, id the computer confirms this. ‘As you can see, it finds that straight edge running right straight wn there. Mr. Gotpsmiru. Mr. McCamy, I notice that there is a line under- ath, or running across Oswald’s chin. Are you able to explain that line? Mr. McCamy. The line over here is simply the natural shape of 3 chin being indicated by that high level illumination. The line te, of course, is the edge of that being traced by the computer. Mr. Goipsmitu. Which of the backyard picture materials were ed or subjected to this technique of digital image processing? Ae AT eee We worked with the negative. It was the negative Mr. Gotpsmiru. Why weren’t the prints from 133-A and 133-C jected to this process? Mr. McCamy. Well, we needed the original negative, you see, to idy the grain. So that is the reason we did that. Mr. Gotpsmitu. How might evidence of fakery appear on a digi- image processor printout if in fact there had been fakery? Mr. McCamy. Well, we should have expected to find a difference grain, or over here, we should have expected to find edges that uld have indicated some kind of montage. Now we did not find any such evidence. That, of course, doesn’t ve that it was not faked, but we are looking for evidence that it s faked, and we find none. Mr. GotpsmitTH. At this time I would ask that Mr. McCamy be en a chance to see JFK F-386. I would also request that Mr. 408 McCamy be shown JFK F-270. And while that is being brougl out, I move for the admission of F-386, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may we have F-38386 entered into the recor Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into t record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisir F-386 Mr. GotpsmitrH. Mr. McCamy, drawing your attention to JF F-270, which is the exhibit on the far left, the allegation has bee made that Oswald’s chin is different in the backyard photogra] from the chin on the real Oswald on the left of that photogray JFK F-270. Referring now to JFK F-886, which is the exhibit at your imm diate right, how did the panel address this particular issue? Mr. McCamy. The panel compared the backyard photograp! with these other known photographs of Oswald. We find that some of his younger pictures, his chin appears more rounded thé it does later on when he develops a slight cleft in his chin. In all these though, we can see this rather distinctive line across tl chin, and then we looked for the contour here. That would expla why the overhead illumination here would have simply cut off this point. It seemed to us quite natural that that image wou result from high level illumination of that chin. I should remark that a number of people have made measut ments of photographs and thought that there was something u usual about them. Oftentimes people do not take into account tl fact that when the jaw is clenched, you have one dimension fro So I will demonstrate. It is not uncommon for people to have 1eir mouth closed but the teeth down, so that can enter into Mr. GotpsmituH. Did the panel find that Oswald’s chin was the ame in each of these pictures? By the “same,” I mean did it Ppear to be, did it have the same appearance in each picture Mr. McCamy. The backyard photographs seem to have nothing? dat is unusual as compared to the other chins. Mr. GotpsmitH. To what extent is lighting a factor in the way aat a chin might appear in a photograph? Mr. McCamy. It is a very important factor. Every portrait pho- grapher knows very well that the way the face is lighted can ave a tremendous effect on the appearance. The eyes, for example, hardly show up on the backyard photo- vaphs because of this overhead illumination. Of course, the nose nadow is produced by that, but the chin form is not delineat ed ell on that picture at all because there is little or no light coming om the front. ‘Mr. GoupsmitH. From examining these photographs did the anel conclude that, in some of the pictures, Oswald’s chin appears 1 be pointed, and in others, it is flat or straight across at the »ttom? 'Mr. McCamy. Only to the extent that in his younger years it was ‘ore rounded and didn’t seem to show this cleft as much as it does ter on. ‘Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. McCamy, how did the panel address the festion of the shadows in the backyard pictures? *Mr. McCamy. This was addressed by a vanishing point analysis . - GoLpsmiTH. What do you mean by “vanishing point analy- 379 ‘Mr. McCamy. The sun is very distant, so far away that we can sider it to be at infinity, and as a result, if we draw a line from t object to the shadow of the object, and we do this in a number places in a scene, all of those lines are parallel lines. ‘Now you may recall, if you have ever seen a photograph of ilroad tracks disappearing into the distance, the photograph ‘ows those two rails converging at a point. That is called the mishing point. The rails are parallel but in the photograph they mverge. This is taught in art courses in high school and in echanical drawing, so the converging of parallel lines is a well- 1own matter of perspective. In a photograph one should expect vat these parallel shadow lines should converge at the vanishing ‘int. Mr. Goupsmitu. I would ask that Mr. McCamy be shown JFK 3887 and F-388. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of these exhibits. Chairman Stokes. Without objection, they may be entered into € record at this point. 'The information follows:] JFK Exnuisit F -387 411 JFK Exurisit F-388 412 Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. McCamy, I ask you if you would explain| how the vanishing point principle is illustrated in these two exhibits? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Here we have 133-A and 133-B. A line is drawn from a part of this stairway, past the shadow of the stair-| way, down to here. A line is drawn from the butt of the pistol,| through the shadow of the butt of the pistol, down to here, from| the arm to the shadow of the arm, down to here. And when we do} this for all the points in the photograph, we find that they all meet at a point, as they should. Now this is the line that passes through the nose and the chin) down to here, and that one is the nose to the shadow of the nose. That is the one thing that has been disputed so frequently, and 1 you do the analysis properly, you see that the shadow lies right) where it is supposed to lie. The same thing is true over here. Here we have the muzzle o the rifle, the shadow of the muzzle of the rifle, and so on down the line. | Mr. Gotpsmit H. Mr. McCamy, if the lines were not parallel, would they all meet at one point as they do in these two exhibits?! Mr. McCamy. No. | Mr. Goupsmitu. If the lines in these two exhibits had not met at one point, what conclusion or inference might you have drawn? Mr. McCamy. We might have drawn the conclusion that some- thing had been drawn in rather than traced in by the hand of nature. | Dasa et Did you do a similar vanishing point analysis for 133-C*% Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. GotpsmitH. And what were the results? Mr. McCamy. The results were the same. Mr. Gotpsmiru. At this time I would ask that Mr. McCamy be shown JFK F-179. Mr. McCamy, it has been specifically alleged that in the back- yard pictures, the shadow cast by Oswald’s nose does not change even though the position of his head changes. How did the panel approach this analysis? I understand the vanishing point analysis is part of that. How was the issue overall approached? Mr. McCamy. Yes. The vanishing point analysis clearly proves that the shadows are correct, but we wanted to face the issue of whether or not we could convince someone else that these things can happen. So we asked the people at the Rochester Institute o! Technology to make photographs that would illustrate just how it can happen that the head can be tilted and the shadow tilt with it are Go.psmitu. I would ask that Mr. McCamy be shown JFK F Are these the photographs prepared by the Rochester Institute 0! Technology? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. GotpsmitH. They are enlargements of those photographs: Mr. McCamy. They are enlargements. Mr. Gotpsmiru. Mr. Chairman, I move for admission into the record of this exhibit. 413 Chairman Stokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 1. Head vertical. 2. Head tilted. Shadow points toward center Shadow points toward left side of mouth. of mouth. Wi ate eo svt 4. Moving camera to left sel 1 i easit ee ee eR Ler ar restores full front view. head hot Farin Shadow points toward center H of mouth with head tilted. | 41-371 O - 79 - 27 Vol. 2 414 Mr. GotpsmitH. Would you explain what purpose this exhibit was designed to achieve and also the results of your analysis? Mr. McCamy. It was designed to illustrate the way the shadow of the nose moves as the head is moved and as the camera angle is changed and so on. Mr. Go.psmitu. And what were the results of your analysis, sir? Mr. McCamy. Here we see the head vertical with the overhead lighting casting a shadow of the nose directly toward the center of the lips. Here the head has been tilted by simply placing the pencil under this model. Once it is tilted, the sun casts the shadow slightly to the right. Now if that head is then rotated ever so slightly to the left, the shadow now appears to be pointing right straight at the lips but the subject is no longer looking at the camera. An ever so slight shift of the camera now brings the image back to looking about, as it did at first. Mr. GotpsmitH. So you are saying then that the fact that the position of the head has moved will not necessarily mean that the shadow cast by part of the head, in this case the nose, will move? Mr. McCamy. Yes. The point is that the illumination, the exact geometry of the head and the camera position, must all be consid- ered in trying to determine where the shadow ought to be. | Mr. Gotpsmitru. Mr. McCamy, in studying the shadows in these photographs, were you able to determine the time sequence in which the three pictures were taken? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Go.psmitu. How was that analysis done, sir, and what were your results? Mr. McCamy. Do we have 133-C? Mr. GotpsmitTH. 133-C, please. I believe that is JFK-180. Mr. McCamy. Why not put it over on this side, please? Mr. GoxtpsmitH. How did you go about determining the time sequence in which these photographs were taken? Mr. McCamy. On this post, we see three shadows cast. These are also seen in the background behind the subject. Those three shad- ows appear on 133-A, 133-B, and 133-C, probably cast by some parallel lines, such as cables or some such thing. If we look carefully, we see that there is a knot in the wood here. It is near the bottom shadow. Here we see that this bottom shadow is moved down considerably, so the knot is about half way between those two shadows. Over here, the two shadows are moved down even farther, the knot is higher up, so we were able to find that the shadows were lower, down here. Then they moved up a little bit, and then they moved up a little bit more. This indicated, you see, that the sun was moving down in this direction. And if these cables were at a considerable distance, this gives us quite an angle of throw. The indication is that this picture was taken first, then this one, and then this one. Mr. Gotpsmitu. For the record, the witness has indicated that 133-C was taken first, then 133-B, and then 133-A, although it is possible, is it not, that there were intervening pictures? 415 Mr. McCamy. Oh, there could well have been, but I considered only these. Mr. GotpsmitTu. In examining these pictures, is there any indica- ee ious the photographer’s work improved as each picture was taken‘ Mr. McCamy. Yes. We can see some learning here. On this picture, the camera was tilted to one side, and when the photographer took the picture, a common error was committed, the camera was held in one hand and the other hand was used to depress the shutter release. When that was done, the camera was rotated ever so slightly. We find the area in the neighborhood of this bush to be quite clearly recorded, so that this was the center of rotation, and over here, we see a systematic movement, a camera motion of the stair treads in the upward direction. Now in this photograph, the camera is held upright, but his feet have been cut off. We go over to this photograph, and the camera is now held upright. He is completely included. He is now smiling and ready to have his picture taken. Mr. Goipsmitu. Mr. McCamy, another allegation that has been made is that the heads in these photographs are identical, thereby, suggesting that one head has been used for three different compos- ites. How did the panel approach this issue? Mr. McCamy. The panel simply looked at these three pictures and found it quite puzzling that anyone would say that they are the same. He has a different look on his face on each of these pictures. Here he is rather smiling. More of his eyes were shown in this picture than in the others. In this one, he is frowning. The lower part of his lip is puffed out. And in this picture, he has a rather gentle smile on his face. They are so different that it is just apparent from the photo- graphs. Mr. GotpsmitH. Drawing your attention now to the argument that the backgrounds in each of these pictures are identical, how was this issue studied by the panel? Mr. McCamy. It was studied by visual inspection and measure- ment. Visually inspecting the photographs, we find that there are—I have already spoken of the shadows on the post. These are different, and they do what one would expect them to do. But back in here, one sees shadow detail that is different on these because these are shadows of leaves of a tree at some distance, and the slightest movement of those leaves, of course, causes a different shadow pattern back in here. Inspecting the photographs, we can look at a little rectangle here, for example, and we see that it looks different on these pictures. It has different dimensions, so that immediately suggests measurement. Mr. GoLpsmiTH. What other measurements, if any, did you make of these backyard photographs? Mr. McCamy. The two things that we wanted to determine was whether there had been any movement of the camera to the left or right and whether there had been any movement of the camera up 416 or down that would indicate that the camera had moved slightly between these exposures. There is a post in the foreground. There are pickets in the background. A sensitive method of detecting a horizontal move- ment is to measure from the left edge of the post to the edge of the picket on the left side, the right edge of the post to the edge of the picket on the right side, and take the ratio of those two. Do that on that photograph, then do it on this photograph. We did that. We find that that ratio is different on these two photographs, indicating that there has been a small change in the camera posi- tion from one photograph to the next. We apply exactly the same kind of principle in the vertical direction. Measurements were made from a part of the fence in the foreground to a part of a door in the background, and in each case, this was ratioed against another dimension here. So that mere scale wouldn’t change these things. And again we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there. Mr. GotpsmitH. What is the significance of the fact that there was some movement, albeit small? Mr. McCamy. It had two kinds of significance to us. The first thing was that it showed that the camera had been moved and therefore was not on a tripod. It had the significance to us that the background was real, that is, it was not a photograph that had simply been rephotographed and rephotographed. But it also gave us stereo. We were able to view the pictures stereoscopically. Mr. Go.psmitu. I would ask that Mr. McCamy be shown F-203. Mr. Chairman, I move for the admission of this exhibit. Chairman Strokes. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisit F-203 418 Mr. GotpsmitH. Mr. McCamy, would you describe the concept of stereo, using this exhibit? 3 Mr. McCamy. Yes. The human eyes are located a short distance apart. If we view a square peg a little way from the eye, the right eye can see the front of the peg and a little of its right side. The left eye sees the front and the little bit of the left side. This is known as the binocular disparity, that is, we see different things with the two eyes. Another thing that we note is that for the left eye view, this spot falls ‘behind the peg, and for the right eye view, a different spot in the background will fall behind the peg. This is known as parallax. And now the photographer can record what the human eye sees, — and it is done by simply placing a camera here and a camera here. | Now the two may be combined together in what is called a stereo camera, or one can make a photograph here and then move over to ) here and make another photograph, and then if these two photo-— graphs can be viewed with the two eyes, you will see the same kind of depth as would be seen if you were in the original scene. Mr. GotpsmiTu. In other words, the stereo viewing enables some- one to see in three dimensions. Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Go.psmitTuH. How do stereo pairs assist someone in detecting possible fakery? Mr. McCamy. We were able to view these photographs stereo- scopically, so we know that there was slight camera movement. We know that there were two pictures. But it has much more far- reaching consequence than that. It tells us that there was a solid three dimensional field that was photographed two times. If one were to have photographed the background once, and then taken a camera and photographed that print and then rephotographed the print from two angles, when that is viewed stereoscopically, the human eye would tell you that you were looking at a plane print. That isn’t what we saw. We saw depth, and we can still see depth. Now if one were going to do art work on actual stereo pairs, that art work has to be done exceedingly meticulously, because the slightest difference in the art work on one photograph and the art work on the other photograph would cause the points involved to appear to be too far away or too close. They would tend to float in space. So stereo viewing is an excellent way of checking up on the authenticity of the photograph. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Is any special viewer necessary to enable some- one to see in stereo? Mr. McCamy. It is not necessary but it makes it more convenient for most people. Mr. Gotpsmitu. How many panel members examined these pho- tographs in stereo? Mr. McCamy. At least, oh, a half dozen. Mr. Gotpsmitu. Mr. McCamy, and Sergeant Kirk, I would like to ask you both, what was the panel’s conclusion regarding the back- yard pictures showing Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle and the revolver and the militant newspapers? Mr. McCamy. We found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs. 419 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sergeant Kirk? Sergeant Kirk. I might add that we also established the camera hat the photographs were taken with. Mr. Go.tpsmiTH. Thank you. I have no further questions. Chairman Stokes. At this point the procedure will be that the ‘hair will ask some questions of the witnesses, after which the hair will recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. ’reyer. We will then go to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian, for uch time as he may consume. May we have exhibits 1338-A, B, and C posted again, please? Thank you. Sergeant Kirk and Mr. McCamy, aside from the technical analy- es that were applied to these materials, which indicate of course hat there is no evidence of fakery in these photographs, are there ny practical considerations that suggest these pictures were not aked? Sergeant Kirk. Well, sir, it was established by the Warren Com- 1ission and the FBI that both the papers and the rifle probably did ot arrive in Dallas until around March 27 or 28. Mr. Oswald utographed one of the photographs on April 5. He was dismissed rom the company he worked with, where he had darkroom oper- ‘tions open to him the following day. _ We established that the film was probably developed by an ama- eur, and the DeMohrenschildt print was probably at least proc- ‘ssed and washed and dried by an amateur. It is the panel’s belief hat the so-called drugstore prints were made much later. So even f we don’t regard the testimony of Marina Oswald, where she says he probably took the photographs on March 31, the narrowing of he time in which fakery could have been done has been narrowed onsiderably. We are talking about the pictures, even if they were aken on March 28 or 29, processed and autographed by April 5, ertainly narrows the parameters of time when these photographs ould have been faked or altered. Chairman SToKEs. That, then, brings me to another concern I ‘ave, and that is whether the panel’s analyses of these photos was imited solely to the allegations that have been made by the Varren Commission critics, or did you take into consideration ther analyses? Mr. McCamy. Yes. The analysis went, I think, quite a ways eyond what the critics had brought up. For example, our photo- rammetric measurements over the whole photograph in all of hese instances demonstrated the parallax that existed vertically nd horizontally. The shadow analysis was extended far beyond wnything that people had talked about earlier. For example, on the bush to the right. That bush appears to most veople to have a lot more leaves than it really has, because when ‘ou view that in stereo, you see that you are seeing a few leaves nd a lot of shadows, and you can tell which is which. It was for hat reason that I was able to trace the vanishing point from leaves 0 the shadows of leaves. We were able to detect that. None of this iad been mentioned by the critics. 420 Chairman Strokes. Also, Mr. McCamy, I didn’t get a comment from you regarding any practical considerations. Did you care to make any comments in that area? Mr. McCamy. Yes. It seems to me that there are other practical considerations. If someone else is trying to fake this photograph of Oswald, the backyard had to be available. It had to be available for a period of time long enough for us to be able to detect the passage of time in the pictures. They had to have the rifle and pistol. They had to have these newspapers. So there are quite a number of limitations. The shadows, of course, had to be under very, very tight control, if there was any fakery, and this sort of almost means making the sun stand still. Chairman Strokes. There has been some testimony here with reference to what is called “transparency overlays.” Do photo scientists consider this a good way of detecting differ- ences between soft-edged images? Mr. McCamy. This was a question that came up earlier, and, yes, the panel has considered overlays. All of us have used overlays for various purposes. If you have two images, say, a negative and a positive, or two positives, and they have very sharp edges, if you make two different colored transparencies of those and overlay them, one can see very readily that there is a difference between the two. That is a method of change detection. But if the edges of those photographs are rather soft, then there can be considerable differences between the two images, and you don’t see the differ- ence. So, no, we would not use that technique on soft edge images. Chairman Stokes. Then how much weight should we give to the argument that Oswald’s head appears to be identical in length in each of the photographs? Yet in each case his body seems to vary in size. Mr. McCamy. Well, in the first place, the heads are not actually identical in length. If you make measurements, you find that there are small differences. There are large differences in the length of the body. To explain that, one must use the entire theory of perspective, | and you would have to know the tilt of his body relative to the. camera axis. Without considering the tilt of his body to the camera axis, it is pointless to make measurements on the photographs. Chairman SroxEs. Sergeant Kirk, let me ask you this: You have had extensive experience in taking mug shots. Can you discuss with us, in terms of taking mug shots, what your experience has been, in terms of the head remaining constant size while the body appears to vary in size? Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. As you know, probably you know, I know Judge Preyer is aware of this, years ago police departments used to photograph prisoners with high scales in the background and so forth, and as the years came over, we find that as the prisoners refused to stand erect and slouched and so forth, it would give the illusion from photograph to photograph, even though you are photographing the same individual, that he or she would shrink or grow 3 or 4 inches in either direction. But since it is not too easy to slouch the head, the head would still appear to be 421 basically the same size in the photograph, but yet you would have disparity in appearances in height by the way the person stands. Chairman SToKEs. Is it possible I wonder for you to display that to us or exhibit that to us on any of the exhibits here? Sergeant Kirk. We don’t have an exhibit prepared for you at this time, but I would be most happy to present one to you for the record at a later date. Chairman SToKEs. OK; that will be fine. Mr. McCamy, I just have one further question. There has been some evidence here relating to placing rulers on photographs for certain purposes. Can photographic objects be measured simply by putting a ruler on them? Mr. McCamy. I think about the best illustration that bears on this is to suppose that we have a picture of a couple sitting on a bench in the park and the moon is in the background. If one were simply to use a ruler and compare the size of the moon to the size of the young lady’s head, you can see how far off it could be. The point being that the distance of objects in a photograph must be taken into account. If you are talking about a linear object of some kind, you have to take into account the tilt of that object to the camera axis. Otherwise the measurements aren’t very meaningful. Chairman SToKEs. Thank you, gentlemen. My time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been quite an education for those of us who never got much beyond the Brownie camera stage. I wanted to ask just a couple of questions about the shadows, to make sure I understand your position, and then ask you one gener- al question. There have been a number of allegations about shadows in these pictures, of course, for example, that the shadows cast by the nose are inconsistent with those cast by the body. Let me ask you this, Mr. McCamy, or either of you gentlemen. If a picture is authentic, would you expect all of the shadows cast ody objects in the photographs to line up parallel to each other? Mr. McCamy. They might. They might be parallel. This would 1appen in the event that you are looking at a small scene, and the sun were directly overhead, and the camera axis was exactly hori- zontal. In that case, you would find parallel lines, and we would say that the vanishing point is at infinity. But in most practical -ases, aS in these photographs, the lines in space are parallel. But when they are photographed on the photograph, they converge “oward the vanishing point. Mr. PrRrEYER. Could we have exhibits F-192 and F-19383 again? These were the exhibits developed I think by the Rochester cnstitute of Technology. Mr. McCamy. Yes. Sergeant Kirk. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Referring to those exhibits, I understood you to say shat you were able to detect detail in the shadows of those pictures; s that correct? 422 Mr. McCamy. That is correct, yes; grass, little rocks, and newspa- pers, and so on, in the shadows of Oswald. Mr. Preyer. And what did this suggest to you about the authen- ticity of the shadows? Mr. McCamy. They look completely authentic, yes. Mr. Preyer. They were not painted in? Mr. McCamy. Not painted in. We found no evidence of that at all. Mr. Preyer. I would like to ask each of you, Mr. Kirk and Mr. McCamy, for your comments on one general question, and, that is, as professionals in this field, what have you learned from this investigation? Sergeant Kirk. Well, sir, Confucius was once accused of saying a picture is worth a thousand words, and that is obviously not true: because he didn’t have photography during his day. He is alleged to have said that one scene is worth a thousand tellings. It appears that a lot of the people who criticized or found fault with these photographs were relying on a lot of tellings, a lot o second and third generation prints. This panel only looked at the original prints, and we all came to one seeing and one telling, in effect. We are saying that we found no indications that these photographs have been faked in any way. ) Mr. Preyer. Mr. McCamy, do you have any general comments concerning professionalism and how these investigations should be conducted? Mr. McCamy. Well, yes, yes, I do, Mr. Preyer. The allegations have been based on observations made by people least qualified to make the observations. This has resulted in false observations, and, therefore, false premises on which to base theories. The lesson I think is very clearly taught, and I might say taught at extreme expense, and it is the age old lesson that a little learning is a dangerous thing. I think that all who watch these proceedings or read this record will benefit from the observation that Mr. Blakey had the wisdom, when questions arose, to refer those questions to people who knew the answers or knew how to find the answers. Mr. Preyer. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you, Mr. Preyer. I have two questions as we await Mr. Fithian’s arrival and the continuation of the questioning by Mr. Fithian. First of all, gentlemen, it seems to me that if someone were making a fake photograph to frame Mr. Oswald, that he wouldn't make three fakes, because by making three fakes, he would take three chances of being detected. I wonder, did your panel consider that at all? Mr. McCamy. We mentioned that, yes. It would be ridiculous for someone who was trying to do the fakes to have given us this much opportunity. You said three pictures would give you three times as much advantage. In fact, having only two pictures gives you something more like 50 or 100 times as much advantage, because you have the stereo viewing there, you see. 423 Mr. Fauntroy. You said you examined only the original pic- tures; is that so? Mr. McCamy. Yes. This work was done on original materials. Mr. Fauntroy. Were you at any time able to examine the ghee tisversion which appeared on the front cover of Life maga- zine’ Mr. McCamy. No, we did not. Mr. Fauntroy. So that you could not tell us what effect touching up may have had on the visual perception by the American people of the photo. Mr. McCamy. No, sir. Sergeant Kirk. Reverend, I would like to say one thing is that obviously when the photograph was printed, they wanted to draw attention to the weapon and to the face. That is where everybody’s eyes wanted to go to. And from casual cursory examination of the photograph, it appears that a great deal of emphasis was placed on retouching the silhouette of the rifle and of his face. Mr. Fauntroy. That is a casual look at the Life magazine—— Mr. McCamy. Cover. Mr. FauntrRoy [continuing]. Cover. Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Fauntroy. I thank the gentlemen. Mr. Fithian has now arrived, and the Chair will yield such time as he may require to ask questions of the witness. Mr. FiTHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say to the panel, first of all, that most of us are not specialists and, therefore, our eyes play tricks on us and we see things that we think we see, or people tell us that we see in these photos. To that extent, Mr. White’s testimony was very impressive the other day. I hope that you will tolerate my lack of expertise in this area. I am sure you must think some of the questions I am going to ask you are dumb, but those of us who do not have your back- ground, and only have our eyes and Congressmen must, I think, look at this from a layman’s point of view. First of all, when you look at the twigs and the variety of things that seemed to match up in Mr. White’s analysis the other day to the human eye, when you lay one picture over the other, or when you look to see exactly where the twigs are, and when you tie that to the nose shadow, one can construct a pretty good layman’s argument for the idea that you are working with that single back- ‘ground, with, you know, a head put on somebody else’s body three ‘times. This morning I was listening carefully when you described the vanishing point concept, which I find fascinating. But I wonder why did the vanishing point lines converge in such a very, very short distance on your chart. Now, I look at a railroad, even an artist’s conception of a rail- road track, or a road where it sort of narrows off. It gives me the impression that we are talking about, you know, great distances. Yet, there are some very, very sharp angles that those lines from the bush and the nose and the rest of it come in, all within 2 feet 424 on your chart. Could you explain that optical problem that I am having? Mr. McCamy. Yes. The vanishing point may be at infinity; that is, if we have parallel vertical lines and the axis of the camera is horizontal. Then we do get parallel lines, and of course that says that the vanishing point is at infinity. Now, a very slight tilt of the camera will cause a convergence, but it would be a very slight convergence. It starts at infinity and it begins to move inward. Now, on the photographs that we saw here, the vanishing point of the shadows was substantially below the photographs. If photo- graphs had been made later and later in that day, I have estimated that these pictures were taken about 4 to 4:30 in the afternoon—if pictures were made later, the vanishing point would have contin-— ued to move up until finally it would be within the picture area; that is, as the Sun had moved behind the photographer. ) In the instance that you cite of the railroad track disappearing» into the distance, the vanishing point is in the picture, and you are seeing the vanishing point. I think that is as far as I can go in describing that phenomenon. The vanishing point can be anywhere from at infinity to right in the picture itself. Mr. Firaian. All right. Now I want to turn to what perhaps has been among the more sensational parts of the criticism of the Warren Commission with regard to the pictures, and that is the rifle, and particularly the length of the rifle, and the relationship of the stock or the butt of the rifle to the sights, to the barrel. I would like to have exhibit F-206 put up, please. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this be admitted into the record at this point. Mr. Fauntroy. Without objection, so ordered. [The information follows:] JFK Exuisit F-206 Mr. Firutan. I believe we have another exhibit with half a dozen rifle pictures on it, if you would put that up. I have forgotten the number. Perhaps Mr. McCamy or Sergeant Kirk or either or both, if you feel the need to go over there to deal with this, fine. If not, we will continue with you at the table. Sergeant Kirk. I prepared a demonstration to explain how this ‘phenomenon took place—if we could have it called up. If I could, I would like to walk over to the easel. The National Archives is here with the weapon itself, and I would like to show the committee how it conducted its demonstration. Mr. Firuian. You are speaking first for the two of you? Sergeant Kirk. I think so. Mr. Firnian. Basically, I guess I would ask that you describe for the panel whether the rifle that Oswald is seen holding in the backyard pictures is the same one that is in the Archives, that the arren Commission concluded was the weapon used to shoot John F. Kennedy. Sergeant Kirk. Yes, sir. You have received testimony from a gentleman—could I have that exhibit back up before, the other photograph like this with the lines going through the rifle. You just took it down, I think. You received testimony from some people, and this was more than one critic’s philosophy—they took various photographs that were taken of the weapon throughout the discovery from the de- Pository to the Dallas police headquarters, until when it reached 426 the FBI headquarters, and the Warren Commission, and the Na- tional Archives. They attempted to line up all these photographs and find a common line. Then they came to the conclusion that since it doesn’t match at certain points, that the stock appeared to be long or short, it was not the same rifle. Last month we had this rifle delivered to metropolitan police headquarters. With the assistance of Mr. Gary Philips of my shop, we attempted to demonstrate this for the committee, knowing that we had the same rifle. Not even trying to simulate the fact of someone who is breath- ing, and adrenaline is pumping and moving this rifle around hard, we suspended the rifle and plumbed it with the axis of the camera, the lens of the camera is at the same height from the floor as the weapon is, top photograph, and the distance from the stock to the tip of the barrel is the same distance. That is zero base. Then we simply swung the barrel 3 inches further away from the lens, and you can see a disparity here. Then we brought the barrel back to zero base and swung the butt just 3 inches away from the camera, and it appears that the stock has been cut off. Then we brought the weapon back to zero base and pushed the barrel 5 inches away from camera, just 5 inches, something like this, and back to zero base, and swung the stock 5 inches away from the camera. Even though we know we have the same weapon, it appears to be of greater length, and there are certain points that do not match up. The logo, as you can see here, the departmental logo, was sta- tionary, and the lines pass through the letters precisely the same place every time, but they do not pass through various parts of the rifle at the same time because we simply changed the orientation of the rifle in relation to the camera no more than 5 or 3 inches, that much. Certainly when this weapon was carried, it was carried in all kinds of conditions, and it is unrealistic for this kind of comparison to be conducted because no consideration was considered for tilt or loss of perspective. Mr. McCamy, I think, might have something to address this issue as well. Mr. Frraian. Mr. McCamy, would you like to add to that? Would you hold on to the rifle for a minute, Sergeant, because I had another question to ask. Mr. McCamy, do you want to add something to that? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Do we have an exhibit on tilt? Mr. Gotpsmitu. I believe that is F-389, Mr. Chairman. I move for the admission of this exhibit. Mr. Frruian. I would ask the exhibit be entered into the record at this point, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stoxgs. Without objection, it may be entered. [The information follows:] 427 |FILM CAMERA Cc JFK Exuisit F-389 Mr. McCamy. Suppose that we have a rifle for which the mid- 0int is known, and suppose we have a camera. The two elements shown are the lens and the film. Point A on one end of the rifle is imaged by the lens at A-prime. -oint B at the center is imaged at B-prime. Point C at the other snd is imaged at C-prime. These two lengths on the rifle are equal. They are 14 inches »ach. So, from A to B is equal to B to C. However, when they are maged over here, A-prime to B-prime is only 1% inches, while B- orime to C-prime is 4 inches. Mr. FiTHIAn. Is what? Mr. McCamy. Four inches. Mr. FITHIAN. Four inches. Mr. McCamy. So, you can see that because the rifle is tilted away ‘rom the camera, the size of the image changes over here. This is a ery well known phenomenon in photogrammetry. The tilt of the camera must always be taken into account when ve use aerial photographs to make maps. Otherwise, the maps vould not be accurate. Knowing that this was the case, and that there had been allega- jions of this kind, I went back and obtained the photographs that iad been taken as the rifle was taken from the book depository, hotographs taken by newspaper reporters in the police station, »hotographs taken by the Dallas police, by the FBI, I myself photo- ‘raphed the rifle. It was photographed by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. I obtained all of these photographs and went through the proper +hotogrammetic analysis of those photographs, finding the distance ind the angle such that the rifle would image on to the film. I worked with 10 different parts of the rifle, located along these ireas, and computed the distances. When all of those distances on ill of those photographs, 12 photographs, 10 different distances, vhen all of these were compared with the lengths on this rifle, the verage error was 1 millimeter. 428 Mr. Firutan. So it is your conclusion, then, that there is just no way that you could do measurements unless you have the rifle exactly in the same relationship to the camera? Mr. McCamy. You cannot do measurements without taking the tilt into account. Mr. Firuian. All right. Thank you. Now, Sergeant, the FBI concluded that and they told the Warren Commission that the mark on the forestock of the rifle that you are holding was not sufficient to identify positively this rifle. Do you agree with the FBI? Sergeant Kirk. No, sir. Mr. Firuian. Why don’t you? Sergeant Kirk. Well, sir, we refer to this as a random pattern. Mr. FiTHIAN. As a what? Sergeant Kirk. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area. Just as the chances of a tire running over the same pieces of glass to cut the tread would be exactly the same. We have exam- ined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it 1s quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock. It was probably damged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart. It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was pur- chased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does. I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock. We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions. Taking 133 DeMohrenschildt, which at the time was the best photograph we had, we find the same defect in the wood, the same dimensions, and the same location. I might add that 184, which was discovered only this weekend in the Archives, even better illus- trates this damage. I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print. So, their conservativeness they had then was based on the amount of evidence they had to work with, not on what we had to work with today. 429 Mr. Firutan. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed? Sergeant Kirk. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle. Mr. FirH1ANn. I am going to ask Mr. McCamy in just a minute about any analysis he performed on this chip. Did you make meas- urement analysis and so forth? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Mr. Firxtan. All right. I will come back to you in just a minute. Do you know, Sergeant, whether or not the FBI at the time of the Warren Commission went through a process that would be the equivalent of yours, plus Mr. McCamy’s, or can you shed any light on that? Sergeant Kirk. The only testimony that I found in the Warren Commission report was relying on the testimony from one agent, Agent Shaneyfelt. There is no indication I could find where it was subjected to the analysis that this committee has on this weapon. | Mr. Firutan. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question. Mr. McCamy. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place. Beyond that, however, I went to the Archives and made 21 photographs of the rifle using a variety of different kinds of illumi- nation. On those photographs, it was possible to see a large number of nicks, scratches and so on, distinguishing marks. I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances—I believe in 56 different instances—I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination. So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository—oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that. I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository. So that I think is very convinc- ing evidence that it is the rifle. Mr. Firn1an. So what you are saying then is that in addition to the defect or the chip, whatever, you photographed and used—I Zuess what I would put sort of the equivalent of the camera scratch marks—you put those on the photographs that you took and then “ompared them analytically with the other defects that showed up on the rifle, or marking characteristics in other photographs that ere existing at the time of the Warren Commission; is that what you are saying? ; Mr. McCamy. That is right. They were compared on all of those Beteraphs. I did not do photogrammetric measurements on all of them. 41-371 O - 79 - 28 Vol. 2 430 Mr. Firuian. Did you have any problem? Did you have any mismatches? Mr. McCamy. No, there were no mismatches. But it is, I think, appropriate to point out that whether or not one will see a particu- lar scratch or discoloration depends strongly on illumination. So, you cannot expect that all of the marks will show on all of the photographs. Sergeant Kirk. I might point out, Mr. Fithian, since this is very brightly illuminated in this area here, you might not necessarily be able to see the same detail as in this photograph, which is evenly illuminated. | So, what Mr. McCamy is saying, it seemed identifiers would not show up in each photograph because they are not illuminated in the same manner. Mr. FirHt1An. Thank you. I have a good many more questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like © to run over and record my vote. ; I wonder if the counsel—I am not sure that I have done all that I wanted to do with this rifle section—but if the counsel has any — questions of you. Otherwise, I would ask that we recess. My running time is 5 minutes from here to the Chamber and back. I would ask that we recess for 5 minutes. Mr. Fauntroy. Without objection, we will go into recess for 5 minutes. [Brief recess.] Mr. Fauntroy. The committee will come to order. We will resume questioning of the witnesses by Mr. Fithian at this time. Mr. Firu1an. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take one additional area of questioning at least, and that is whether or not if someone were really a photographic scientist, and really knew his or her stuff, whether they could by some process, however elaborate, fake a photograph and make it come out this good. Is that improbable, beyond the realm of possibility, or what? How do you describe it? Mr. McCamy. We gave a lot of thought to that in our committee. We must say that we believe it is possible to make a fake photo- graph that we would not be able to detect. Mr. Firuian. Did you attempt then to see how difficult it would be to fake this? I know you mentioned several times that you would have to catch the Sun at the right time, and have the backyard and so on. Mr. McCamy. Yes. It was I who made the assertion in our committee that if conditions were right, and if it were done right, and that a photographic scientist used what he knew to make a fake photograph, he could fool me. So that sounded almost like I was throwing out some kind of challenge. One of the other members of the panel, Mr. Scott, is a very competent photographic scientist. He was once the vice presi- dent, the engineering vice president of the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers. He spent 40 hours with an assistant preparing a fake photograph of a man standing in a backyard. When he presented the photo- 431 sraph, he mailed it to me, I pulled it out of the envelope, and as I dulled it out of the envelope I said it is a fake. I was rather surprised that it was that easy. As it turned out, vhat he had done was to make a photograph, a 6-foot photograph of a 6-foot man, and this was placed in the backyard, and it was dhotographed. But there was a thing that caught my eye instantly; that is, that shere were shadows that were cast by parts of a dark suit. There were shadows cast by parts of a railing immediately behind the nan. When the suit was in full sunlight, it exactly matched the rail- ng. But the shadows on the suit didn’t match the shadows on the ailing. Now, that would not be the way it would have been if it had seen a true photograph. So, that was an illustration to us that it is not quite as simple as t appears to be. Frank Scott came back to the committee saying his is not as easy as it looks. So, I believe that it would be possible to make a fake, but it is very difficult. Mr. Firutan. I thought, if I were trying to fake a photograph, I vould not try to make it cut across the chin or the face. I would nake it at say like the shirt collar line, or somewhere where there s already a line. Now, that is just my own layman’s view, that I wouldn’t try to natch up, a cut across the face. I guess what I am asking you is if rou were faking a photograph, is that where you would try it? Mr. McCamy. Yes. I think it makes very good sense to attempt to ‘ollow some natural line. If you can do that, it is going to be less 1oticeable. However, in the analysis that we did, of course we ooked for exactly that kind of thing, and we did not find any 'vidence that this had been done on these photographs. Mr. Firnian. Here is a thing that I had the greatest difficulty vith in terms of my own viewing of the photographs, is the square- 1ess of the chin. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could ask that that multiple hotograph, that chart with half a dozen Oswalds on it, plus the wo, could be put back up. While we are doing this, let me preface my question by saying hat sitting here and looking at your exhibit, I did not visually at east identify any other chin that was even approximately as quare as the one in the backyard photograph—from all of the ’ictures that you put up. I could not see that. I hate to return to what you have already lone. But it still puzzles me and troubles me. That seems to be one f the strongest points of the critics, is the misshape of the chin. I want to make sure I understood your testimony. It was your testimony that it was the light and shadow combina- ion of an overhead Sun or whatever? Mr. McCamy. Yes. _ Mr. Frruian. Do I understand you correctly? Mr. McCamy. Yes. Unfortunately, we were not able to find other »hotographs of Oswald himself illuminated from a very high angle. 432 It would have been nice to have had such a photograph, but we didn’t have it. The closest approximation to the overhead lighting is in the upper right-hand corner of that display. That is more of a portrait type lighting. But even there the chin begins to be a little bit more flattened because that shadow is at the bottom of his chin. Mr. Firutan. In the photo, in the two large blowups, the right- hand photo, is it your testimony, then, that the point of the chin, which obviously doesn’t disappear—and I find it difficult to believe that just by changing your teeth or your mouth position it really makes that much difference—is it then that the point of the chin disappears in the shadow of the chin in layman’s terms? Is that what you are saying happens in that photograph? Mr. McCamy. Yes, the lower part of the chin is not illuminated, so you don’t see it. It just disappears in the shadow. Mr. Frruian. I am no longer troubled by the line across the chin because I think you can see that even in that much earlier picture before it is so pronounced in the upper right-hand corner of it— what is the exhibit number of the left-hand exhibit there—386. I am not troubled by that line anymore. That doesn’t bother me. But the absence of the point of the chin altogether does. Let me ask you one more question, then. Is the angle of the Sun and the shadows elsewhere in the pic- ture—in other words, is that combination of the Sun and the other shadows convincing? With that Sun and that position, would that chin cast that shadow, so that it would blur out in a picture? Mr. McCamy. Yes. I think that the best evidence that we have for nen is the police department profile view. Can we return to that’ Unfortunately, we do not have direct evidence. We do not have a photograph, other photographs of Oswald illuminated at this angle. But here we see that his chin comes down and back. There is apparently a rather wide, broad, flat area here. if this were illuminated from above, you can see that the shadow, the shadow might very well be cast, even as high as this. It could be cast fairly high. If it were, then the apparent point that one sees in his earlier photographs would not show up. This would appear to move up in this direction. In this photo- graph that was taken in the police station, he does have a fairly flat chin there. There is a cleft in there, and that seems to flatten it somewhat. So, it looks to me as though this is quite consistent with a high level of illumination from high above him, casting this shadow across there. Mr. Firu1an. Thank you, Mr. McCamy. You may return. I would ask the clerk to put up exhibit JFK F-208. Now, this is the picture of the model taken, I believe. What I want to ask, Mr. McCamy, is—well, then I want the one of the model, whatever the number is, F-271. I just want to ask one question. What assumptions did you make when you were doing the tilting and angling for that photograph? Mr. McCamy. This was just an illustration of an effect. Mr. FirHian. Let me rephrase a different question. Are you saying that, or aren’t you saying, just to push you a bit, that in 433 order to keep that shadow right under the nose, in the same place, that you (a) have to tilt the head one way and, at the same time, ‘rotate it on its axis a precise point, to a precise point, in order to keep the shadow there? Third, you are assuming that the camera, then, would have to move in somebody’s hand to the next position. Now, I am not a statistician, but the probability of that, all three of those things being present in order to keep that shadow there, )seems to the layman to be a little high. It seems like you would have to—the probability would be that those three things would not come together at the same place, at the same time. Am I way off base, sir? Mr. McCamy. No. I don’t think so. I think that you are right in saying that there would be a number of assumptions necessary, if we were to try to interpret the Oswald photograph from this dem- onstration of this effect. But that is not the way the interpretation was done. In fact, the interpretation was done by a vanishing point analysis, and this is the standard technique for studying the shadows in a photograph. If we bring back the vanishing point analysis photographs, you can, if you like, examine the lines and you will see that the shadows are where they ought to be. That is the best analysis. Mr. Firnian. Thank you. I have just one other question, Mr. Chairman. It really isn’t a question so much as a statement, and hopefully a response. i Historically I think it is fair to guess that since we have had criticism and analysis and assumptions and conclusions drawn by critics over the last 15 years, there are probably going to be some in the next 15 years. In the area of photographic analysis, and assuming that there will be those who may differ with your conclusion and Sergeant Kirk’s conclusion over the next while, I would like for you to tell the panel what kind of tests, what kind of approaches that you would use or other photographic experts would use, if they wanted ‘to disprove your work 5 or 10 years hence, what kind of standards, what kind of tests would they apply to this. Let me just go one step further. I take it that the simple tran- sparency overlay you reject as inadequate, scientifically speaking to prove conclusively one way or the other. Now, I guess what I am asking is, what would you insist that your peers or others who want to dispute and finally refute your conclusion, what kind of tests would you set up for us? If I wanted to go out on my own in another 2 or 3 years and prove that you are wrong, what do I have to do? What kind of things will I have to do to convince other experts? I won’t convince you because you have concluded that you are right. But convincing others. Mr. McCamy. Fortunately, the analysis that we have done, and ‘most of the things that I have talked to you about, are matters of measurement rather than matters of opinion. So that to check up all you would have to do is go back, get the original materials and 30 ahead and make the same measurements and go through the analysis. 434 ‘You would want to take this up with other photogrammetrists. You might want to refer a question to the American Society of Photogrammetry. Their offices are right across the river in Virgin- ia. You could refer a question to the Optical Society of America, with headquarters here in Washington. You could refer a question to the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers, Inc., in the District of Columbia. They are all right here. I might say that the American Society of Photogrammetry and the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers generally an- nually meet here in Washington, D.C. because there are so many specialists in that field right here. So, there are specialists around, there are scientific societies that you could call to your aid. They would confirm that you were using the right methods, using the methods that are used for mapmaking and so on, and then you can go back and do your analysis. I had that in mind, in fact, when I did the analysis of the length of the rifles, the length of the components of the rifles, on all of those older photographs. I could have taken the dimensions and | put them in a giant computer and asked for the answer. I didn’t do that. Instead, I derived the simplest equations that would serve this purpose. My report shows the derivation for the equations. Then I made the measurements with very simple meas- uring tools, simple millimeter scale, and some straight edges, and then did all the computations on a pocket calculator, with the thought in mind that even a high school mathematics teacher could, if he liked, follow me every step of the way and confirm whether or not I was right. Mr. Firuran. Is this kind of detail in your report, written report to the committee? Mr. McCamy. Yes, sir. Mr. FiruiAn. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. Chairman STokEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Gentlemen, at the conclusion of any witness’ testimony, under the rules of the committee, that witness is entitled to 5 minutes in which to explain or make any comment they so desire upon the testimony they have given before this committee. Sergeant Kirk and Mr. McCamy, at this time I extend to each of you 5 minutes for that purpose. Mr. McCamy. I have no comments, sir. Sergeant Kirk. I have none at this time. I understand I will be back, so I will reserve. Chairman Stoxgs. Right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Both of you are excused at this time. Chairman Strokes. The committee will take a 5-minute recess and then we will resume with the next witnesses. Before doing so, let the record show that exhibit F-207 is hereby entered into the record at this point. (JFK exhibit F-207 follows:] 435 a. eee ea #0 r z : WASHINGTON oc po nee ee =hat JFK Exuisit F-207 436 Chairman STokEs. The Chair will take a 5-minute recess. [Brief recess.] Chairman SToOKEs. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL Mr. BuaKkeEy. Thank you. Within hours of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassi- nation of President Kennedy, officials in the United States began to speculate about the significance of Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 and his activities in that country until re- turning to the United States in June 1962. : Specifically, the troubling question was asked whether Oswald had been enlisted by the Soviet secret police, the dreaded KGB. United States-Soviet relations had been turbulent during the Kennedy Presidency. There had been major confrontations—over Berlin, where the wall had come to symbolize the barrier between the two superpowers, and over Cuba, where the emplacement of Soviet missiles had nearly triggered world war III. A nuclear test-ban treaty in August 1963 had seemed to signal détente, but in November tension was building again, as the Com- ones harassed American troop movements to and from West erlin. Cuba, too, was as much an issue as ever. In Miami, on November 18, Kennedy vowed the United States would not countenance the establishment of another Cuba in the Western Hemisphere. The Warren Commission considered, of course, the possibility of Soviet complicity in the assassination but concluded there was no evidence of it. In its report, the Commission noted that the same conclusion had been reached by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, among others. Rusk testified before the Commission on June 10, 1964: I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union consid- ered that it had any interest in the removal of President Kennedy—I can’t see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make any such effort. Then, in February 1964, a Russian saying that he was a KGB agent sought asylum in the United States and he seemed to answer the question categorically by denying Oswald had been connected with the KGB. According to Yuri Nosenko, a self-proclaimed former KGB offi- cer, he had been assigned in 1959 and 1963 to the KGB’s American tourist section. This assignment, he said, had afforded him an opportunity to review Oswald’s KGB file in those years. Nevertheless, Nosenko’s assertion did not end the mystery. In fact, it only tended to complicate it because some officials of the Central Intelligence Agency doubted Nosenko was a bona fide de- fector. Some went so far as to suspect his defection was a KGB disinformation mission, an effort to mislead the American Govern- ment. Beginning in April 1964 hostile interrogations of Nosenko were approved and initiated. He was cut off from the world and confined to a single room. Every movement he made was monitored. The hostile interrogations continued for over 3 years. Eventually Nosenko was released from confinement and a senior official was 437 assigned to interview him anew. This time, interviews were con- lucted in a more friendly atmosphere. Ultimately, the official wrote a report detailing his conclusions. \t the termination of this year-long process, it was decided that Nosenko was indeed a bona fide defector. He was given a substan- ial sum of money and hired as a CIA consultant, a position he iolds to this day. In its investigation of the Kennedy assassination, the Warren Yommission was aware of the Nosenko issue, but it was able to nake little of it and opted not to refer to it in its reports. News accounts of the Nosenko matter have not been particularly nformative, owing to the limited nature of the generally classified nformation that they were reporting. A book by Edward J. Ep- ‘tein, “Legend, the Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald,” published n early 1978, did raise some questions about Nosenko’s informa- ion on Oswald, though Epstein did not have complete access to all f the FBI and CIA files on Nosenko. Apparently, he depended on econdhand accounts. Mr. Chairman, the evidence to be received today is directed oward the public resolution of a twofold issue with regard to Yosenko. | First, are his statements about Oswald credible? If so, the issue f Soviet involvement in the assassination is of course moot. But if ot, the converse does not necessarily follow. Nosenko can be a bona fide defector and still not be a valid ource of information about Lee Harvey Oswald. Deciding not to elieve what Nosenko told about Oswald does not therefore neces- arily lead, absent other information, to any conclusion about No- enko’s general bona fides or Soviet involvement in the assassina- ion. Nosenko is only one possible source of evidence on this point. If e turns out to be good, he may be decisive; if he turns out to be ad, it may simply mean that there is no good source of informa- ion on this point, available to the American Government, and othing definite can be said about this question by the American rovernment. Consequently, because the mandate of the select committee as ne committee has indicated to the staff was limited to determining ne facts and circumstances surrounding the President’s death, no xXamination of the general question of the bona fides of Mr. No- 2nko has been made. That question properly lies within the juris- iction of other bodies. Second, what was the quality of the performance of U.S. govern- tent agencies in the Nosenko affair? The agencies whose perform- Nce is at issue are the CIA, the FBI, and of course the Warren ommission itself. Mr. Chairman, Nosenko has been given a new identity by the TA, and the agency as well as the FBI, believes that to compro- uise it could put him in great personal danger. Consequently, he annot testify before the committee in this public session, either in rson, by film, or by tape recording, although each of these alter- ative methods was explored with him and with those in charge of is security. 438 He did, of course, testify in person before two closed sessions of this committee on May 19 and 20. In addition, he was deposed and extensive files were read, both at the CIA and the FBI. Interviews and depositions of other princi- pals were conducted by the committee or the staff. While virtually all of the material reviewed either by the com- mittee or the staff is classified, it is possible to tell the essential aspects of the Nosenko story without compromising the national interest. The CIA as well as the FBI has cooperated with the committee by facilitating the declassification of the basic outlines of the story. A staff report on the committee’s investigation has been pre- pared by the staff. Before summarizing the staff report, which will be made public, Mr. Chairman, I would like again to emphasize that for those who follow the committee’s work that the question of Nosenko’s bona fides lies outside of the jurisdiction of the commit- tee. Its mandate is limited. It is to weigh Nosenko’s credibility as it bears on the career of Lee Harvey Oswald and to evaluate the © performance of Federal agencies in the matter. Other questions are for other bodies. Finally, I note that the staff report does not contain any conclu- sions on either of these issues. Conclusions remain in the province of the committee to formulate and decide in December. Mr. Chairman, I would ask at this time that the staff report on Mr. Nosenko be entered in the record as JFK exhibit No. F-425. Chairman SroxkeEs. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-425 follows:] 439 JFK Exuisit F-425 OSWALD IN THE SOVIET UNION: INVESTIGATION OF YURI NOSENKO ~ +? STAFF REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS Second Session September 15, 1978 440 HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS Ninety-Fifth Congress LOUIS STOKES, Ohio, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, District of Comumbia STEWART B. MCKINNEY, Conn YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, California CHARLES THONE, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michiga HAROLD EE.) FORD, Tennessee FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania STAFF G. ROBERT BLAKEY, Chief Counsel and Director GARY CORNWELL, Deputy Chief Counsel KENNETH KLEIN, Assistant Deputy Chief Counsel SURELL BRADY, Staff Counsel JOHANNA SMITH, Researcher RICHARD BILLINGS, Editor 44] OSWALD IN THE SOVIET UNION: INVESTIGATION OF YURI NOSENKO Index PersonaL Histary. ty iene secs Nosenko Becomes Known to U.S. Intelligence. Nosenko: Defects shewkesn oe b btebese 4s) Doubts About Nosenko's Bonafides. FH ND WN Interrogation of Nosenko by the FBI ADGOE. Dawa La ies Fi ‘ ay Nosenko Is Placed in fsotarion by the CIA be OW The CIA Interrogates Nosenko About Oswald. .. : ey Nosenko's Second Polygraph Test aa The Soviet Russia Section Report. The :1968-Report-) 7344% ine ee Mae Nosenko's Third Polygraph Test. ee Investigation by the CIA into Nosenko' SS) ee Cements. Abort owstit ge ee a The Warren Commission and Nosenko Nosenko's Status wa eeto the S700 Ler. Cis se . erry The HSCA Reviews Materials on Nosenko Nosenko's Statements to the Committee About" Oswald -” 9. cs. . aes Committee Investigation of Nosenko' s Devat Shorey rio. oe oe ta 442 . PERSONAL HISTORY Nosenko has testified to tne Committee tnat ne was born Yuri Ivanovich Nosenko in the town of Nikolayeyv in the Ukraine, eieoleyste Bs)... Bear. His father, Ivan Isiderovich Nosenko, was al Marniister of Shipbuilding in the to Ais death in Contrnding swith, Nosenkos biocraphy : He attended the Institutes of International 1945 then entered Navy Intelligence and Parmeast andrea Saliticamegion until 19s3.. in Moscow in 1953, he joined the MVD (later the KGB). He was assigned 3 + to and recruitment o cersonnel. Studying oSoreicn languages’ Ps ieee SSio Nosenko was tran 10) to the Seventh Departmen te = of the Second Cnhiei, Directorate, MOnLEOG COULESES TOummeneMoOV Lem, wWAlO ment remained nis S) duties. In 1956, Nosenko was sromoted to the vear c was made a captain and named deputy ch f=) = January 1960, Nosenko was transfe cred Dace co In ti Department of the Second Chief Directcrat as ~ he return ea EO the Seventn Departmen 443 Bain, he was assigned to coordinating the surveillance and meeecruitment of American tourists. In July 1962, he was promoted : Meo Geouty chief of the Seventh Department, Second Chie= Directorate. DSENKO BECOMES KNOWN TO U.S. INTELLIGENCE Nosenko’ came ‘to’ the attention of U.S. intelligence acgencies June 1962 in Geneva where he was serving as the Security “escort — a Soviet disarmament delecation. He identified himself to Tne CIA agreed to deal with Mosenko, and he oromised to ake contact the next time he came abroad. He Dade oe ve Wears he Ould not defect, however, because he would not eave Yh swe anny iy % On January 23, 1964, Nosenko was heard from again. Back in eneva as escort to a disarmament delegation, he informed th (D ea this time he wished to defect, giving as his reason isillusionment with his government and doubt that he would be 444 able to leave the'U:S.'S.R. soon again. »-The CTA was surprised by his sudden decision, but Nosenko was adamant. On February 4, Nosenko revealed he had received a telegram ordering him £0 réturn to Moscow directly., He,said he feared 1 the KGB was aware he was working with the West, and his life depended on his being permitted to defect immediately. The CIA agreed, and he was spirited away. (Nosenko later admitted the recall telegram was a fake. He had made. up the story to get the CIA to agree to his defection without fu a a ry o Kh Qu (D fu Ke tke DOUBTS ABOUT NOSENKO'S BONAFIDES By April 1964, Nosenko had been in the U.S. for nearly two months. Already, too officials of the Soviet Russia and Counter-Intelligence sections of the CIA had nagging doubts as to whether he was a bonafide defector. Their misgivings were based on a number of points: 1:*° ‘Many’ leads srovided by Nosenko had Seen of the away" variety, that fs information that { is no longer of significant value to the KGB, or information which, in the probable judgment of the KGB, is already being probed by Western intelligence, so that there is more to be gained from having a dispatched agent oa "give it away" and thereby gain credibility. 445 A background check of Nosenko -- of his ro) scnooling, military career and his activities as an intelligence officer -- nad led U.S. officials to suspect Nosenko was telling them a “legend,” that is supolying them with a fabricated identity. Certain Nosenko's backsground did not "check out,” and certain events ne describec seemed highly_ unlikely. Two defectors who had preceded Nosenko were of him. One was convinced Nosenko was on a XGB mission, the purvose of which was to neutrali a N (pb information he Information Nosenko had given about suspicions.. The chief of the had difficulty acceptinc the statements about Oswald, characterizing them as seeming "almost to have been tacked on or to nave been added, as though it seem to be dart of the real he had to sav, many of which INTERROGATION OF NOSENKO BY THE FBI ABOUT OSWALD Statements by Nosenko at the time of his CIA in 1964, revealing he had information about Lee Harvey Oswald, 41-371 O - 79 = 29 Vol. 2 446 led to his being questioned by the FBI upon arrival in the U.S. He was interviewed in late February and early March. It is not known if these sessions were tape recorded, but as of today all that exists are statements prepared by the interrogating FBI agents, a four-page report of the February sessions, a nine-page report of those in March. Nosenko told the FBI about his knowledge of Oswald and the fact the KGB had no contact with him. The conclusion of the March report reads as follows: On March 4, 1964, Nosenko stated that he did not want any publicity in connection with this information but stated that he would be willing to testify to this information before the Presidential Commission, provided such testimony is given in secret and absolutely no publicity is given either to his appear- ance before the Commission or to the information itself. The report noted that on March 6 Nosenko inquired if the information he furnished on March 4 regarding Oswald had been given to the appropriate authorities. He was advised that this had been done. NOSENKO IS PLACED IN ISOLATION BY THE CIA On April 4, 1964, CIA officials decided to place Nosenko in isolation and to commence hostile interrogations. First, he was subjected to a polygraph, one designed to insure a proper atmosphere for the hostile interrogations. The CIA polygrapher was instructed to inform Nosenko he had lied, 447 regardless of the actual outcome of the test. (In his report, the polygrapher wrote his true conclusion, which was that Nosenko had indeed lied.) The official position now stated by the CIA, is that the test was "invalid or inconclusive." a The conditions of Nosenko's isolation have been described by the Rockefeller Commission as "Spartan." Both Nosenko and the CIA were asked by this Committee to describe them. Nosenko says the room to which he was confined had "a metal bed attached to the floor" and "the only furniture in the room was a single bed and a light bulb." The CIA states, "Nosenko received a regular diet of three meals a day. Periodically during this time, his diet was modified to the extent that his portions ePeocd were modest and restricted." Nosenko states he "was not given a toothbrush and toothpaste and food given to me was very poor. I did not have enough to eat and was hungry all the time." The CIA: "Nosenko did not have access to TV, radio or newspapers... He was provided with a limited number of books to read from April 1964 to November 1965 and from May 1967 to October 1967. His reading privileges were suspended from November 1965 to May 1967." Nosenko: "I had no contact with anybody to talk. I could not read. I could not smoke...” 448 ta] The CIA states Nosenko was “under constant visual observation from April 1964 to October 1967," the period of his isolation. Nosenko: “I was watched day and night through TV camera...I was desperately wanting to read and once, when I was given toothpaste, I found in the toothpaste box a piece of paper with a description of compound of this toothpaste. I was trying to read it under my blanket, but guards noticed it and again it was taken from me." Both Nosenko and the CIA agree that conditions improved markedly beginning in the fall of 1967 (the end of the isolation). THE CIA INTERROGATES NOSENKO ABOUT OSWALD Nosenko was questioned about Lee Harvey Oswald on five occasions in 1964 -- on January 23 and 30 in Geneva, and on July 3, 27, and 29 in the U.S. The sessions of July 3 and 27 were of particular interest to this Committee, since they were detailed and specific about Nosenko's knowledge of Oswald. The questions were chronological, and an attempt was made to touch all aspects of Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union. Areas of inquiry included Oswald's visa application and his entry into the U.S.S.R.; KGB contact with Oswald; Oswald's request to remain in the U.S.S.R.; the denial of this request and Oswald's subsequent suicide attempt; Oswald in Minsk and his job ina radio factory; Oswald's marriage to Marina; Oswald's attempt to return to Russia via Mexico City in 1963. 449 Lye The interrogator, an employee of the Soviet Russia Section, conducted the interviews in English and tape recorded them. Nosenko related that he was assigned to the Seventh Department of the Second Chief Directorate when Oswald arrived in the Soviet Union in 1959, at which time Nosenko's section had responsibility for counterintelligence operations against American tourists. At the time Oswald asked to remain in Russia, Nosenko reviewed information the KGB had on the American. Soon after Oswald went to Minsk, Nosenko was transferred and lost contact with him. However, he became reinvolved in the case right after the assassination. Nosenko said that as soon as President Kennedy's assassin was identified as a man who had lived in the Soviet Union, the KGB ordered that Oswald's file be flown to Moscow and reviewed to determine whether there had been any contact between him and Soviet intelligence. Nosenko said further he was assigned to the review of Oswald's file. Based on that review, as well as his earlier contact with the case, he was able to report positively that Oswald had neither been recruited nor contacted by the KGB. In his July 27 interview, Nosenko was handed a transcript of a tape recording of the July 3 session. He read each question 450 aloud and made corrections or additions. He can be heard clearly doing so on the tape -- reading each question and answer, inter- jecting "right" after most answers, or simply moving on to the next question. Occasionally, he elaborates on an answer. NOSENKO'S SECOND POLYGRAPH TEST At the time of his second polygraph examination -- in October 1966 -- Nosenko was again asked about Oswald. The CIA examiner, the same one who had administered the first test, concluded Nosenko was lying, although the official Agency position now is that the test was: “invalid or inconclusive because the conditions and circumstances under which it was administered are considered to have precluded an accurate appraisal of the results." THE SOVIET RUSSIA SECTION REPORT The Soviet Russia Section of the CIA wrote a 900-page report based on its interrogations of Nosenko, though it was trimmed to 447 pages by the time it was submitted in February 1968. It came to the following conclusions: : * Nosenko did not serve in the Naval reserve, as he had \ claimed. He did not join the KGB at the time nor in the manner he | described. He did not serve in the American Embassy section of the || KGB at the time he claimed. es He was not a senior case officer or Deputy Chief of the Seventh Department, as he stated he had been. He was neither Deputy Chiert of the American Embassy section nor a supervisor in that section. He was not Chief of the American-British Commonwealth section. He was not @ Deputy Chiet of the Seventh Devartment in 1962, as he had claimed. THE L966. REYORT Hign officials of, the CIA, including DCi Richara Yelms f were aware of tne Nosenko dilemma by the time the Soviet Russia Section report was being drafted. In mid-1967, a career offi in the Office of Security was assigned to write a criticue of the handling of Nosenko. The officer Had never met Nosenko, but he had been connectac with the case from the outset. As 2 security officer been briefed on information Nosenko had supolied, and devoted considerable time and effort running dewn leacs srovi by Nosenko and other KGB defectors. Although he had been close to the Nosenko case, reviewing officer had no sartin the decision to place isolation or treat him’inea hostile way. The officer explained to the Committee he was opposed to the tactic, ‘for )re @ felt Nosenko nad not been thoroughly debriefed and nis leads had not been fully checked. The security officer's 18=page critique was directed orimarily at the report of the Soviet Russia Section that Listed reasons tor doubting Nlosenko was a bonafide rh defector. The officer concluded that Nosenko's bonafides were still an open cuestion, the resolution of which could only be based on further interviews. The officer's recommendations were approved, and in late 1967 he was assigned to implement them. Three members of the Soviet Russia Section were designated to assist mim for about four months. The officer thereupon’ interrogated Nosenko irom three to five days a week for nine months. FBI agents were furnished transcripts of the leads Nosenko provided. In January 1963, the officer asked Nosenko to write Gown what he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald. A three-cage statement was submitted, but the officer never questioned cv) Nosenko about it, and at no time later did Mosenko provide the CIA with information The security officer gradually came to the conclusion that Nosenko was supplying valid intelligence and that he was who he Claime@ to be, leading to the eventual conclusion that Nosenko was bonaZide. The investigation ended in the summer of 1968. 453 -12- NOSENKO'S THIRD POLYGRAPH TEST On August 8, 1968, Nosenko was given a third polygraph test. Two of the questions related to information he had supplied about Oswald. Nosenko passed. The CIA, when asked ‘by the Committee to comment on the third polygraph, now states: "This test is considered to be a valid test." This Committee obtained an independent analysis of the three polygraph tests given Nosenko from Richard Arthur, president of Scientific Lie Detection, Inc. and a member of the American Polygraph Assocation. In his report, Mr. Arthur expressed the judgment that the second test, the one in which the examiner determined Nosenko was lying, was "the most valid and reliable of the three examinations administered to Nosenko." As for the two questions about Oswald in the third test, Mr. Arthur characterized the first as "atrocious" and the second as "very poor" for use in assessing the validity of Nosenko's responses. In a report issued in October 1968, the security officer disputed each and every conclusion of the report of the Soviet Russia Section eight months earlier. He wrote: Nosenko is identical to the person he claims to be. The claimed services of Nosenko in Navy intelligence (Naval reserve) are adequately substantiated. Nosenko was an officer of the American Embassy section of the KGB. Nosenko was an officer of the Seventh Department and was its Deputy Chief. 454 ay FE Nosenko was Deputy Chief of the American Embassy section. Nosenko was Chief of the American-British Commonwealth section. Nosenko was Deputy Chief of the Seventh Department in 1962. INVESTIGATION BY THE CIA INTO NOSENKO'S STATEMENTS ABOUT OSWALD The security officer's report, like the Soviet Russia Section report, paid little attention to the Oswald aspect of the Nosenko case. Neither attempted to analyze the statements made about Oswald. Out of a combined total of 730 pages of report, only 15 deal with the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. The security officer did reach the conclusion, however, that Nosenko was not dispatched by the Soviet Government to give false information to U.S. officials about Oswald. He listed the reasons for his conclusion in his report: /~ Nosenko's first contact with the CIA was in June 1962, 17 months prior to the assassination. Information provided by Nosenko was not sufficient in "nature, scope and content" to convince U.S. authorities of no Soviet involvement in the assassination. Even if the KGB were involved in the assassination, the oviets would assume that U.S. authorities would, in turn, believe only a few senior officers of the KGB would be aware of it, and Nosenko would not be one of them. The Committee investigation developed some additional points regarding the CIA's attention to the Oswald aspect of the Nosenko case. 455 gS The CIA employee who interviewed Nosenko on July 3 and 27, 1964, told the Committee in a deposition he was not an expert on the KGB, nor had he any previous experience with KGB defectors. He was asked about his knowledge of Oswald, since it was in these interviews that the most detailed questions about the alleged assassin were asked. He replied: "I cannot specifically recall having read any files pertaining to Lee Harvey Oswald. Certainly I had read and heard a lot about him in the newspapers, television, and radio. I may have had the opportunity to read some previous debriefings of Nosenko concerning Oswald, but I am not sure of that." When asked if he ever spoke to Nosenko about Oswald, the security officer who wrote the 1968 report said: "No. Well, all I have, you have there (Nosenko's three-page statement). I did a writeup on it. I didn't see that it seriously conflicted with what we had." Q. And did you ever question him about what he wrote? A. No, because I had no reason to disbelieve him. Questioned further as to why he did not compare all of Nosenko's statements on Oswald, he replied: "I did not have all the information on the Oswald investigation. That was an FBI investigation.” Q. Well, was it available to you if you had asked the FBI for their reports of what Oswald had said to them? A. It might, under certain circumstances, but in this case here, as far as our office was concerned, the Oswald matter was an FBI matter. 456 Contrasted to these statements is the former “CEA Director Richard Helms to the Commit Asked i= "questions concerning Oswald (did) constitute a major facet of the overall incuiry that was being made of ‘osenko," Helms replied, "Yes, no question about it.” THE “NARREN COMMISSION AND NOSENKO The Warren Commission received FSI and CIA reports on Nosenko and his statements about Oswalc but chose, in its final report, net to refer to them. And whiie=Nosenko expressed a willingness to testify before =he Commission, he was not cailed as a witness. Richard Helms told the Committee he met with Chief Justice Warren to emphasize the CIA nad not been able to establish Nosenko's bonafides. Helms cautioned Warren of that maybe the statements that he had made apout Cswaia's having no identi the XGS were nos accurate," and "she implication chat, if he was not bonalide murpose of covering up tne tracks of had implica tions which should aT Ga J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel of the Warren Commission, told the Committee it was his recollection that no one from the Commission attempted to interview Nosenko about Oswald. He recalled further that the Commission decided it did not have experience to make a determination about Oswald's credibility. When asked whether he thought the knowledge of the Commission staff about Oswald might provide an advantage ‘in questioning Nosenko, Rankin replied he didn't believe so. "We didn't have enough information about Oswald at any time to be informed in depth." Asked if he believed the CIA had special knowledge of Oswald, Rankin replied: "I always had the impression that they knew quite a bit about the history and that they appeared to know about as much as we did about his life." Q. Were you under any impression as to whether the Agency was specifically trying to check out any of the information given to them by Nosenko about Oswald? A. I got the impression that they were doing that and were going to do it carefully. NOSENKO'S STATUS SUBSEQUENT TO THE 1968 REPORT The CIA has informed the House Select Committee on Assassinations of Nosenko's status subsequent to the 1968 report: 458 abis Following acceptance of Nosenko's bonafides in late 1968, an arrangement was worked out whereby Nosenko was employed as an independent contractor for the CIA, effective March 1, 1969. His first contract called for him to be compensated at a rate of $16,500 a year. As of 1978 he is receiving $35,325 a year. In addition to regular, yearly compensation, in 1972 Nosenko was paid for the years 1964-1969 in the amount of $25,000 a year less income tax. The total amount paid was $87,052. He also received in varying increments from March 1964 through July 1973 amounts totaling $50,000 to aid in his resettlement in the private economy. To this day, Nosenko is consultant to the CIA é.d FBI on Soviet intelligence, and he lectures regularly on counterintelligence. THE HSCA REVIEWS MATERIALS ON NOSENKO On 1978, the Select Committee began its investigation of the Nosenko case. It was granted permission to read all documents, to interview principals in the case and to question Nosenko about his knowledge of Oswald. The materials reviewed are as follows: 1. Nosenko's statements about Oswald to the FBI -- one dated February 27-28, 1964 and one dated March 3-4, 1964 (the Committee reviewed the FBI reports of the interviews only, since no tapes, transcripts, or notes presently exist). 459 J15- Tapes and transcripts of statements by Nosenko to the CIA about Oswald on January 23 and 30, 1964 and July 3, 2/7, and”29)" L964. The Soviet Russia Section report of February 1968. The Security Officer's critique of the handling of the Nosenko case, dated June 19, 1967. 5s The security officer's report, dated October 1968. A report written in 1976 by a retired CIA official who documented internal problems at the CIA over the Nosenko controversy. All CIA files on Nosenko which dealt with Oswald or the Kennedy assassination. All FBI files on Nosenko which dealt with Oswald or the Kennedy assassination. The three-page statement on Oswald written by Nosenko in 1968. Statements taken by the Committee are as follows: Es The security officer was interviewed on two occasions, on the second of which he gave a 193-page sworn deposition. The two KGB defectors who preceded Nosenko. The Chief of the Soviet Russia Section from 1963 to 1968, who gave a sworn deposition. 460 a] Om be . The member of the Soviet Russia Section who inter- viewed Nosenko on July 3, 27 and 29, 1964 gave a sworn denosition. 5. An FBI agent who was Dresent at all FBI interviews of Nosenko gave a sworn deposition. She Richard Helms, CIA Director from 1966° to LF 1 3x ~1 . Yuri Nosenko, interviewed on three occasions, on the third of which he gave 2a sworn deposition; also heard in two executive session hearings of the Select Committee. NOSENKOS STATEMENTS |TO. TRS COMMETTES ABOUT OSWAED On each of three occasions that the Committee questicned him, Neosenko recited the following storv: when a subordinate named Rastrusin said an American tourist named Oswalé desired to defect to the Soviet Union. Nosenko asked what information the XGB had on Oswald and was told they had the questionnaire he had filled out when he entered the country, his visa apolication and reports trom interpreters, intourist guides and hotel personnel. None of these sources, according to Nosenko, indicated Oswald could be of any interest to.tne KGB. 461 -20- Based on this information, Nosenko, Rastrusin and their section chief reported to the Chief of the Seventh Department where it was decided to refuse Oswald permission to defect. Nosenko says neither the American Department of the Second Chief Directorate, which would have jurisdiction over all Americans, or the First Chief Directorate, the intelligence department of the KGB, would have been interested in Oswald. Consequently, they were not notified of his request to defect. A short time later, Nosenko was informed that Oswald, on being notified he could not stay in the Soviet Union, slashed his wrists in a suicide attempt. Nosenko and his associates were surprised by this, because Oswald had given no indication of being unstable. | Nosenko and his superiors concluded that Oswald should be independently examined by two psychiatrists. Nosenko had an opportunity to read both reports and said that both psychiatrists found Oswald to be "mentally unstable." While in the hospital Oswald threatened suicide again, if he were not allowed to remain in the Soviet Union. The KGB, its position bolstered by the findings of the psychiatrists, “washed its hands" of the matter. Nosenko does not know who made it, but a decision came down to allow Oswald to remain in Russia, though he wasn't 462 =Ji~ citizenship. A significant factor, says Nosenko, was granted the fear Oswald would kill himself, and the KGB would be accused of the murder of an American tourist at a time the Kremlin was trying to reduce East-West tensions. learned that Oswald was sent to Minsk to work in Nosenko factory. In addition to his salary, he was given a a radio stipend of 700 rubles, which Nosenko believes was monthly paid by the Soviet Red Cross. KGB file was sent to Minsk with a letter to Oswald's keep Oswald under surveillance but to have no Minsk KGB to him. In addition to periodic physical surveillance contact with was followed by KGB agents, his phone was in which Oswald mail intercepted. Nosenko explained that the tapped, his which was to continue throughout Oswald's stay surveillance, unusual and was to insure Oswald was not a in Russia, was not Western agent. he was transferred soon after Oswald went Nosenko says lost contact with the case. Then, in 1963, he to Minsk, and he to the Seventh Department of the Second Chief was reassigned he was informed that Oswald had applied at Directorate. There, in Mexico City for a visa to travel to Russia. the Soviet Embassy embassy officials he had previously lived Since Oswald had told a cable was sent to Moscow asking for guidance. in Russia, 463 =ildee Nosenko says he personally read the cable. Nosenko says he was not aware in 1963 that Oswald had married and departed Russia, but he recalled the case due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the decision to allow Oswald to remain in Russia in 1959. Nosenko says he and his department chief advised that Oswald should not be allowed to return to the Soviet Union. The next time Nosenko became involved in the Oswald case was immediately after the Kennedy assassination, when he learned that Oswald was the alleged assassin. On instructions, he telephoned KGB headquarters in Minsk, and having been assured there had been no contact with Oswald while he was in that city, Nosenko asked that Oswald's entire file be sent to him in Moscow. Nosenko was present when the Oswald file arrived at KGB headquarters a few hours later, having been flown in by military aircraft. He recalls it was a large file -- seven or eight volumes -- and that he examined the first one, page by page. It is the critical one, he has told the Committee. If there had been any KGB recruitment of Oswald, evidence of it would have appeared in Volume One. The other volumes consisted mainly of surveillance reports and transcripts. examination of the first volume, Nosenko claims, Srom his that Oswald was never recruited by he can state unequivocally fact, he insists, no KGB officer ever spoke with the KGB. In him. to Nosenko's story, the Oswald file was in his According possession for about one-and-a-half hours. encounter with the Oswald case was a few Nosenko's last A friend told him the KGB nad weeks after the assassination. investigation of Oswald's activities, in Minsk, conducted an he had occasionally gone hunting with in which it was learned His fellow hunters nad considered -him members of a gun club. bad shot, they often had to give nim game. such a OF MOSENKO'S OSWALD STORY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION *o the House Select Committee on Assassina- Nosenko spoke During two of these sessions, stat= tions on five occasions. In the third, Nosenko cave a sworn members took notes. 19 and 20, 1978, Nosenxo testified petors deposition anc on June executive session. There was no substantive the Committee in in Nosenko's recounting of the “facts. variation insisted that the XGB never hac any Mosenko has always de stated in both 1964 and 1978 chat contact with Oswald. was of no interest to them anc the KGB determined that Oswald not even bother to interview Aim. dié -24- Q. And exactly why did no KGB officer ever Speak to Oswald before they made the decision about whether to let him defect? A. We didn't consider him an interesting target. When asked if he knew of any other defector who was turned away because he was uninteresting, ‘osenko answere Fe eNO Nosenko said the KGB not only did nct question Oswaid when he asked to defect, it also did not interview hin later, when it was decided he would be permitted to remain in Russia. At no time, Nosenko told the Committee, did the XGB talk +o Oswald. Q. Mow, when it was determined that Oswald was going to be allowed to stay in the Soviet Union and live in Minsk, did any KGB officer sseak to him at that time? A. No, as far as my knowledge, nobody was speaking with Q. ‘why didn't the XGB speak to him then? A. KGB once said, we don"t have interest. The same was reported to the government, must be by the chairman, that the KGB doesn't have interest. KGB didn't want to be involved. According to Nosenko, the KGB would have been very interested in’the fact that Oswald worked at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan from which the super secret U-2 spy planes took oZf and landed: 2. And in 1959, would the Soviet Union have been interested in someone who served as a radar operator on an air base where U-2's took off and landed? A. Yes, sir, it would be very interested. But Nosenko maintains that the KGB never svcoke with Oswald, so that it didn't know that he had any connection with the U-2 flights. The head of the CIA's Soviet Russia Section from 1963 to 1963 was asked by the Committee if he knew of comparable situations in which someone was not questioned, was just left alone, as Nosenko says Oswald was. He replied he did not know of any former Soviet intellicence officer or other knowledgeable source to whom they had spoken, who felt this would nave been ’ possible... "If someone did," he said, "I never heard of it." In short, Nosenko's Oswald story is as follows: The KGB, although very interested in the U-2, never learned anything about it from Oswald, because it didn’t know he had knowledge of the aircraft. Why? Because Oswald was never questioned by the KGB, because the decision was made that Oswald was of no interest to Soviet intelligence. When it was decided Oswald would be sent to Minsk, a letter ach onaan ed his file ordering the Minsk xXGB to place him under periodic physical surveillance and full-time technical surveillance, that is, phone tapping and letter ovening. 467 -26- Aside from wanting to manitor Oswald as a possible western agent, the KGB's reason for the surveillance was to keep track of the identities of his friends and acquaintances. Nosenko testified that the KGB would have known about Oswald's acquaintance with Marina soon after they met (on March 17, 1960, according to Oswald's diary). Q. ...If he met Marina Oswald on March 17, how long would you estimate it would take before the KGB would know about her? A. In the same March they would have quite a big batch of material on her. Surveillance came up later in Nosenko's testimony, when he said the Oswald file, when it arrived in Moscow subsequent to the assassination, contained seven or eight thick volumes. Most of-them consisted of information relating to the surveillance. Q. You told us about the volumes in the file that were returned by military plane from Minsk. A. Right. Q. That and the other volumes, did it include all the records of the phone surveillance and periodic surveillance... A. Included, that is why it is so thick file... Nosenko testified that because the volumes in the file were so thick with surveillance reports, he only had time to read part of the first volume of the file. Q. Did you have an opportunity to read the entire file at that time (when it arrived from Minsk) ? iN UNfeyet plbel Q. How much of the file did you’ read? A. It was simply looking, page by page, first part of the first volume. Q. Did you go through any of the other volumes? A. NotSsinr:. Upon reading Nosenko's statements mace to the FBI and CIA in 1964, less than a vear after the assassination, it is clear that he did not inform them of the physical or technical surveillance which ne described to the Committee. In the FBI report detailing the interview with Nosenko March of 1964, it states that Nosenko "opined that the onlv in coverage of Oswald during his stay in Minsk consisted of ocericdi checks at nis place of emplovment, incuiry of neighbors, associates and review of nis mail." Speaking to the CIA on July 3, 1964, Nosenko was specifi- asked whether tnere was any physical or technical sur- cally veillance on Oswald and each time ne replied "No." In 1964, after stating to the CIA that there was no and physical surveillance of Oswald, Nosenko mace technical statement upon being asked whether the KGB knew the following Oswald's relationship with Marina before they announced about that they were going to be married: A. "They (KGB) didn't know she was a friend of Oswald they applied for marriage. There was no sur~ until on Oswald to show that he knew Her.” veillance Although in 1978 Nosenko testified that there were seven or eight thick volumes of documents in Oswald's file due to all the surveillance reports and that he could not read the entire file because of them, in 1964 he told the FBI agents that he “thoroughly reviewed Oswald's file." There was no mention of seven or eight thick volumes of surveillance documents. During the course of the HSCA executive hearings at which Nosenko testified, he was questioned about his prior statements to the FBI and CIA. de was questioned about his 1964 statement to the FBI in which he spoke of monitoring of Oswald, such as review of his mail and periodic checks at his place of employment, but said nothing then about physical and technical surveillance that he had testified about before the Committee. First, the statement was reac to him without identifving where it came from. Nosenko was simply asked if he had ever made such a statement. He answered: "Sir, I cannot tell you what I stated. I was for guite a big period of time, quite a few years, interrogated, by hours, and in different tvpes of conditions, including hostile conditions... where they asked questions in such form which later my answer will be interpreted in any way, however they want to interrogate us...And I cannot tell you what I did say. I cannot remember dates. You must understand, it's hundreds of interrogations, hundreds." point, the FBI report was introduced as an At this shown to Nosenko. Upon reacing it, he orfered exhibit and as tc why he dia not tell the Fal the following explanations about the physical and technical surveillance: "Maybe eR teh s Lae "Maybe they didn't put /it in "Te's not big deal...nothing important. to the tapping of Oswald's phone). was chen shown a 1964 statement ne had mace Nosenko which he stated that the KGB Gid not know to the CIA in acquaintance with Oswald u& til the couple about Marina's permission to marry, because “there was no applied for on Oswald to show that he knew her.” When surveillance said that, he responced phat ne did “not asked if he ever anc answers." When he was shown that remember mv questions contained che statement was 2 Coley the document which Gocument, ne s fu Ir:Qu. those conditions in wnich I was "As far as I remember, of time, askeé. Better ask where I was in tnis seriog: what condgitions I was kept, and what type Stet nter= rogations were going Onn: referred to the period. of April 4, This, of course, nv 16) t- idftary 4 of 1967 when Nosenko was kept i cr iy) ry 4 1964 to the end confinement by the CIA. referred to his testimony the prececin Nosenko was then was guestione n jy ionO {= CN + r wu 'O ny 10) y Ww ay jv cr (b qd . ct uw tv 1@) w va om Gay, when he it FBI and CIA: @ 471 =2pe Q. When you spoke to the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald, did you always tell them the truth? As. Y@S, "Sir: Q. Did you always tell them everything you knew? Aww %@Si, SiF. Q. When you spoke to the CIA about Lee Harvey Oswald, did you tell them the truth? A. The same, the same. Q.- Did you always tell them everything you knew? A. Absolutely. At this point, Nosenko stated that “it's some kind of here misunderstanding on both parts, that would be mine and interrogator." When he was asked whether it was an inaccurate transcript, he stated: "“I consider many, many things are inaccurate." He then suggested that the real problem was a failure to distinguish between a “thorough investigation" on the one hand and a “checkup" on the other and suggested that his answer was not incorrect because, “from this point of view I was answering the question." A few moments later, he said: “Sure I answered and this was the question..." Nosenko testified to the HSCA in the 1978 hearings that after Oswald attempted to kill himself, the KGB assigned two psychiatrists to examine him independently. Nosenko stated that he personally read both reports and each concluded that Oswald was "mentally unstable." During the 472 «Si= of reciting all he knew about Oswald, he interrupted course his narrative at one point and said: "Gentlemen, I am sorry, I did not mention one vitally important thing. When he was in hospital d that he will when he cut his wrist and when he announce to stay, repeat the same if they will not allow him the presence it was decided in the Seventh Department in of me, Chief of Section, Chief of Department to check him through a psychiatrist. And was given command to rist Officer Rastrusin to arrange it that psychiat at the same of the Botkin Hospital will check him and psychiatris time Rastrusin was ordered to arrange another from another hospital, independent and they will check each will write him in different times, not together and opinion separately. I have seen these both reports... was mentally both their opinions coincided that Oswald unstable.” was questioned by the HSCA as to why the When Nosenko to remain in their country whom they Soviets would allow someone unstable, he responded with the following knew to be mentally explanation: TN to stay because KGB and Soviet Government A. tue CR conclusion that if this person will kill had come to the be reaction in newspapers which can in himself, it will hurt the starting, the warming of Soviet-American any way relations. worried that he would kill himself in The Soviets were Soviet Union? if they would not allow him to stay. Right, was then questioned as to other alternatives. Nosenko have taken him and put him on the next Could the KGB of Russia and thereby ended their whole plane out problem with Lee Harvey Oswald? 473 ae A. It is a very sensitive question. He can jump out of car. If he decided, if he is mentally unstable, you don't know what he will do. When the possibility of just taking Oswald to the American Embassy and leaving him there was raised, Nosenko stated: "It can be done, sure. It can be done, but it wasn't done." When he was asked why the Soviets would allow a mentally unstable foreigner to marry a Soviet citizen, Nosenko responded: "...in the Soviet Union there is by Decree of Presidium of Supreme Soviet USSR a law allowing marriage of Soviet citizens with foreign. A foreigner can marry a Soviet citizen by the law." Nosenko added that the only time the KGB could interfere with such a marraige is if the Soviet citizen was working in a sensitive place, like a missile plant. In statements Nosenko made to the CIA in 1964 with respect to these psychiatric evaluations of Oswald, Nosenko gave the following testimony: Q. Did the KGB make a psychological assessment of Oswald? A. No, nothing, but at the hospital it was also said he was not quite normal. The hospital didn't write that he was mad, just that he is not normal. Q. Did the hospital authorities conduct any psychological testing? 474 =e A. I don't think so. There was no report like this. Assuming that Nosenko was distinguishing between psychiatric and psychological reports, he never volunteered that he knew of any psychiatric reports or evaluations. When questioned at the hearing on June 20, 1978 about this statement, Nosenko said that he did not "know whether it is correct or wrong." Nosenko was asked whether he ever made a statement like that; he said: "I do not remember statements for five years, interrogation." When he was told the statement came from a CIA report, he said: "Sir, I do not remember what I said to them; but I would like you to find out the conditions in which interrogations were done, how it was done, by what procedures, when two interrogators are seated...one playing part of bad guy and other good guy, and it started slapping then, not physically, but I mean psychologically and in. conversation, turning question upside down, however they would like, then this leave, another one will start in softer way." Nosenko went on to state: "And I would not trust any of their documents in those periods of time." A few moments later he told the Committee that "my knowledge of language was very poor in '64. I didn't understand many questions...” Finally he stated: “One more thing -- if we are going into this, a number of interrogations, I was under drugs, and on me was used a number of drugs, and I know that, and 475 -34- hallucinations..." In evaluating Nosenko's objections to his statement given to the CIA in 1964, the HSCA considered the following: 1. A sworn deposition was taken from the CIA officer who interrogated Nosenko on the date in question (only one officer was present on that date). He stated that Nosenko was cooperative during the sessions, that Nosenko spoke coherently and essentially he understood quite well. He said that when Nosenko did not understand he would indicate this to the officer. He said that Nosenko never complained to him of being drugged and that Nosenko gave no indication during any of their conversations of being drugged. 2. The staff of the HSCA listened to a tape recording of the session, during which Nosenko was questioned about Oswald by the CIA in 1964. 3. The HSCA requested a full accounting by the CIA of any drugs given to Nosenko during the years he was in CIA custody. The CIA responded that no drugs of any kind were given to Nosenko in 1964, and in later years only drugs of a "therapeutic" nature were administered to him. 4. The HSCA analyzed the statements made to the FBI in February and March of 1964, prior to the commencement of the hostile interrogations to which Nosenko referred. Relevant was Nosenko's 476 ogse statement which appeared in the FBI report of March 5,3 1964: The hospital record also included an evaluation that Oswald's attempted suicide indicated mental instability. Nosenko did not know whether this evaluation was based on a psychiatric examination or was merely an observation of the hospital medical staff. When Nosenko testified before the HSCA in 1978, he stated that a KGB officer named Rastrusin first informed him of Oswald's request to defect: "In the fall of 1959 to me approached senior case officer Major Gerogiy Ivanovich Rastrusin...He told me that an American tourist, Lee Harvey Oswald, applied to interpreter of Intourist with request to stay in the Soviet Union...and I, Chief of Section, Major Rastrusin...went to the Chief of Department, showed him materials..." Nosenko stated that they decided that Oswald was of no interest to them and they would tell Oswald that he had to go back to the U. S. and apply for permission to stay in the Soviet Union. Nosenko referred to this as giving Oswald. the “sort brush.- In March, 1964 Nosenko told the FBI agents who interviewe him that his first knowledge of the existence of Oswald arose in about October 1959. According to an FBI report,"... Kim Georgievich Krupnov, a case officer in his section, reported to him information which Krupnov had received (about Oswald)... On the basis of Nosenko's evaluation of Oswald, he (Nosenko) instructed Krupnov to advise Oswald...that Oswald would not ae) 1) ed al 7) as O @ FE - wt .m4 oe ek oO e) 1) i F q) 4) an) ; My od 7) a) aa th) od oa 1@) in v th) Mar "I & Sy c “ce 7) cl ay os n ie ed Vv (@) 4) q) £2 ‘on ed od q a I ion of 0) ): ) ot i) ~ 7) - ra y (| io) Fi @) O Q) ri] rs ay +3 ct fi] Vv 4 dd a” ) 4] vt rf v4 hi de04 . c9) ) rt ON ed 17) hy Aa ) V) ef 0] ) ) . ni Ad 0) 4) 4) 18] hy Oo ws "3 A 34 uw ion ty) Pas] . E 3] ) = Q Oo sa eA 4) Ww) od fia} M4 mie Ant PO ee BS ce | ‘a <0 56 oO O- 0 Hu as 4 n tc oO iB) as rl cH) a J ) oO Ec. <4 18) cd E a “ed ©) n i Sy -~ i@) as 1) ii) cd fF; ms as 1) ay ~ ™ 0) Sy 2 "1 (0) oS ™ wo 0) Mm ro as Sy ( rl Oo) wm Ks ” =| i) 4 o. v Zc) O- : 1 ot 3] ri i : a Sy ) “4 ) 4) ty n a” (i) ds rt Ta) a) a) Oo ) m tA fr ag Wy) q) My 4 £ | 33 fs rf mM q@) =} Ty = uy a rf 0] sy (@) "4 q) on 2) as a fry cr 4 iva) on as (on cc) 1) i a) 4) 0] Kp La oO Oo 1) ny 6) OV Q Ks O. 1) ) el sy sy Fe oe Vv F: ed ) =) nm, Sy Ta) ws Ls Sy ex, cn) 1) 0] Si. Ma (Sj My Oo my a wu ay aa) (O) a Q d n 4 )) o) @) [a Li a) oa Ase oO, ti} tC ) ia = ot a) M, A el G 12) 4 , 1) i) “. = nO) ) as 0] 4) 4) as dd " oO i) () 1) 77) i a) a FE W n ay as ne ay ral a) VJ s iy, ') Res ©) O aied 1) ” as ol ) oe igs) Sy faa] fe WI "2 Or co) ay fs O 1@) 2 My = 14 i iv 0) ) ) “A ion O ie) oy a v te 2 to) wW 4) 1 is ion > \y 4) ) ,4 @) iva) uw ac! 1) m re) ve) 234 0) On. Vv Oo 2G My ‘ a) am et or as - ne) ~ ef io) a) a) a Al =f a) ic a co) Pe eI CO) a G; a) qQ ps q) Gc ) Sy ay eon wv en t oY) Es as o3 Sy uy aa sy 10) i) ut ) i) MM is) 4 ” Oh) 4 7p) rt 1) as rd " ”) a) "W C | Sy eS rau hy oO i) a) ws hI a) a) {i a ca] as " he as ti} a a ” S a n ae 3 1) “i ie) Vv ion) 1o) Air O. ks qa) ca F; Ww (@) |i] as q) :4) |)vW) ie sy da ee W1) i) D cs 2iB) ra Le fia) mo ) od am a 4 ws as (@) sd Cc f a) ed 41 A 8) c “rl My Pg i) i cH) Fz a) Et 4) ) C . as i) iB) oe a 4) ~ > aD) oa Oo sy i) (ay a U Ke oO Es Sy re sy 0) W uD) es ion (354 My fe a) a) mks c £4 a) 1) qQ) my 0] q) i) c ed Oo iva) ) i a (@) Ww 1) as od 4} a) as My ion a) io) rd | C a rf "I My a) i ie) ! co) O 4 ay a) ay ) i Ss qa "” n as Ui] A | be ion 4) [% - ~ QO uO eA wa a) Ke (@) 7) ir “rl a er et cS Or a) 0 -el . OD} ) Wwe vt ) 7] as 1) @) as w p 0) s | \y re =I _=+7 ‘) My |nNn v @ wy O oO Co) a) ‘2 6Sy qQ) > ne) ) 1] ) ) (24 - - : ur ”) ia} ty 4 Lf ) 2 a”) 3] 0] iG; a ny dd c = ion a 0) Ww iw ly ky my 1) qa) as n O v7) n Ss oh) n 4) c; fi Ch oO ) = O ) 79 = 31 Vol. " 16) a i) 'D 4 sy as ris] aI (ie Ww = wi) 1) ha "” . ”n ee Cm ae at ny wy) Oo a oD) Q) oA = oe a a Be ~ = sy ce) Ls ae c ) ha ies My a M, = (aa) is) Fs; ay ch) . Sa o 1) n 6 a Qa co) O Q uy) a pt! a) in 40) i) |) vy) ae) as m re te 44 '2 HN Ao NY (y io) 18) f 4) a es MO, A iG on E vel 2 5 rd =| ) t n "I ”) 0) Sy 0) (@) od ony as . ‘ . . 0) i] 1 df u 4 ay ee Ke O- Q Ke = ed ra (y a0 cy fan c a) od i 1) a) 371 ebruary, and March FSL interview sessions with Nosénko. «-When askac whether there were any language proplems, che agent stated that this was not a problem. -The questions,.according ct O (t ve (D ry Ww 4 ie) Q ( nt, were phrased in both Russian and English anda , in his opinion, »'there was-no question about, being misunderstood, e also described how the dual reports were written... The sents would speak with Nosenko and take notes. They then woul return toitheiz office, discuss the case, and: latex they would turmito. Nosenkovand discuss‘with-him-any-caps or things thev were not’ sure about. It was his¢belief® % that everything of importance was sone over with Nosenko and “discussed with him ct ay t a Fay » 1) U) er) 2 fu F oO am oO rh 0) cr ig bh Ph THis) —VOSenSOw=e tos = Ww ct sv cr (D ou ae te \O OV do Re fy cr ct | 2) 0) } Oo He (D fu al) ‘4 i) fu (D when the decision was made and that the case officer was named Rao ff aS 1h. Nosenko told the. HSCA that he oersonally.read a You told us there was a, cable that you read which was from the Mexico City Residentura to the First Directorates is, that ©cignt? Right. How long was the cable? Tt was°a halt page. i When Nosenko spoke to lve he “did not know how Mexico City adviséd (Oswald's application." When this statement was rea the hearing and before he was told where i a ae a was aMs- > TSM fees hn weal e cable. (T did mot xnow how the Mexico Citv Consul a Oswald's. application. In.July of 1964, Cia, ena fnere was “a cable Setlist net wee 480 =39= read it. In 1978 before the HSCA, Nosenko knew there was a cable, personally read it and remembered that it was about half a page long. After questioning Nosenko on a number of other state- ments which he made to the FBI and CIA in 1964 and receiving similar responses to those described, the Committee returned to the earlier topics. Nosenko on numerous occasions had complained that the transcripts were inaccurate, that he was drugged, that he was not fairly questioned, etc. Therefore, the Committee prepared to play the actual tapes in which Nosenko made these statements and allow him to comment on them. Nosenko, earlier in the hearing while explaining why he did not mention the physical and technical surveillance to the FBI and CIA in 1964, testified that if he had been asked, he would have said "yes." Q. If they would have asked you, was there physical surveillance? A. Yes, I will answer yes, it was. Then Nosenko was asked if the question had been put to him: "Was he (Oswald) physically surveilled?" And had he ever answered: "No, there was none." Nosenko was then shown a statement that indicated that he had indeed been asked that question and given that answer. But Nosenko testified: "I do not remember; it's not right, the answer." 481 At that time a tape recorder was brought out and the following was stated by the questioner: "I would ask that this tape, which is marked 3 July '64, reel number 66, be deemed marked for identification." A recess was requested to put the tape in the machine. At the conclusion of the recess, Nosenko refused to answer any question dealing with interviews done by the CIA prior to 1967. He stated that all statements prior to that time by the CIA were the result of hostile interrogations and that he was questioned illegally in violation of his constitutional rights. At that time, all questioning dealing with prior statements to the FBI and CIA was suspended by the Committee. 482 Mr. Buakey. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with your permission at this time to summarize the highlights of that report. Chairman SrToxkeEs. Counsel may proceed. | Mr. Buiakey. Nosenko has testified to the committee that he was © born Yuri Ivanovich Nosenko in the town of Nikolayev in the Ukraine, October 30, 1927. On leave in Moscow in 1953 he joined the MVD, later the KGB. In 1955 Nosenko was transferred to the seventh department of the second chief directorate, a department newly formed in the KGB to- monitor tourists to the Soviet Union. In July 1962 he was promoted to deputy chief of the seventh department, second chief directorate. Nosenko first came to the attention of U.S. intelligence agencies - in June 1962. He identified himself to the CIA and offered to sell information for 900 Swiss francs. He explained he needed the money to replace KGB funds he had spent on a drinking spree. He has since said he did not really need the money but felt an offer simply to give away the information would be rejected, as it had been with similar offers by other Soviet agents. On January 23, 1964, Nosenko was heard from again. Back in Geneva as an escort to a disarmament delegation, he informed the CIA this time he wished to defect, giving as his reason disillusion- ment with his government and doubt that he would be able to leave the USSR soon again. The CIA was surprised by his sudden decision to defect, but Nosenko was adamant. On February 4 Nosenko revealed he had received a telegram ordering him to return to Moscow directly from Geneva. Nosenko later admitted, however, that the recall telegram was a fake. He had made up the story to get the CIA to agree to his defection without further delay. By April 1964 Nosenko had been in the United States for nearly 2 months. Already top officials of the Soviet Russia and counterin- telligence sections of the CIA had nagging doubts as to whether he was a bona fide defector. Information Nosenko had given about Oswald, for one thing, aroused suspicions. The chief of the Soviet Russia section had difficulty accepting the statements about Oswald, characterizing them as seemingly “* * * almost to have been tacked on to or have been added, as though it didn’t seem to be part of the real body of the other things he had to say, many of which were true.” Statements by Nosenko at the time of his contact with the CIA in 1964 revealing he had information about Lee Harvey Oswald led ie his being questioned by the FBI upon arrival in the United tates. Nosenko told the FBI about his knowledge of Oswald and the fact that the KGB had no contact with him. The concluson of the March report by the FBI reads as follows: On March 4, 1964, Nosenko stated that he did not want any publicity in connec- tion with this information but stated that he would be willing to testify to this information before the Presidential commission, provided such testimony is given in secret and absolutely no publicity is given, either to his appearance before the commission or to the information itself. 483 The report noted that on March 6 Nosenko inquired if the infor- mation he furnished on March 4 regarding Oswald had been given Pe the appropriate authorities. He was advised that this had been one. On April 4, 1964, CIA officials decided to place Nosenko in isola- tion and to commence hostile interrogations. First, he was subjected to a polygraph, one designed to insure a proper atmosphere for the hostile interrogations. The CIA polyg- rapher was instructed to inform Nosenko that he had lied, regard- less of the actual outcome of the test. In his report, the polygrapher wrote his true conclusion, which was that Nosenko had indeed lied. The official position now stated by the CIA is that the test was invalid or inconclusive. The conditions of Nosenko’s isolation have been described by the Rockefeller Commission as ‘spartan.’ Both Nosenko and the CIA were asked by the committee to describe them. Nosenko says the room to which he was confined had a “metal bed attached to the floor,” and “the only furniture in the room was a single bed and a light bulb.” The CIA states: | Nosenko received a regular diet of three meals a day. Periodically during this time his diet was modified to the extent that his portions of food were modest and restricted. Nosenko states he ‘‘* * * was not given a toothbrush and tooth- paste and food given to me was very poor. I did not have enough to eat, and was hungry all the time.” The CIA: Nosenko did not have access to TV, radio or newspapers. He was provided with a limited number of books to read from April 1964 to November 1965, and from May a to October 1967. His reading privileges were suspended from November 1965 to ay 1967. Nosenko: “I had no contact with anybody to talk. I could not read. I could not smoke.” The CIA states Nosenko was “under constant visual observation from April 1964 to October 1967,” the end of the period of his isolation. Nosenko: I was watched day and night through TV camera * * * I was desperately wanting to read and once, when I was given toothpaste, I found in the toothpaste box a piece of paper with a description of the compound of this toothpaste. I was trying to read it under my blanket, but guards noticed it and again it was taken from me. Both Nosenko and the CIA agree that conditions improved mar- kedly beginning in the fall of 1967—the end of the period of isola- tion. Nosenko was questioned about Lee Harvey Oswald on five occa- sions in 1964. Nosenko said as soon as President Kennedy’s asssas- sin was identified as a man who had lived in the Soviet Union, the KGB ordered that Oswald’s file be flown to Moscow and reviewed to determine whether there had been any contact between him and Soviet intelligence. Nosenko said further he was assigned to review Oswald’s file. Based on that review as well as his earlier contacts with the case, he was able to report postively that Oswald had neither been recruited nor contacted by the KGB. 484 At the time of his second polygraph examination in October 1966, Nosenko was again asked about Oswald. The CIA examined him. The same one who administered the first test concluded again that Nosenko was lying, although the official agency position now is that the test was: “Invalid or inconclusive because the conditions and the circumstances under which it was administered are consid- ered to have precluded an accurate appraisal of the results.” The Soviet Russia section of the CIA wrote a 900-page report based on its interrogations of Nosenko, though it was trimmed to 447 pages by the time it was submitted in February 1968. It came to the following conclusions: Nosenko did not serve in the naval reserve as he had claimed. He did not join the KGB at the time nor in the manner he described. He did not serve in the American Embassy section of the KGB at the time he claimed. He was not a senior case officer or deputy chief of the seventh department, as he stated he had been. He was neither deputy chief of the American Embassy section nor a supervisor in that section. He was not chief of the American-British Commonwealth section. He was not a deputy chief of the seventh department in 1962, as he had claimed. High officials of the CIA, including Richard Helms, were aware of the Nosenko dilemma by the time the Soviet Russian section report had been drafted. In mid-1967, a career officer in the office of security was assigned to write a critique of the handling of Nosenko. The security officer gradually came to the conclusion that No- senko was supplying valid intelligence, and that he was who he claimed to be, leading to the eventual conclusion that Nosenko was bona fide. The investigation ended in the summer of 1968. On August 8, 1968, Nosenko was given a third polygraph test. Two of the ques- tions related to information he had supplied about Oswald. This time Nosenko passed. The CIA, when asked by the committee to comment on the third polygraph, now states: “This test is consid- ered to be a valid test.” This committee obtained an independent analysis of the three polygraph tests given Nosenko from Richard Arther, president of the Scientific Lie Detection, Inc., and a member of the American Polygraph Association. In his report, Mr. Arther expresses the judgment that the second test, the one in which the examiner determined Nosenko was lying, was the most valid and reliable of the three examinations administered to Nosenko. As for the two questions about Oswald in the third test, Mr. Arther characterized the first as ‘‘atrocious’ and the second as “very poor” for use in assessing the validity of Nosenko’s re- sponses. In a report issued in October 1968, the security officer disputed each and every conclusion of the report of the Soviet Russian section written only 8 months earlier. The security officer report, like the Soviet Russian section report, paid little attention to the Oswald aspect of the Nosenko case. Neither attempted to analyze the statements made about Oswald. 485 Out of a combined total of 730 pages of the report, only 15 deal with the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. The security officer did reach the conclusion, however, that No- senko was not dispatched by the Soviet Government to give false information to the U.S. officials about Oswald. The Warren Commission received FBI and CIA reports on No- senko and his statements about Oswald but chose in its final report not to refer to them. And while Nosenko expressed a willingness to testify before the commission, as I previously noted, he was not called as a witness. The CIA has informed the House Select Committee of Nosenko’s status subsequent to the 1968 report as follows: Following the acceptance of Nosenko’s bona fides in late 1968, an arrangement was worked out whereby Nosenko was employed as an independent contractor for the CIA effective March 1, 1969. His first contract called for him to be compensated at the rate of $16,500 a year. As of 1978 he is receiving $35,325 a year. In addition to the record yearly compensation in 1972, Nosenko was paid for the years 1964 through 1969 in the amount of $25,000 a year less income tax. The total amount paid was $87,052. He also received in varying increments from March 1964 through July 1973 amounts totaling $50,000 to aid in his resettlement in the private economy. To this day, Nosenko is a consultant to the CIA and the FBI on Soviet intelligence, and he lectures regularly on counterintelli- gence. In 1978, the select committee began its investigation of the No- senko case. It was granted permission by the FBI and the CIA to read all documents, to interview principals in the case, and to question Nosenko himself about his knowledge of Oswald. Nosenko spoke to the House committee on five occasions. During two of these sessions, staff members took notes. In the third, No- senko gave a sworn deposition, and on July 19 and 20, 1978, No- senko testified before the committee in executive session. There was no substantive variation in Nosenko’s recounting of the facts. There have been, however, significant inconsistencies over the years in Nosenko’s story. Let me here note one, although others appear in the full sum- mary. Nosenko has always insisted that the KGB never had any contact with Oswald. He stated in both 1964 and 1968 that the KGB determined that Oswald was of no interest to them and did not even bother to interview him. Question: And exactly why did no KGB officer ever speak to bees before they made the decision about whether to let him efect? Answer: We didn’t consider him an interesting target. When asked if he knew of any other defector who was turned away because he was uninteresting, Nosenko answered, no. No- senko said the KGB not only did not question Oswald when he asked to defect, it also did not interview him later when it was decided he would be permitted to remain in Russia. At no time, Nosenko told the committee, did the KGB talk to Oswald. 486 Question: Now when it was determined that Oswald was going to be allowed to stay in the Soviet Union and live in Minsk, did any KGB officer speak to him at that time? enw SE No. As far as my knowledge, nobody was speaking with im. Question: Why didn’t the KGB speak to him then? Answer: KGB once said we don’t have entrance. The same was reported to the Government. Must be by the chairman that the KGB doesn’t have interest. The KGB didn’t want to be involved. According to Nosenko, the KGB would have been very interested in the fact that Oswald worked at the air base in Japan from which the super secret U-2 spy planes took off and landed. Question: And in 1959, would the Soviet Union have been inter- ested in someone who served as the radar operator on an air base where U-2’s took off and landed? | Answer: Yes, sir. It would be very interesting . But Nosenko maintains that the KGB never spoke with Oswald, so it didn’t know that he had any connection with the U-2 flights. The head of the CIA Soviet Russia section from 1963 to 1968 was asked by the committee if he knew of comparable situations in which someone was not questioned, was just left alone, as Nosenko says Oswald was. He replied that he did not know of any former Soviet intelligence officer or other knowledgeable source to whom they had spoken who felt that this would have been possible. “If someone did” he said “I never heard of it.” In short, Nosenko’s Oswald’s story is as follows: The KGB, al- though very interested in the U-2, never learned anything about it from Oswald because it didn’t know he had any knowledge of the aircraft. Why? Because Oswald was never questioned by the KGB because the decision was made that Oswald was of no interest to Soviet intelligence. After questioning Nosenko on a number of other statements and their possible contradictions with prior statements which he made to the FBI and the CIA in 1964 and receiving similar response to the one I have just outlined, the committee in its May hearing returned to earlier topics. Nosenko on numerous occasions had complained that the transcripts he was being shown were inaccu- rate, that he had been drugged by the CIA during interrogation, and that he was not fairly questioned, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Therefore the committee decided to play for Mr. Nosenko the actual tapes of the interrogation in which Nosenko made these statements and to allow him to comment on them. At the time a tape recorder was brought out and the following was stated by the questioner: I would like to ask that this tape, which is marked “3 July 1964, Reel No. 66”, be deemed marked for identification. A recess was requested to put the tape in the machine. At the conclusion of the recess, Nosenko returned to the room and then refused to answer any questions dealing with interviews done by the CIA prior to 1967. He stated that all statements prior to that time by the CIA were the result of hostile interrogations, and that he was questioned illegally in violation of his constitutional rights. The committee considered how to respond to Mr. Nosenko’s ob- jection, and after deliberation, it decided that all questions dealing 487 with prior statements to the FBI and the CIA would be suspended by the committee. _ Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of the report. It is appropriate to note that a draft of the staff report, a summary of which was just read, was submitted to the CIA for declassification. Within 2 days, the CIA declassified the entire draft, requiring that only a few minor changes and the deletion of the names of agency personnel and sources. The committee provided both the FBI and the CIA with copies of the report and asked the agencies if they wished to respond to the report at the public hearing to be held today. The FBI informed the committee that no response would be submitted. The CIA has made available to the committee John Clement Hart as its official representative to state the agency’s position on the committee’s Nosenko report. Mr. Hart is a career agent with the CIA, having served approximately 24 years. He has held the position of chief of station in Korea, Thailand, Morocco, Vietnam, as well as several senior posts at CIA headquarters in Virginia. Mr. Hart has considerable experience with Soviet intelligence and counterintelligence activities while serving in various capaci- ties in the United States and abroad. He has written two extensive studies on Soviet defectors, one of which, dated 1976, dealt with the handling of Yuri Nosenko by the CIA. ae Chairman, it would be appropriate at this time to call Mr. art. Mr. Preyer. At this time, before we hear this witness, the Chair would like to take a few minutes recess until the other members have had an opportunity to return from the vote. I think it is important that they have the opportunity to hear this witness. So at this time, the Chair will take a recess not to last more than 5 minutes. The committee stands in recess for 5 minutes. [Recess. ] Chairman StToxkess. The committee will come to order. The committee calls Mr. John Hart. Mr. Hart, would you please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Hart. I do, sir. Chairman Stokes. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel Ken Klein. Mr. Kein. Mr. Chairman, at this time I believe Mr. Hart would like to make a statement to the committee. Chairman SToKEs. You are recognized, sir. TESTIMONY OF JOHN HART Mr. Hart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. Before I begin my statement, I would like to make a prefatory remark on a technical aspect of what was said about me by the chief counsel, Mr. Blakey. I was not and never have been what is called a career agent with the CIA. I bring that up only because that term hap- pens to have a technical meaning in the Agency. I was what you 488 would call an employee or an officer of the Agency. And I would like to have that made part of the record. Chairman Stokes. The record may so show. Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman, it has never been my custom to speak from a prepared text. I have tried, and I never succeeded. There- fore, what I have before me are a series of notes which were finished about 8 o’clock last night, based on guidance which I got at that time from Admiral Stansfield Turner, the Director of Central Intelligence. It is my purpose to tell you as much as possible about the background of the Nosenko case with the idea not of addressing what have been called his bona fides, but what has been described as his credibility. Now, I must say that I have difficulty in distinguishing between credibility and bona fides, but in any case, the testimony and the evidence which has been presented regarding Nosenko simply | cannot be evaluated properly unless I give you the background which I am about to present. 7 Mr. Dopp. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a request at this point if I could. As I understood it, last week, the agreement and understanding was that we would prepare a report of our investiga- tion, submit it to the Agency, to which the Agency would then respond in a like report. We were notified earlier this week that a detailed outline of the Agency’s response would be forthcoming. Am I to assume that this detailed outline consisting of a single page, listing four subtitles, is the summary of Mr. Hart’s presenta- tion? That is, as far as I can determine, the full extent to which we have any response relating to Mr. Hart’s testimony at this junc- ture. What I would like to request at this point is that this committee take a 5- or 10-minute recess, and we have the benefit of examining your notes from which you are about to give your testimony, so Lt we could prepare ourselves for proper questioning of you, Mr. art. Mr. Chairman, I would make that request. Chairman Stokes. Does the witness care to respond? Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman, I will do anything which will be of help to the committee. I want to state that I am not personally certain what was promised the committee. I was brought back on duty to be the spokesman for the agency. I spent my time prepar- ing testimony which I am prepared to offer here. If it will be of assistance for the committee to see this in advance, I am perfectly happy to do so, if there is a way of doing that. Chairman Stokes. Does the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, want to be heard further? Mr. Dopp. Yes, just to this extent, Mr. Chairman. It is not my intention to delay these proceedings any more than they have to be. I am not asking for a lot of time. If we could have just 5 or 10 minutes in which we might be able to make some Xerox copies of those notes, so that we could have the benefit of following you along in your testimony on the basis of that outline, it would be helpful I think in terms of the committee assessing the material and also preparing itself for the proper questions to be addressed to you at the conclusion of your statement. So I do it only for that 489 purpose, Mr. Chairman. It is not in any way designed to thwart the efforts of Mr. Hart or the Agency to make its presentation. Chairman Stokes. Would the gentleman be agreeable to provid- ing Mr. Hart the opportunity to proceed with his testimony, and then in the event that you deem it necessary to have additional time to review his notes, or to prepare an examination of him after his testimony, that the Chair would grant you that time at that time. aes Dopp. That would be fine, Mr. Chairman. I will agree to that. Chairman SToKEs. I thank the gentleman. You may proceed, sir. Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman, I also want to emphasize that in order to be of as much help as possible, I am perfectly willing to take questions as we go along. This is not a canned presentation. It may be easier for the members of the committee to ask questions as we g° along, in which case I will do my best to answer them as we go along. Chairman StToKkgs. I think the committee would prefer to have you make your presentation. Then after that, the committee will then be recognized—members will be recognized individually for such questioning as they so desire. Mr. FirHian. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness to move the microphone a little closer in some way or another. We are having some difficulty in hearing from this angle. Mr. Hart. Yes, sir. Is this all right? Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, the effort in this presentation will be to point out some of the unusual factors in the Nosenko case which resulted in a series of cumulative misunderstandings. And I am hoping that once these misunderstandings are explained—and they were misunderstandings within the Agency for the most part—I am hoping that when these are explained, that many of the prob- lems which are quite understandable, which the staff has had with the questions and answers from Mr. Nosenko, and also allegations concerning him, will be cleared up and go away. I will endeavor to show that the handling of Nosenko by the Central Intelligence Agency was counterproductive from the time of the first contact with him in Geneva in 1962, and that it contin- ued in a manner which was counterproductive until the jurisdic- tion over the case was transferred to the CIA Office of Security in late 1967, specifically in August of that year. The manner in which the defector was handled, which I am going to outline, resulted in generating a large amount of misinfor- mation and in creating difficulties, not only for an investigating body, such as yourself, but for people such as the Director of the Central Intelligence, Mr. Helms, who was not well informed in many cases as to what was actually happening. I do not mean to imply that he was told untruths. He was simply not given the total picture of what was going on. Since Admiral Turner has become Director of Central Intelli- gence, he has been quite concerned about this case, and he specifi- cally requested that I come back periodically to the Agency, from which I retired in 1972, and give presentations to senior officials of the Agency on the nature of the case. The complexity of the case is 490 such that to give a minimally adequate presentation to the first group which I lectured took me 4% hours of continuous lecturing. However, I think that since the interests of this committee are more pinpointed than that group I have been lecturing, | can certainly do it in a shorter time. Now, the study which I made was made from mid-June 1976 until late December 1976. It required the full-time efforts of myself and four assistants. We collected from various parts of the Agency 10 4-drawer safes full of documents, and we had also access to documents which were in repositories in other parts of the Agency, and which we simply didn’t have room to collect in our office. In making this presentation, I will be somewhat hampered, but not to the point where I can’t do the job properly, by the fact that this session is, of course, open to the public. Most of the documen- tation which we had, in fact I would say, almost without exception was heavily classified, and we pulled together pieces of documenta- tion which no single person had ever seen before. So we put togeth- er the first full picture which has ever been had of this activity. The first specific question which I want to address myself to is this case as a human phenomenon, because the human factors involved have a direct bearing on some of the contradictions which have appeared in the case. And unfortunately the human factors were the last to be consid- ered by the people who conducted this case between 1962 and 1967. Some of them were ridiculously simple things which you might have thought would come to their attention. I am about to discuss a psychological profile which was made of Mr. Nosenko on June 24, 1964. This would have been available to any of the persons working on the case, but they—and it probably was seen by them, but they paid no attention to it. Let me say by way of qualification for giving you this evidence that although I am not a psychologist, I have had considerable training in psychology and specifically in giving of intelligence tests. And I am about to talk to you about what is known as the Wexler adult intelligence scale, which was administered to Mr. Nosenko. The Wexler adult intelligence scale measures 10 elements of the—of a person’s intelligence. Of the 10 elements shown here on the measure which I have here, and which I will be happy to make available to the committee staff, if you wish, it is shown that Mr. Nosenko’s memory was the weakest aspect of his overall intel- ligence. His memory in terms of the weighted scale came out as a 7. Now, the mean would have been a 10. Thus he was at the time tested, he was registering a memory well below the normal level. It is impossible to say what he would have scored under condi- tions which were more normal, because it must be taken into consideration that at the time he was—he was tested, he had been subjected to not only the stresses and strains of—involved in defect- ing, but also in some rather rough handling which he had received since his defection. However—you will see that if this man—man’s memory was below the normal to be expected for a person of his intelligence, that any of the testimony which he gave in the course of various interrogations could be expected to be flawed simply by the human factor of memory alone. 491 Second, I want to point out that defection is in itself a major life trauma. It has a very serious effect, which I cannot testify to from the medical standpoint, but it is—it has both psychological and physical effects on people, and anybody who has, as I have, had to do, had considerable contact over the years with defectors, knows that a defector is vsually a rather disturbed person, because he has made a break with his homeland, usually with family, with friends, with his whole way of life, and above all he is very uncertain as to what his future is going to be. I have had defectors whom I personally took custody of turn to me and the first question they asked was, “When are you going to kill me?” In other words, defection is an upsetting experience, and you cannot expect of a man immediately after he has defected that he will always behave in a totally reasonable way. Another circumstance which I want to bring up is the fact that the initial interrogations of Mr. Nosenko, which took place in Geneva in 1962, were handled under conditions which, while un- derstandable, did not make for good interrogations. They did not make for good questioning. Mr. Nosenko, as of the time he was being questioned in 1962, was still considered by the KGB to be a loyal member of that organiza- tion. He had considerable freedom because he actually did not have any duties in connection with the disarmament discussions. He was simply the security guardian of the delegates. He was the KGB’s watchdog. And as such, he was able to move freely and in a manner of his own choice. He availed himself of this freedom to make contact with an American diplomat, who in turn turned him over to representatives of the CIA. In making these contacts, which were recurrent, he each time was nervous that the local KGB element might for some reason be suspicious of him, and therefore he took about an hour and a half before each meeting in order to be sure that he was not being tailed. In his particular case, this countersurveillance measure con- sisted of visiting a number of bars, in each of which he had a drink. He had one scotch and soda in each of four or five bars. So by the time he got to the point where he was going to be ques- tioned, he had had four or five drinks. When he arrived on the spot where he was going to be ques- tioned—this was a clandestine apartment, in the Agency’s terms, Agency’s jargon it is called a safe house, he was then offered further liquor. And he continued to drink throughout the interro- gation. In talking to Nosenko, and requestioning him a few days ago, I asked him to describe his condition during these meetings, and he said, “I must tell you honestly that at all these meetings I was snookered.”’ And I said, “You mean that you were drunk?” “Yes, John,” he said, “I was drunk.” Therefore he was being interrogated about very important things while he was heavily under the influence of liquor. And he said to me that in some cases he exaggerated the importance of his activities, in some cases he really didn’t know what he was doing, he was simply talking. 492 Now, I want to then tell you how the problems involved with this testimony, if you can call it such, given by Mr. Nosenko, was further worsened. There were two people sent from Washington specifically to talk to Mr. Nosenko after he made the approach. One of them was a native-born American who had learned a certain amount of Rus- sian academically, but did not speak it, write it or read it fluently. The other was an American citizen who spoke native Russian, but whose principal purpose was to be an interpreter. There was a tape recorder on hand at these meetings. Sometimes it worked well, sometimes it did not work well. You must remem- ber, I am sure, that back in the 1960’s tape recorders were much less refined than they are now, and the ambient noise, straight noise, and so forth, interfered considerably. However, records of these original meetings were not made from the tapes on the tape recorder. The records which were thought for a number of years to be transcripts were in fact made from notes made by the non-Russian speaker, what he understood as a result of interrogation by the Russian speaker, or what he got himself from his own knowledge of Russian. He made notes. After the meetings, these notes were then used as the basis of purported transcripts, purported transcripts, which went unchal- lenged for a number of years. When later in 1967 these transcripts were compared carefully with what was on the tape, it was shown that there were a number of discrepancies. These discrepancies were very important in the history of this case, because the discrepancies between what Mr. Nosenko really said and what was on the tapes gave rise to charges pte the Agency that Mr. Nosenko was not what he purported to e. But the important point is that in many cases what was being used against him as evidence of telling untruths was not in fact what he had said. I ip take simply one example to illustrate for you what hap- pened. Mr. Nosenko mentioned that he had attended what is called the Frunze Naval Preparatory School. Frunze was a general who was a hero of the Russian revolution and there seemed to be countless institutions of a military nature in the Soviet Union named after him. The most famous is the Frunze Military Academy which roughly compares to West Point. Into the transcript was put the fact that Mr. Nosenko said he had graduated from the Frunze Military Academy. He never said this. He never said this at all, but it was held against him that he had said this. That is an example of the type of evidence which was used against him in assessing him. Now I would like to say a few words about what, despite this, these difficulties—excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words about the intelligence which Mr. Nosenko did produce during that time, despite the adverse circumstances surrounding the questioning. In the first place, Mr. Nosenko was responsible for the discovery of a system of audio surveillance or microphones within the U.S. Embassy in Moscow which hitherto had been suspected but nobody 493 had had enough information on it to actually detect it. The infor- mation provided by Mr. Nosenko was sufficiently specific, so that when the necessary action was taken which involved wholesale tearing out of walls, tearing out of plumbing, tearing out of old- fashioned radiators, it was discovered that there was a system which totaled 52 microphones which were planted throughout the most sensitive parts of the American Embassy in Moscow. Forty- two of these microphones were still active at the time and were being used by the KGB to collect information continuously on what _ was going on in the American Embassy. It has been said that this was not a significant contribution, that some of the people, whom I shall describe later, who have claimed that Mr. Nosenko was a dispatched Soviet agent sent to deceive the U.S. Government, said this was throwaway information. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not entirely a matter _of judgment on my part or on the part of those of us who have investigated this case. We do not believe that there is any reason to think that the Soviets would ever have given away that informa- tion simply to establish somebody in a position to mislead us. There are no adequate precedents to show that they would have done so. Another case which was revealed to us in 1962, despite the, as I say, undesirable circumstances surrrounding the questioning of Mr. Nosenko, had to do with a man, whom I in open session cannot identify, but he was a very high level Soviet KGB penetration in a very sensitive position in a Western European Government. He was, and on the basis of Mr. Nosenko’s lead, arrested, tried, and convicted of espionage. There is no reason to believe that the Soviets would have given this information away. There is no prece- dent that we know of for the Soviets giving information of this sensitivity away. Now I want to mention some further aspects of the difficulties which arose in the handling of the agent, some of the events which distorted this case. The first important communication which went back from Geneva after the two Washington emissaries had met with Mr. Nosenko was sent by a man who, in order to avoid the use of personal names, although the true name of this individual is certainly available to the staff, and if they have any questions I will be happy to answer, I am going to call him the deputy chief of the SB Division, Soviet Bloc Division, throughout my testimony. The deputy chief, who is the chief interrogator over there, sent back a telegram to Washington on June 11, 1962, in which he said “Subject” meaning Nosenko “has conclusively proved his bona fides. He has provided info of importance and sensitivity. Subject now completely cooperative. Willing to meet when abroad and will meet as often and as long as possible in his departure in Geneva from June 15.” On June 15 both Nosenko and the Deputy Chief SB departed from Geneva, Mr. Nosenko to return to Moscow and his KGB duties, the Deputy Chief SB to return to Washington. In the course of my investigation, I asked the gentleman, who was for many years chief of the CIA counterintelligence staff, to describe to me what ensued after the arrival in Washington of DCSB, and I shall give you a brief quote which was recorded and 41-371 O - 79 - 32 Vol. 2 494 transcribed and which is held in our files. This is the chief of the counterintelligence staff of the CIA speaking: We got the first message from Deputy Chief SB—that is the one that I have just previously quoted to you—on Nosenko from Geneva, and Deputy Chief SB was ordered back to Washington, and we had a big meeting here on Saturday morning, and Deputy Chief SB thought he had the biggest fish of his life. I mean he really did. And everything I heard from him, however, was in direct contrast from what we had heard from Mr. X. I now come to the subject of another defector who, throughout this paper, I am going to call Mr. X, although the staff is well aware of his true identity. Mr. X was a defector who had come, who had defected from the Soviet Union in late 1961. In the course of his dealings with the Central Intelligence Agency, he was diagnosed by a psychiatrist and separately by a clinical psychologist as a paranoid. And I am sure that everybody knows what a paranoid is. This man had delusions of grandeur. He was given to building up big, fantastic plots, and he eventually built up a plot, which I will have to go into in a little detail here, which centered around the idea that the KGB had vast resources which it was using to deceive not only the U.S. Government but other Western governments. This plot was masterminded by something called the KGB disinformation direc- torate, and this KGB disinformation directorate was able to deceive the West, as a whole, meaning the United States and the allied European countries, because of the fact that it had penetrations at high levels, both within the intelligence services of these countries, including our own, but also in high places in the governments of the various countries, in the nonintelligence parts of the govern- ments. Mr. X’s story did not come out immediately in one piece. It was elaborated over the years, and for all I know, it may be still in the process of exaggeration, exaggeration and elaboration. One aspect of Mr. X’s character was that he was rather jealous of other Soviet defectors. Now he did personally know Nosenko, and when Nosenko came out, he did give evidence confirming that Nosenko had had certain jobs, which was in agreement with what Nosenko told us he had done. At later phases of the handling of Mr. X, he changed his story a number of times. I am not an expert on the Mr. X case, and therefore I cannot give you all the details. It is a very lengthy case, but he did go through a number of stages in which he changed his stories. Mr. X was a problem for the Central Intelligence Agency and for anybody else who dealt with him, because he basically insisted that he wanted to deal only with the President of United States. He did not want to deal with people at a lower rank. But he had a substantial influence on the case because he came to be accepted as almost a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, in terms of the handling of the Nosenko case. He was in due time given access to a voluminous amount of information relating to matters of counterintelligence interest. In the case of Nosenko, he was given access to all the debriefings of Nosenko. He was given access to the tapes themselves. He was consulted as to Nosenko’s bona fides. He was allowed to think up 495 questions which were to be asked Nosenko. He participated almost _as if he were a USS. citizen, with a status similar to my own in the organization. He did this, however, without the knowledge at that time of Nosenko. He was kept behind the scenes, but he was mastermind- ing the examinations in many ways. The final point that I suppose I might make about Mr. X, which will give it, give you some evidence of his peculiar point of view, was that it was one of his contentions that the schism between the Soviet Union and China, Communist China, was simply a KGB disinformation ruse, designed to confuse the West. He offered this theory quite seriously, and in some limited quarters within the agency, it came to be taken seriously. Now Mr. X said, in regard to Nosenko, that Nosenko had been sent out specifically to remedy the damage produced by Mr. X who defected some time previously and had given us information which he thought of great value. In point of fact, quantitatively and qualitatively, the information given by Mr. X was much smaller than that given by Nosenko. But I will read you an excerpt from what Mr. X had to say regarding Nosenko because it bears on the manner in which Nosenko was cheating—was treated. Now this is a report written, not a direct quote, a report written on a conversation with Mr. X. Mr. X felt in general that there were indeed serious signs of disinformation in this affair. He felt that such a disinformation operation to discredit him was a likelihood. A KGB officer could be permitted to tell everything he knew now—that is another KGB _officer—everything he knew now, if he worked in the same general field as Mr. X. | The purpose of Nosenko’s coming out, he thought, would be to contradict what Mr. X had said, and also possibly to set Mr. X up for kidnaping, also to divert our attention from investigations of Mr. X’s leads by throwing up false scents, and to protect remaining Soviet sources. _ Now Mr. X’s views were immediately taken to be the definitive views on Nosenko, and from that standpoint, from that point on, the treatment of Mr. Nosenko was never, until 1967, devoted to learning what Mr. X had to say. It was devoted to “breaking”’— excuse me, sir, I misspoke. It was never devoted to finding out what Mr. Nosenko said. The Agency’s activity was devoted to breaking Nosenko, who was presumed, on the basis of the supposed evidence given by Mr. X, that Nosenko was a “dispatched KGB agent” sent to mislead the United States. It is with this in mind that we have to approach everything that happened from 1962, after the first contact with Nosenko termi- nated, and the time that Nosenko was turned over to the CIA Office of Security for reinvestigation. The polygraphs themselves must be evaluated in the light of their use, not to get at truth, because they were not used as an instrument of getting at truth, because they were used as an in- strument of intimidation of one sort or another, in one way or another. Now again on the handling of Mr. Nosenko, the belief among the small group of people running the Nosenko case, a very limited 496 group of people, was that he was part of a plot of the type outlined by Mr. X, which was so horrendous that therefore not many people could be made privy to this investigation. One of the reasons for that, even within the Agency, was that Mr. X had alleged that the Agency must be penetrated by the KGB at a high level, and therefore you had to limit what Nosenko and Mr. X said to a very small number of people who were thought not to be penetrations, a very small trusted group. The secrecy surrounding this case, I can illustrate to you from the following personal experience. In 1968 I came back, well, after this case had been resolved, I came back from Vietnam and was put in charge of the European Division of the Directorate of Operations of the Agency. Under my supervision at that time, there were two senior officers, one a GS- 18 and one a GS-16, who had been two of the three persons who were in charge of the Nosenko and Mr. X cases. I was never told of their participation in this case. I was never told that their work on the case had been discredited and had caused them to be trans- ferred out of headquarters to foreign assignments. Therefore even though I was their supervisor, I was not permit- ted to know of this important part of their recent past and of their performance. In 1964, Mr. Chairman, Nosenko came back out from the Soviet Union, again to Geneva, again in the same capacity as the KGB security officer attached to the Soviet mission to the disarmament conferences. He came out with the intention, a firm intention, of not going back. The Agency in the meantime had built up an elaborate case against him, a case built up under the aegis of the chief of the CI staff, the chief of the Soviet Bloc Division, and the deputy chief of the Soviet Bloc Division. Again it was the man I am referring to as the deputy chief of the Soviet Bloc Division, al- though he did not as yet hold that rank, who came out to Geneva to make the recontact with Nosenko. The question of just how to deal with Nosenko had been careful- ly examined, and it was decided that although the Agency was intensely suspicious of him, perhaps more than suspicious, they had concluded that he was being dispatched to mislead the U.S. Government. Nevertheless we must not tip our hand. We must not let Nosenko know that we suspected him, because Nosenko would then report back to his superiors that we knew what they were up to. Thus Nosenko was treated with the maximum of duplicity. As an illustration, I want to read then an excerpt from a tran- script, and this is an accurate excerpt from a transcript. I want to read an excerpt of a conversation which ensued on the 30th of January 1964 between the deputy chief SB and Nosenko. Nosenko, who, by the way, was worried about his future. He knew he had some kind of a relationship with us, but he was interested now in breaking finally with the Soviet Union and coming to the West, and he wanted asylum in United States, and he wanted to be sure that he was able to earn his living. He wasn’t asking to be in charge of the Government. He wanted an opportu- nity to earn his living. Nosenko said: 497 The only thing I want to know, and I ask this question, what should I expect in the future? The Deputy Chief SB replied: The following awaits. As I presented it, you wanted to come to the United States to have some job, some chance for future life which gives you security, and if possible, the opportunity to work in this field which you know; is that correct? Nosenko: Absolutely. Deputy chief SB: The Director has said yes, flatly, absolutely yes, in fact, I would say enthusiastic. That is the only word to describe it. We talked about it, and since this was a business discussion, I will repeat all of it. The next thing will be some details that we spoke about. We talked about the means by which you could have a solid career with a certain personal independence. Because of the very great assist- ance you have been to us already, and because of this desire to give you a backing, they will give you a little additional personal security. We want to give you an account of your own, a sum at the beginning of just plain $50,000, and from there on, as a working contract, $25,000 a year. But in addition, because of the case.” Which I have said I cannot otherwise identify, in which a KGB penetration had been arrested on the basis of Nosenko’s informa- tion: But, in addition, because of this case, which would have been impossible without your information, we are going to add at least $10,000 to this initial sum. So he was being paid, he was being assured of a bonus of $10,000 for his excellent performance in connection with one case. That commitment was subsequently reiterated in almost those exact words on a later occasion when he was on his way back to the United States. . Once Nosenko arrived in the United States, there were a couple of problems. The two agencies were interrogating him, although he was in the actual custody of the Central Intelligence Agency. The FBI did not at that time at least share the doubts about Nosenko which the Agency had. They regarded him as a bona fide defector, and considered that his information was valid and useful. It shows in the record that at a later date Mr. Hoover expressed himself as believing that Nosenko was a valid defector but that Mr. X was a provocateur. So there was a direct conflict between the two agen- cies on this subject. The position of the Central Intelligence Agency was that it faced a dilemma as to how to keep Nosenko sufficiently isolated so that ne could not communicate with his supposed “KGB controllers,” who were still masterminding his activities, while at the same time 4 8 ° 7 5.4. 2¢ 2? r Ss bate 24 °JUNE 1964 : i AniTH DAR RN ae eetPea Raic aae Fal ie oh 15 i JFK Exuisit F-426 Mr. Hart. May I ask that it be Xeroxed, rather than my turning this over, because I would like to keep this copy. 531 Chairman Stokes. We will Xerox that and substitute it for the exhibit in the record. Mr. Dopp. You want to answer the last part? If he has such a bad memory, why do we have him as a consultant? Mr. Hart. Yes. In fact, Mr. Nosenko is not used as an IBM machine which is a repository of information over the years. Mr. Nosenko is used as an intelligent human being who lived, worked in the midst of the KGB for a long time. I think he is—if you met him, you would find him an intelligent man to talk to. He has interesting ideas on the subject of the Soviet Union. He reasons well. Like many of us, including myself, I might say, his memory is not as good as his powers of logical thought. That same particular test has another little square on it which measures what is called similarities, and it measures the power of abstract thinking in a rather loose way. That happens to be one of his things on which he scores high. Mr. Dopp. For the purpose of the record, this committee spent more than 6 hours with Mr. Nosenko at the Central Intelligence Agency. So I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for takingso much time. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Chairman SToKEs. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer. Is it fair to say that his rating of seven really is not rated against the population as a whole being below average, but the lesser of his variable abilities? Mr. Hart. Exactly. Mr. Sawyer. All of which are quite high? Mr. Hart. Exactly. I am saying—well, this seven is a pretty low weighted score for a person of his abilities because when you get down just a little bit before that, below that, why, you come into the level where you are likely to presume that a person is under stress or is having, subject to some type of retardation or some- thing. It is pretty low. Mr. Sawyer. The last of those optional dispositions, disposable items that you read there, out of that memo, as I understood you you said that the last of the three, after there was liquidation, and then there was something, drugging him so he could not talk, and then putting him in a loony bin, after first rendering him nice, is that what you said? Mr. Hart. No, making him nuts, sir. This was a memo of one man to himself, and therefore it wasn’t couched in polite proper language. Mr. Sawyer. But the thrust of it was at first you drive him insane and then put him in a loony bin? Mr. Hart. That is as I understand it, yes, sir. Mr. SAwveER. Now, you said that people, all except one, are not in the Agency anymore. How did they come to leave? Did they get fired for this or did they just retire in the normal course? Mr. Hart. Sir, I would prefer that that question, which I believe is a very private matter, and affects a number of people, I think that should come from somebody in the command line of the Agency. I don’t think it is proper for me to address personnel matters. 532 Mr. Sawyer. Well, do you know the answer to it? Mr. Hart. I think I know the answer to it, but I believe that the Director of Central Intelligence should reply to that. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have counsel to consult here. But I do feel that is an improper question for me to answer. Mr. Sawyer. Now, you say Helms had limited information, or at least some limitation on the information that he received on this. He must have known about this torture vault or whatever it is you had specially built. He would have known about that, wouldn’t he? Mr. Hart. He sent two people down to take a look at it before it was used. The two people happened to be the chief of the SB division, and the chief of the CIA staff. Also, if I remember correctly, the chief of the Office of Security. They came back and said that it was a satisfactory place to keep someone. Mr. Sawyer. But he must have known the general format of it, wouldn’t you think? Mr. Hart. I can’t say how much he knew. Mr. Sawyer. He also knew apparently that they had held him in solitary confinement for 1,277 days. Mr. Hart. He did know that, yes, sir. Mr. Sawyer. And actually, he thought they were interrogating him the whole 1,277 days, was that the thrust of the fact—— Mr. Hart. Well, I am not sure he thought they were interrogat- ing him every day. But I—and here I want to make clear that I am entering into the realm of presumption—I never saw any indica- tion that anybody told him that 77 percent of the time that this man was in this prison, that nothing was happening to him. Mr. Sawyer. He knew, too, apparently that they wanted to use sodium pentathol on him, which he turned down. Mr. Hart. Sodium amytal, but the same thing. Mr. Sawyer. Did the Department of Justice know or were they advised what you intended to do with this man, when you were consulted? Mr. Hart. I do not believe that that was spelled out in detail. At the time that Mr. Helms went over to see Mr. Katzenbach, as I! interpret events, nobody realized that this man would be held that long. I am quite sure that nobody had any thoughts that he would be held that long. Mr. Sawyer. Well, did they tell the Department of Justice that they planned to subject this man to torture over this period of time by depriving him of adequate food and reading material? Did the Department of Justice have any information what they were proposing or even the outlines of what they were proposing to do to this man? Mr. Hart. I do not believe that they did. Mr. Sawyer. I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Sroxgs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Hart, I just have one question. It is based upon what I have heard here today. It troubles me, and I am sure that It 1s going to trouble some of the American people. a The American people have just spent approximately $2.5 million for this congressional committee to conduct a 2-year investigation 533 of the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of President John Kennedy. Pursuant to that, this committee met with Mr. Nosenko 2 succes- sive evenings, where we spent in excess of 3 or 4 hours with him each of those evenings. In addition to that, counsel for this committee, Kenny Klein, spent in excess of 15 hours with him preparing before the commit- tee met with him. In addition to that, Mr. Klein has perhaps spent hundreds of hours at the CIA researching everything about Mr. Nosenko. I want to predicate my question, my final question to you, upon this statement which appears in the staff report at page 17. It was read by Chief Counsel Blakey here earlier today in his narration. It says: Following acceptance of Nosenko’s bona fides in late 1968, an arrangement was worked out whereby Nosenko was employed as an independent contractor for the CIA effective March 1, 1969. His first contract called for him to be compensated at the rate of $16,500 a year. As of 1978 he is receiving $35,325 a year. In addition to regular yearly compensation in 1972, Nosenko was paid for the years 1964 through 1969 in the amount of $25,000 a year less income tax. The total amount paid was $87,052. He also received in various increments from March 1964 through July 1973 amounts totaling $50,000 to aid in his resettlement in the’ private economy. We know in addition to that now about the home we don’t know the cost of, that the CIA has built for him. To this date, Nosenko is consultant to the CIA and FBI on Soviet intelligence, and he lectures regularly on counterintelligence. So that I can understand, and the American people can under- stand, the work of this congressional committee, do I understand you correctly when you say that with reference to what Nosenko has told this congressional committee about the activities of Oswald in Russia, this man who is today, not 15 years ago but today, your consultant, based upon everything you know about this bona fide defector, you would not use him? Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman, when the question arose about wheth- er I would use—depend on the information which he offered on the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald, I replied that I find that informa- tion implausible, and therefore I would not depend on it. I did not make that same statement about any other information which he has offered over the years or the judgments which he has given. I was addressing myself specifically to his knowledge of the Oswald case. I was making a judgment. Chairman Stokes. Your judgment is that from everything you know about him, and from what you know that he knew about po in Russia, you would not depend upon what he says about it? Mr. Hart. I would not depend on it, but I am not saying that he wasn’t speaking in good faith because I repeat that one of the principal qualities of an intelligence organization, whether we like intelligence organizations or don’t like intelligence organizations, is compartmentation as it is called. That means that a person at his level might well not know about something which was going on up at a higher level. The KGB is a very large organization, considerably dwarfing any intelligence or- ganization which we have and, therefore, it is perfectly possible for 534 something else to have been going on which he wouldn’t have known. Chairman Strokes. Can we then leave the term “in good faith,” and can you tell us whether he would be telling us the truth? Mr. Hart. He would be telling us the truth insofar as he knows it, yes. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. The Chair recognizes counsel for the committee, Mr. Gary Corn- well. Mr. CorNWELL. Mr. Hart, may we look at the document that you referred to several times that has the list of the ways in which they could have disposed of the problem that Nosenko posed at the time of his contemplated release? Is that a document we could look at? Mr. Hart. I would like, if I may, to simply excerpt this part of it. If that is an acceptable procedure, I will give you exactly what it was that I presented in my testimony. I have here a mixture of things which have been declassified at my request, and not declassified and so forth. So, if you will allow me simply to make this available. There we are. [The document was handed to counsel.] Mr. CorNWELL. Mr. Hart, do you not have with you the items that would appear on the list prior to item number five? Mr. Hart. I do not have that with me. It would be possible to dig them up. The reason that they are not in there is that I considered them insignificant. I consider this obviously very significant, and I simply wasn’t using up space with insignificant things. In many cases throughout my study I was using portions of rather long documents. But it would be possible to find that, yes. Mr. CorNwWELL. All right. The portion that you did bring with you, though, however, seems to refer to notes which were prepared prior to 1968, is that correct? Mr. Hart. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. By the deputy chief of the Soviet branch. Mr. Hart. Yes, sir. Mr. CorRNWELL. And at a time in which the Agency was contem- plating the release of Nosenko, the release from confinement. Mr. Hart. Yes. The director said, as I remember his specific words, “I want this case brought to a conclusion.” First he asked for it to be brought to a conclusion within 60 days, which I think would have put the conclusion in sometime in Sep- tember of 1966. Later on they went back to him and said, “We can’t do it that fast,” and he extended the deadline until the end of the year. Mr. CorNWELL. And this was the same deputy chief of the Soviet branch who earlier in your testimony you stated had referred to potentially devastating effects from that release; is that correct? Mr. Hart. He later used that term. That term was used by him much later after he was no longer connected with the Soviet Divi- sion. That was in the letter which I described he wrote, so that it bypassed me as his superior, and I happened to find it in the file. Mr. CorNWELL. And you testified that at one point, I believe, you didn’t know specifically what dangers this deputy chief foresaw might stem from his being released; is that correct? 535 Mr. Hart. He had refused to tell me. He refused to tell me. I can read you that. Mr. CORNWELL. No, I think we remember that. But at least in this memo it appears that the principal fear that he had was with respect to the CIA being accused of illegally holding Nosenko; is that correct? Mr. Hart. That was a fear expressed in there. I frankly think that there must have been something else in his mind, but I, for the life of me, don’t know what it was. He had built up a picture which was based on a good deal of historical research about a plot against the West, and since I don’t happen to be able to share this type of thing, I don’t know. Mr. CORNWELL. I think we understand. Let me simply ask you this: Nosenko has never publicly com- plained of his illegal detainment, has he? He has never taken that to any authorities and asked that anything be done with it, has he? Mr. Hart. He, I believe, when he was released, that in connec- tion with the release but not as a condition of release, you must understand that this was not a condition of the release, but as of the time that the settlement was reached with him, I believe that he signed some type of document saying “I will no longer, I will not make further claims on the organization,’ something of that sort. I have never actually read the administrative details. Mr. CORNWELL. That was the point that I was coming to. Thank you. Mr. Hart. Yes. May I say something more, Mr. Cornwell? He does periodically get very upset. He got very upset, for example, on the subject of the Epstein book. He is a very—he is a normal human being, and when he feels that he is being maligned, he gets just as upset as anybody else around. Mr. CORNWELL. But your conclusion then is that in 1968 he was paid a large sum of money. In connection with it, he agreed not to voice any complaints about the way he was treated prior to that, and the fears that were at least in certain persons’ minds prior to that did not come to pass. Mr. Hart. I don’t believe, I do not interpret these events, al- though they can be so interpreted, as his being paid off not to cause trouble. The fact is that two responsible members of the Agency had made commitments to him, and they are clearly, you can hear them, you can see the tapes and you can, I believe, hear them on the tapes if you listen to them talking. They made com- mitments to him that they were going to do this. Mr. CoRNWELL. Thank you. I have no further questions. Chairman SToKEs. You don’t think though, Mr. Hart, that if he were to sue the CIA for his illegal arrest and detention that they would continue to keep him as a consultant, do you? Mr. Hart. Sir, you are getting into a point which I cannot speak about. I have no idea what they would do. As a matter of fact, I don’t think he would do it. I think it is suppositious. Mr. CoRNWELL. Mr. Chairman, may we have the document that Mr. Hart provided marked as an exhibit and placed in the record? 536 Chairman Stokes. Without objection, and he may want to substi- tute a Xeroxed copy for the original. Mr. CoRNWELL. Thank you. It will be JFK F-427. [JFK exhibit F-427 follows:] mee kare ) Deputy Chict,-sE,4 ) ie » 1n a series of handwritten notes, set forth the VV Task Force objective as he saw it: "To liquidate & insofar as possible to clean up traces of a sitn in which CIA cd be accused of illegally holding Nosenko."" Further on, he summed | up a number of "alternative actions," including: 5. Liquidate the man. 6. Render him incapable of giving coherent story (special dose of drug etc.) Poss aim commitmt to looney bin. 7. Commitment to loony bin w/out making him nuts. 82 4 Ga AD WooIRS oD? JFK Exuisit F-427 Chairman SToKEs. Mr. Hart, at the conclusion of a witness’ testi- mony before our committee, under the rules of our committee, he is entitled to 5 minutes in which he may explain or comment in any way upon the testimony he has given before this committee. I at this time would extend the 5 minutes to you if you so desire. Mr. Hart. I don’t think I will need 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I thank you for your courtesy. The final remark that I would like to make is that I have had 31 years, approximately, of Government service, both military and civilian, and participated fairly actively both as a, first, as a mili- tary man in the Army, and then in quasi-military capacities as chief of station in two war zones. It has never fallen to my lot to be involved with any experience as unpleasant in every possible way as, first, the investigation of this case, and, second, the necessity of lecturing upon it and testify- ing. To me it is an abomination, and I am happy to say that it does not, in my memory, it is not in my memory typical of what my en and I did in the agency during the time I was connected with it. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I thank you. Chairman STOKES. All right, Mr. Hart. We thank you for appearing here as a witness, and at this point you are excused. There being nothing further to come before the committee, the Chair now adjourns the meeting until 9 a.m. Monday morning. [Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the select committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Monday, September 18, 1978.] O Pires: ae, CULA, Oa \ Bus Di ee aoe A ie aA ie wes bry Pt ce a . - ‘aes a ey a aiu ‘ ‘ ae ae ra eecronel Otfre 7 any “a willbe JFK £427, 9:0 Tag PC eto intent ‘ a SF ie ‘ “% 7 a | pene tue! “ le #4 5! e sefies of Bandewi tan weeee, cot Fort Phe v ZTegk forte whjective- os ke see it (o Jigaifate 4 tqevetar 1 (9543015 Fo Clean wA teece’ rl @ Sith <8 Whiee CA e¢ ecouaed of thiavgatli) hvldiny Wesenke.” Further? on, Ke pramed | §, ? : af # 6.0, e07 A PLCerAZ1FS- acCjens,” tHctaucing ‘ : ’ 514468" the O24 4 Menge? Ate titcewssie o! ving cohermner “iy? f 9rory (ipettal a t o/) trae .e.) ree? sir: a oe | re oney 74 we oe sci ‘/ OOF wa’ ing hie nw. 4 PPh Exsuere P42) SATAY SioMee ir. Hs i the oncluaion of aowithenal! PMOELY AF -OUTs COMIN 1S OG ler the res of our cota milter, weentitvied (5 minutes u uch be may expiaiy OF com nent Oy Way aaa poowr the14 tesiiinoiny rte ri aT be > nas oo myen ‘ Lelor et v7 oa th if us YOO COxramtE sO Luise 7 Vir. Tiaet. i don’t chink | will need & minutes, Mir, Unanman SCANT: you ‘os you ourt . t The Titiet cesar that | ould he fo make is thats bsive had § foors. dovroxitpstely, of exvere mest Service, DOM military ¢ vile, wad participated fairly actively both aaa, fink, ae tare rons in te Army, hind txen in quasmilitary aris ehiet of station tA two war zones. ade nee never fallen to my lot to be involved with any ag unplesseny in every possible way as, Great, the inves te fit Gato, aac, second, the ueosenty af lecturing upon R Aud te nat Te mei’ ah abomination, ead i sen hapa t) Say that it ¢ Not, wl ty Meintry, it ie not in my memory typical vials? colonie oa 1 dic in the egency daring the tisk i wag conne wit! it | Tha’ it wilh ae hides t hanmlke: you ees rj ; e iris Gronks Aci right, Mr. Hart. ‘ thing you for appuariaig here 8 & ‘witness,’ and at you ars area WD - g nothing further to.oinie before: thee 8s ths as now pelibuiena the meeting untif 9 wr a ' % Tee »* etal] ff sane ‘ WG Avid Ay =" . Le, x yt de i - ae 2 via '- e, : saat yi a) vn ae ’ eee meet "Se eg WARDEy?wi dots vateBiebonudiin ig oY ¥ | - . a arr 4) i We ary” Lala ° i a pia == Le ry A ~ ‘ ot y : ’ ée iy ae? aT es ‘ +}wre i, YE Ae ‘ -" »'' 7 . \ : : i a | - } * a i he \ , } -@ 1 fe ; ! | > ‘ P A } ‘F : eet ee Ak Sek, ICT ee aee e TOR ae a ( 2. Tone : Es ( he - Serves ‘catacet (iss ad yi ae + ory a 7 J a a : fo « wae ae } vee aAPie \ «; Ate ji ot hs pee * we) nae sare me antes HN is . etiey oy Ue ee te mea a ad ee erik a.) een ere ee Uw rae. 4) me on alkae cues . | joi eae ed emma :fi ray Oy | ie er we Len) oe amas Yum ire Le ; ar7 mre! ibkh _ i a ee an ‘ - — ~ 205. 0 J eae 6eo ifKanes. his SS er in =) 6 ? y. 7 i , ; ht - , | a 23 1 i 2 a et ey Bike: a Pac _ ee Western New En Pas fs) Ry ; — HN fe 4 } ns ( 4 oe 10 ws ons Teeter oles I Rie ¥ub1K 19 | ae Y aei" i? é)° ye et hap eera tae vist Cone a ee we . pipe oh a Ne, HE: agen PFS TNE Ae ROP me ie é ey agence pegs pee at EGE we St ar eet et SryI a co Mh parahem thea? sehen Rie seek SpeersReta Hee G econ NBGA ER TS sage grnyetyaM ares SL petmess 52 9H any yw POM ga Ser tt EE TSS EE Sia te ec A EA ETE NENTS HSOy SUEY ST CELE NCEE NOTE SE ESSE 3 SigeSm imearch em onan . Re SG EEN PEE PERRY ES ee GA 5 AE i receeaanerihet eters fin eB yen ONATONE = Epon ig Fy SG OS AAR TE OREN SEITESS™ Aiea erecneh A yeea ge EAR, ETE SMA She eR OA ES HRT Mees PAREN US aaere a Em oe ME pete evi: es eRe STEP Ee PS RD EES ER A EM NES gras et2 Seen Ger ERNE EOE ES NEE EY treme ia. Cte] jahet LN NS ORES BREE EEE TENS SES ao aot enenpagmeire fre pales paire Rene poset pepe eatera nee (ETEAAITE Ne EME TS el ueOn ENA peel aN Oa peiaeBone rR . , enero: te Seen anism img ye Set bie Cab Stee GaSen Oe Se de ceaiaee GAP eee BegEEE = GIR MRP eg SE eegma PAR mip teBOLI BRON pg EG Jee jy inde RAaA ON MEE TAN 7 APY A on state EF GE 9 _