From: FIELD1@NIEHS.bitnet (Jack Field)
Subject: Oswald's Paraffin Test
Keywords: JFK Oswald Assassination Paraffin
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:20:52 GMT

The following is from Mark Lane's book Rush To Judgement concering Oswald's
paraffin test which the Dallas police administered.  Any errors are just simply
typos, I did the best I could transcribing this section.

PARAFFIN TEST

RUSH TO JUDGMENT by Mark Lane, 1966


Q.  Chief, we understand you've had the results of the paraffin tests which
were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon.  Can you tell us what
those tests showed?
Chief Curry:  I understand that it was positive.
Q.  What did the tests find?
Q.  What does that mean?
Chief Curry:  It only means that he fired a gun.
					Interview recorded by WFAA-TV,
					Dallas Police & Courts Building,
					November 23, 1963


Gordon Shanklin, FBI agent in charge at Dallas, said today that . . . a
paraffin test, used to determine whether a person has fired a weapon recently,
was administered to Oswald shortly after he was apprehended Friday, one hour
after the assassination.  It showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon,
probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands.
					The New York Times
					November 25, 1963


In the weeks after the assassination, articles marshaling the facts against
Oswald gave prominence to the paraffin test result as proof of his guilt.

When a weapon is discharged, burning powder and gases usually escape from the
breach and particles containing nitrates in suspension are implanted on the
skin.  Warm paraffin was is applied to the subject's hands and face, and the
particles of unburned powder come off and adhere to the cast, which is then
treated with a solution of diphenylamine in sulfuric acid.  Nitrates present in
the cast turn deep blue - a positive response - but any contaminating
substances containing either nitrates or nitrites also will turn blue.  As one
of the strongest proponents of the paraffin test concedes, cigarette ash, food,
and many other substances may yield a positive response.  Most experts,
including those quoted by the Warren Commission, agree that among the other
substances containing nitrates or nitrites are various kinds of toothpaste and
paints and other products in everyday use.

The paraffin test report in the Oswald was among the Photostats given to me in
January 1964 by Hugh Aynesworth of The Dallas Morning News .  Three exhibits
has been tested: a paraffin cast made of the right side of Oswald's face, a
cast of Oswald's left hand and a cast of Oswald's right hand.  The examination
was made 'to determine if nitrates are present on exhibits (1), (2), and (3)';
and the request for examination came from the Dallas Police Department.  The
test revealed that 'no nitrates were found on exhibit (1)', the cast of the
right side of Oswald's face, and that 'nitrites were found on exhibits (2) and
(3)', the casts of Oswald's left and right hand.
 Since this was the only paraffin test conducted, FBI Agent Shanklin was wrong
if he said, as The New York Times said he did, that the test showed there was
gunpowder on Oswald's cheek.  When I appeared before the Commission on March 4,
1964, I made known to the Commission the contents of the paraffin test report. 
Although the Commission did not publish the test report, it nevertheless
confirmed that 'the paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the
test.  The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction.

A positive response on both hands and a negative response on the face is
consistent with innocence.  It is also consistent with Oswald's claim that he
had not fired a rifle on November 22.  Chief Curry was perhaps aware that the
test provided weak foundation for the conclusion he offered, for although he
discussed the report freely with newsmen, he declined to show it to them.

On November 22 before the assassination, some of the Book Depository employees
were at work placing freshly painted plywood boards on the sixth floor of the
building.  By doing so they undoubtedly secured nitrate particles on their
hands; and if a paraffin test had been administered to them, in most cases a
positive response would have resulted from casts of both hands, while a
negative response would have resulted from casts of the face.  Both hands are
usually tested for the presence of nitrates because a positive response on the
hand that allegedly pulled the trigger is of probative value only if there is a
negative response on the other hand.

The only test finding indicative of guilt is a positive result for one hand, a
negative result for the other and - in the case of a rifle - a positive result
on the fact.  The paraffin test on Oswald showed a positive result for both
hands and a negative result for the face, indicating that the nitrates present
were caused by some activity other than the use of a firearm.  A positive
result for both hands tended to prove that Oswald had handled material
containing nitrates earlier that day or during the two or three preceding days.
 Furthermore, nitrates which ordinarily might be present after firing an old
and cheaply constructed rifle were not found on Oswald's face.

The paraffin, or dermal nitrate, test cannot establish Oswald's innocence, of
course, but that burden is not usually on the defendant in an American court. 
It does fortify the presumption of innocence, and it helps to establish one
point:  Shanklin and Curry, the director of the Dallas FBI office and the
Dallas Chief of Police respectively, if not misquoted, made inaccurate
statement to the press after reading the paraffin test report.

Confronted with but one legitimate interpretation - that the paraffin test
results were consistent with innocence - the Commission concluded that the
test, formerly presented as a cornerstone in the case against Oswald, was
'completely unreliable'.

The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run
by the FBI.  In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin
tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber
revolver.  Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive
on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on
the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on
both their firing and idle hands.

The Commission spoke of yet another series of paraffin tests conducted on 29
persons, also prior to the assassination.  Why did the Commission devote so
much space to experiments conducted with a pistol before November 22.  The
instant matter had to do with the nitrates produced by a specific weapon - a
rifle - which was in the possession of the Commissioners and available to them
for tests, yet the Report devoted just five lines to one test performed on the
rifle in question by one agent of the FBI.
In the course of its investigation, the Commission relied heavily on both
Shanklin and Curry; much important evidence passed through their hands and was
produced by their subordinates.  In this instance, they both appear to have
made inaccurate statements.  The Commission implied that it had investigated
the matter.

The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this
statement publicly.

But as proof it cited Commission Exhibit 2584, a document without relevance to
Shanklin or the paraffin test.  The Report also cited Commission Exhibit 3087,
a letter from J. Edgar Hoover.  This letter, delivered by courier to Rankin,
undoubtedly reveals more than intended.  It refers to a 27-page transcript of
remarks made by me on the Barry Gray radio program in New York and to page 26
of a transcript of my remarks at a New York Town Hall discussion.  My remarks
were extemporary on both occasions; the two lengthy verbatim transcripts
evidently had been prepared by FBI agents in the audience.  In defense of
Shanklin, Hoover noted that I asked my audience to recall that 'Chief Curry
told the press . . . that the paraffin test . . . was positive'.  He went on to
say, ' You can readily see in this instance Mr. Lane attributes this statement
concerning the paraffin test to Chief Curry of the Dallas Police Department'.

The Commission was presumably content with that unusual explanation by which
the blame was shifted from Shanklin and Curry to Curry alone, even though
Shanklin and not Curry had been quoted by The New York Times  as stating that
the test showed gunpowder 'remained on Oswald's cheek'.  The Commission did not
call Shanklin or the reporter from The New York Times.   It accepted a hearsay
denial in defense of Shanklin.  Curry did testify, but he was spared the
embarrassment of a single question about his statement.  The Commission's faith
in the federal and local police was thus chastely preserved.

Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek.  Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general atomic
division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the paraffin
cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission.  Dr. Guinn said
that he and his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of the
powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also
come back'.  They decided 'to try looking for elements by putting the wax
impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor'.  Guinn said he had
informed the FBI that it would be worthwhile to utilize 'activation analysis'
because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.

'We bought a similar rifle from the same gun shop as Oswald and conducted two
parallel tests,' Guinn said.  'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions'. 
The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of
radioactivity 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both
hands and both cheeks.  Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them
in a nuclear reactor'.  Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about
Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission
Report.'

The secret has indeed survived publication of the Report.  The Commission,
evidently differing with its own authority, stated only that it was 'impossible
to attach significance' to the radioactive response to Oswald's paraffin casts.
 The Commission, which gave much space to the results of tests conducted with a
pistol prior to the assassination, refused to inform its readers of the results
of tests performed after the assassination with an Italian carbine identical to
the so-called assassination rifle.  Although Dr. Guinn worked closely with the
FBI on behalf of the Commission, was entrusted with the precious paraffin casts
by the Commission and submitted his findings to the Commission, there is no
reference to his name in the Report.