| j t i i i i be NW 549939 Doclid: 32989522 Page 391 ir. Lesar, who was alse present at the March 14th meeting, displayed te him, and whet was furnished to him was in Concerning this, and that Weisherg' s request includes included in Weisberg's request at the meeting of Harch 14th, ' data, which is currently in iu the process or being proposed | Lagal Counsel to Mr. Adams Memo RS: PREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT {FOIA} shown more samples of data than he actually received. waa reninded that Mr. Weisberg indicated at the meeting that he was not interested in certain type of raw data which was vesnonae to his specific request for tables and pages with results of spectrographic and neutron activation testing. Legar* $s position now is there must be a misunderstanding this yaw data. ; ” As has been previously veported, Weisberg's FOIA request is currently the subject of litigation in U. 5. : District Court for the District of Columbia. The issues : “ raised by Mr. Lesar have been discussed with Mr. Jeffrey Axelrad, Civil Division, Department of Justice, and Hichael Ryan, Assistant U. Se Attorney, District of Columbia. Both indicata our decision to withhold the identifying data regarding Bureau officials in the memorandum to Mr, Rankin dated August 12, 1964, is defendable, but that it would of course be open to discretionary release. The probles concern the additional Laberatory data which we claim was not and which Weisberg now claims was within the stope, has now been reduced to a factual issue. ; Based on the conversations with these Justice Department representatives and a review of this matter by the FOIA Unit, the following is recommended: 1. That with regard to the Bureau memorandum . to Rankin, Weisherg be referred to the Warren Commission Reports, stating the original document and enclosures were furnished to the Commission and are now ayeilable for pablic inspection. - Ze That material, consisting o£ 54 pages of raw
* * we hal. ~ . <) we - . - ’ Begal Counsel to Mr. Adams Hemo BEs PREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT for release +9 another FOTA xequester, be furnished. to Weisberg, with tha statement this involves all data, other than that furnished to the Warren Conmission, relating to the spectrographic and neutron activation analysis testing which is within the score of his FOIA request. He will be charged the authorized fees of 1o¢ per page. Copy of these propesed decuments abtached. RECOMMENDATIONS : 3 ' 3. hat these proposals be approved in order that. pepartment of Justice representatives may communicate this to Lesar and obtain the necessary delay in the litigation proceedings for us to compile and produce the data. ° Se That the preposed letter be forwarded to Mr. Lesar. NW 54999 Doold: 32989522 Page 392
NW 54999 Docld:32989522 Page 393 i ~- Bufile 62-115530 (FOI-REPLIES) THBsdw £10) April 18, 2378 L= he, White gence B, teaxn's (Attn: ir, Silty) Mintz 233% Pours Strecty "Ss We 1 ~ Mr. ear Hes tauaes ot an this is in xegard co Mrs Marold toiebers's wequest under the Fracdom of information Act {FOIA} for taberatory data coscermniag the John F. Hsnnedy . assassination davestigation. 7 o Tn accordance with your reqczesk expressed in & telayhene conversation with Hpeeisl Agent ghomas w. Siessen on Aprii 3, 1973, Zor additional data vegurding nentron setivation tasting, I wish ts advise va have , eempdied 54 gasen of ivresiazios &sta and calcuisticars sect in neaukron activations analyses of the followings ” Cemeatwesdes - _ Beboratere Bubibit wusher Bomber Besexintion ox 333 ~~" ge  «~Ballet fvom Stretcher . . front eat quighion . ee 843 a4, 23 Metal iraquants fren President’a Bead Se 343 2¢ Batel fragment from ass - . «sa Governcer Joba Conneliy cs $42 i. oda hres mekal fragments . “ xe xed fren rear Picser
S4999 Doold: 32509522. Page. 394 ~ ~ Sheee _adeaneants witi be furnishes! te ten eadsherg ae the eogying Ese of 25.426 wideh we axe sutnovized & ts charge in gomnestion with the release of * toemsents ands Sith senaxd a Ss, Woisherg*s coment ‘for _ the "US" copy af tho dy Bigar Hoever mesoxandua to : a Br. 3. hee Bemkin dated Sugast Z2, 1354, whieh pertained Sa the cuphgtena txecdsetion + X wish G6 gévies the . ‘sziginsl of thin dowsneat vat darnished te the Gerrvon - Ssonission, 3 xapranentstivs. @£ ths Satiesed bachives Ras contizceed it fn pablished with ite aenclossres is she Barnes Comission Reapers as Shaneytelt Bxbibite — makared 36, 33, 38 avt 34, TH view wt its gublioation an@ avallebizier fer publie inspection, I as dealining ao zeleasa the FS come af shig dacumesh whieh differs fren the Bepgeaeh ete with gsegagd to intexusl, aiisininteotive naxkings wick appear en the PEE (sees. Ze de comeigered thas. ahs effer sf raklsave o¢ ths 36 suns oF che abeve-degeribed daka; bagether with that ively fuepioned te Hx. Beisherg, = ‘fiily te Bla FOIA yeques: for apectasgraghic and Seneteon | 2 activation aeaivass, 25 epptaiued ia bie written sequast Sf Zevestiar S7,-L33d, and pabcuequent diacsasien with PBI seyprssestatives aa garech 44, 2575. You way visk to comtesh Special Agen: Theeas 2. Brasson of tha PST SOTA Gedt at telaghoss seeber BSa~-2G51 5 to arrange fer delivery of these docments. Sincerely yours, . Ciavemte 3. Seliey parece: i -~ Honorable Hichasl Ryan . { Assistant United States Attorney A 8 Room 3422 United Stubes District courthouse 3rd Street and Conusiitetion Avenne, 8. B. Washington, DB. ©. 29062 _2 + the Deputy Attorney General Bttantions Susan Hy Hauser L ~- Assistant Attorney General
| James H. Lesar, Esqs a . dated | Apeit 48, 1975. ote . hae s a : : . —_* - . | | | | ~ al Poa - * : . ne , , —_ 3 —™ "dé a . . * » N NW 54999: -Déckd:32989522 Page 395 - _ NOTE: See memo to Mr. Adams from Legal Counsel captioned, -*Freedom of Information Act Request of Harold Weisberg”
— | sw 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page 356 ite tten: Mr. Kilty - Mr. Mintz Jaman 3 HH, Laemex, ans | iL Dear Mr. Tawar: A I am enclosing 17 pages of material deuoribes dn my letter to you dated Karch 26th, plua five pages of docu~ ments releting te the curbstone examination waich your ciient, Wy. Seisberg, has requested. Sincerely yours, Clarence KH. Kaliey Birecher Excloseres (6) i ~ Honorable Nicheael Ryan Aseletant United States Attorney Room 3427 United States District Courthouse 3rd Street and Constitution Avenue, FH. W. Yaenington, BD. C. 24001 l~ The Deputy Attorney Genaral Attention: Sue Heuser 1 ~ Assistant Atterney Ganeral Civil Division, Attention: Mr. Axierad 1 ~ Bufile 62~115530 (FOI~REPLIES) THB:ms (9) NOTE NEXT PAGE
Hw 34999 this matter with Mr. Jeffrey Axlerad, Department. of Justice, _ Docld 32989522 Page 3596 Hr. 3.5. Adams 3/25/75 Legal Counsel FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST OF HAROLD WEISHERG Reference is made to Mr. Williams to Mr. White ~~ oo memorandum dated March 19th, captioned *FPreedom of Information Act {POTA) Request of Harold Weisberg” which identified 17 pages o£ copies of documents proposed: far release in connection with captioned matte . It will be recalled that Heiaberg recentiy ren instituted — a civil suit to.compel production of laboratory documents pertain~ . ing to spectrographic analyses examinations conducted in connection with the John PF. Kernmedy assassination case. Weisberg and his attorney, James H. Lesar, subsequently met with representatives of the Legal Counsel and Laboratory Divisions at which time the scope . o£ his request was identified and the decuments to which he sought access were Cescribed to him. Ih was agreed that production of these. documents would satisfy his request and moot the | Pending civil suit.. . : There is attached to this memorandum a proposed letter to Mr. Lesar setting forth the costs incurred in connection with. the release of these documents Tn addition to soordination of the handling or this: .. request with the Laboratory Division, the FOTA Unit has discussed. — Civil Division, and Mr, Michael Byan, Assistant U. S- Attorney, District of Columbia. - : fhe two requesters who will shares costs of processing © are Cyril Wecht, M.D., and dohn Nichols, M.D. co RECOMMENDATION: _ , nk . That the attached letter he approved ana forwarded ro. . “of . } *~ cLosure — pure om at ep ote ai - Me. White ~ Enclosure ren Sita. ““ (Attn: Mr. Eilty) oe oe, - Mr. Hints yEvales. THR:11k (5).
Hewes £5, L273 - tat White - Attn: Sr. eilty) i- a Mints rene vente Zerewe: “gue washington, 3. 2, 25324 Paez Se. Exesartts fais is in resard f0 the regnert a? year Siient, Bz. HZereid Neiebery, fox eagtain cseymente whieh relists 4 FSi Saboratery SindSage steering spustzoguaphic mask —— . petdyatdon ansiyees 33 tenpaction with the gohe #. Besnesy re iseussination Suveutiinntioa, | oe ‘= wish te advise ore thet wW gages of ‘paterial wee os, ‘ net eeiiasiea for telekee ang imcleds, with ann exeapties, ties peteriial Hr.. Baisherg Meda auncifice regeest for duning a sueant dismasion Be had in your presence wiih renresantetivds RE the Fr. "be ons cxonption is tha Gat ommeerain Spectra yraphie examination of sot eek SMaes of & Bowes Se ih GE & garReions aaraeenle wave SEiLi ie the execess of smanit ine snig Jet 258 Wiis prane unpeniiaeeamer at seats 2g"iGe You ecnearniag thin Ss Seon ax it is possible te de ga,” te pear yet pnrirenprenererentntetn gps eneryy—reeare lomatuiaaenieeonrent eee rE Tae NES: ertanaetagg acing rT yt « wae following iz 2 statement segarding four we ste subhorieesd to ebatge ia necorteace with 2 fepareneank of gyotdos gemulations, surrentiy publighed im tha Peleral Gagister, thd wegulsticns autherize = cherem at the exmte of $1.96 ser each - Se quarter hear spent by Glericel gersennel, in axedes a tha fies aearter hear, in searching gor and predasing a requemtel  - - xeeord. here 2 semrck cassot be pextormed Sy olexical sernon~ ; Sei, tharess fer the gherek eaey be made oa % rate of $2.98 por aBeh one quertexs koer apent i= «masses of the fire quarter heer. thats eegalsticas 2 suthesiece engving faces ae £he sate af ten sents gar gage. tha shurses itemiged in thia ease are 32 Sk Re Somovable Hichsel Ryan aeeak Stank Mnited Statas Abtorsney ; . caitea States Sistrictk Courthouse. © - a, ": 3rd Street and Conetitution Svenus, BE. poe 1 ~~ The Besuty Attorney General L - Assistant Attomey Generel, Civil Dbivis sion fAttn: x, Axlorad} THB:11% (10) SEE NOTE PAGE TWO NW 34999 Doocld: 32959522 Page 355 eerste £
ze __ te we +. a. « Cierics) search tine: {5 heurs at 81.80 gex quarter haar} $ 23.82 aroutlas: sonchextust seaxe zebees sae guaxton} , . $6.38 Copies: {37 at ten cents per page} be FS Wotalr - $187.78 are. ether individests have requested, under the oe Preeios of Infsrnation ack, sacesa to tha same data as your  - ae eiiens; thereatere, tke Satel eget ig. being apsertioned aeons the three Faquesterd. Whe ae sthoxised sharge te Bx. Heishess 353 determine? tn be $35.99, Yeon seasick of your ait Lenka wittic aumeen ip Bay the aboys charges, apradgements whit be wade for the Selivacy oat these documents to vers. - , Sintately yours, Sisrenok MW. Saliey ROFR: See Legal Counsel memo to Mr. J.B. Adams, dated 3/25/75, captioned "Freedom of Information Act. Request of Harold Yeisberg.” NW 34959 Doocld: 32909522 Page 400
TO FROM. : is SUBJECT: | HW 549990 DoolId: 32989522 Page 401 _1- Mr. Mintz KY OFTOMAL t FORMNO. 10 5030~106 . N Ga e GEN, REG. NO. 27 ; P y UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Assoc. Dir. Dep. AD Adm. — Memorandum ip a Admin. Camp. Syst. Ext. Affairs Mc. J. B. Adams DATE: 3/24/75 Files & Com, — Gen. {nv. Ident. 1, 1 Cc 1 Inspection __. eqa ounse Jotell. —? g - oa \ wtovetory in : . Plan. & Eval. Spec. inv. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST OF , Tring HAROLD WEISBERG Legal Coun. Telaphone Rm. —__ Director Sec’y __ dated March 13th By memorandum/from Legal Counsel to Mr. J. B. . Adams under the above caption it was advised discussion Wy f with Mr. Weisberg concerning his request for laboratory data connected with the John F. Kennedy assassination investigation was planned for 7Marchz; 14th. This is to advise of the results. Mr. Weisberg was accompained by his attorney, James H. Lesar of Washington, D. C. Representing the FBI were SA Thomas H. Bresson of the FOTA Unit, Legal Counsel Division, SAs Robert A. Frazier and John W. Kilty of the Laboratory , Division. This discussion resolved what apparently was Mr. Weisberg's confusion as to what data, other than that which had been furnished to the National Archives, was in existence and in possession of the FBI. After the data was generally identified for him, and samples shown to him, he made specific requests for spectographic and neutron activation material which consists of tables and pages with results of readings, representing metal fragments from the body of President Kennedy and the body of Governor Connolly. Additionally requested were spectographic analyses data of the areas on the clothing of President Kennedy and Governor Connolly where the bullets may have passed. Weisberg also requested the available material relating to examination of the windshield of the President's automobile, and examination regarding metal fragments from the President's automobile. Additional request was made for laboratory examination data which may be available regarding testing done on a curbstone near the crime scene. r Enc. 1 - Mr. Adams ~ Enc. . 1 - Mr. White - Enc. THB:ms (6) ue CONTINUED - OVER | A AJ
| MW 34939 Doocld: 32959522 Page 402 Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams memo Re: FOIA Request of Harold Weisberg Both Mr. Weisberg and Mr. Lesar indicated this would be completely satisfactory to them and would cover the scope of the current FOIA request with regard to labo-- ratory data in the Kennedy assassination case. With regard to the above request, the documents proposed for release are not considered to be material that would be subject to withholding under the current FOIA. It is estimated it will contain approximately 20-30 copied pages, and a preliminary estimate of a full-work day to search and compile. We would be authorized to charge ten cents per copy for reproduction, and $2 per quarter hour for search and pro- duction of the documents, this being the fee specified in regulations for a non-clerical type search.. Discussion thereafter continued with SA Bresson regarding FOIA matters generally and specifically the pending civil suit. Mr. Lesar stated that receipt of the requested documents would moot the civil litigation with regard to labo- ratory documents. , Mr. Weisberg then attempted to formulate some addi- tional FOIA requests regarding the Kennedy assassination investigative file regarding events in Dallas and investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald. He also indicated he plans to pursue further the Martin Luther King assassination case, including laboratory findings, and some general data of historical interest to him that he claims he furnished the FBI many years ago. Mr. Weisberg was informed, and he understands, - that any future FOIA request will have to be submitted in writing in accordance with the Departmental regulations. Mr. Lesar made reference to a letter we sent to him dated 2/27 in response to his letter of 1/29 which he directed to the then Acting Attorney General Laurence Silberman. He felt the reply was not responsive to his question, and that it particularly did not address the issue as to whether infor- mation concerning Mr. Weisberg had ever been furnished to former Congressman Hale Boggs. He advised he would pursue this matter further indicating' he did not feel a reply based mainly on the - search of records was sufficient in this case.
_ HW 34999 Docld: 32989522 Page 403 e oe . Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams memo Re: FOIA Request of Harold Weisberg The correspondence to which Lesar refers, copy attached, contained in addition to the Boggs question, a request for reply to what was identified as previously unanswered inquiries as to whether Weisberg was subject to surveillance or othér intrusions into his life by the FBI. The-reply, copy attached, was based on review of the Weisberg. file and references in indices to him, and advised generally that FBI records contained no informa- tion to substantiate this. During this conference Mr. Weisberg specifically asked if "Director Hoover's confidential files" were searched and the reply was that as far as is known, the appropriate files that would reflect the type of requested information, if it existed, were checked and no information to substantiate the allegations was found. Mr. Lesar asked if any contact was made with the son of Hale Boggs to verify this, and he was answered that we did not. The "oc" file was not checked initially, but on 3/14 it was determined there is no reference to Weisberg contained therein. Results of this discussion, insofar as the pending Civil litigation is concerned was furnished to Mr. Jeffrey Axelrad of the Civil Division of the Department on 3/14 and to Assistant United States Attorney Michael Ryan, who is handling the case. Mr. Axelrad was advised we still had not received a copy of this complaint, and he stated he would insure we would receive it promptly. RECOMMENDATION: The requested documents be processed by Laboratory ‘Division and coordinated with FOIA Unit for determination of charges and release. f f a Pe oe, Oe Ata - i ye 7 A f we | es oe D ae
TO FROM I ns ke SUBJECT PREnDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST 54999 Docid: 32959522 OPHONAL FORM NO. 10 MAY 1962 EDITION 5010~106 GSA GE, 426. NO. 27 ~ UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ~~ Memorandum Assoc. Dir. \ Dep. AD Adm. _ Asst. Dir: Admin. Comp. Syst. Ext. Affairs Files & Com. —. Gon. Inv. ident. Mr. J. B. Adans DATE: 3/23/75 Inspection (ntolf. Laboratory Plon. & Eval, Spee. Inv. ”- Legal Counsel Training Legol Coun. OF HAROLD v v VIOLISBERG Telephone Rm. —. D. As you know, captioned subject recently reinstitutec his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) recuest for laboratory documents pertinent to the John F. Xennedy assassination investigation un€er the amenced version of the Act. Mis recuest was submitted two months prior to the effective date of the amendments. On December 19th a letter was directed to hin advising we were attempting to identify the documents in which he expressed interest, and that we were, at that time, awaiting guidelines from the Department of Justice regarding implementation of the amended FOIA. Ue considered this reply a denial and appealed. By letter to him dated February 25th, the Attorney General upheld our decision to defer final disposition of his request until the effective date of the amended FOIA, and suggested that he confer with he FRI directly since there was some question as to the scope of his request. L a actor Sec’y __ By letter dated March 6th, James H. Lesar, Weisberg's attorney throughout his efforts to obtain data regarding the Kennedy assassination case, directed a letter to us suggesting we sét an appropriate time to discuss this matter. Ue included the request that Weisberg, and the Bureau, be allowed to tape record the conference. We learned on March 10, 1975, through the Civil Division of the Justice Department, that Weisberg has recently filed civil suit in U. S. District Court for the District of Colunhbia regarding production of these documents. A cony of this complaint is being forwarded to the FOIA Unit. A meeting with Lesar and Weisberg has been set for the morning of March 14, 1975, for the purpose of identifying the scope of Weisberg's request and discussion concerning the nature of data which may be available for release under the FOIA. The laboratory vor]: data and findings are not considered to be exempt from disclosure under the amended FOTIA. Hr. Lesar was advised the Bureau did not intend to tape record the conference and it was our desire that Weisberg not tape Y@COrG the discussion. Mr. Lesar agreed there will be no tape recording. THUB:dw (6G) 1 - Mr. Adams lL - Nr. White l ~- Mr. Mintz COUTIMULD - OVER Page 404 Dep. AD Inv, __ apenas srnemeyete ereertertaeeeR ng PRE Came POR EAC PTI PRIN A peer eranenr paiaenrmeeninaeeermmemmars” ie
\ BW 54999 Dooeld: 32969522 Page 405 , Legal Counsel to Nr. J. B. Adams Meno RE: FROEDOMN OF INFORMATION RNOUTST This proposed meeting was discussed with Mr. Jeffrey Axlerad of the Civil Division, who is the litigation attorney in the civil suit. We interposed no objection and advised he did not care to participate. SA Thomas Il. Bresson of the FOIA Unit and SAs John W. Kilty and Robert A. Frazier of the Laboratory Division will participate in this conference. FOIA Unit will report results of this meeting. RUCOMMENDATION: None. For information.
JAMES H. LESAR @ ATTORNEY AT LAW 1231 FOURTH STREET, S. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20024 TELEPHONE (202) 484-6023 March 6, 1975 Mr. Clarence Kelley, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20535 Dear Mr. Kelley: a Attorney General Levi has informed me that the Bureau would like to meet with Mr. Harold Weisberg to discuss the implementation of his request for access to the results of certain scientific tests which were performed for the Warren Commission. I suggest that you give me a call to set up an appropriate time, preferably some day next week. Mr. Weisberg would prefer that we--and the Bureau~~be allowed to tape record this conference. Is that agreeable to you? Sincerely yours, ‘ets ern ’ oy. ae ae re q tT CLL UT Woe ¥ i . - Jim Lesar bead NW 34959 Doocld: 32989522 Page 406
Wo54999 Doold: 32989322 1l~Office, 7133 Gin: Vhite ye, Kilty March 19, 1975 i-Nx. Cunnindghan '. FY Williams (Attn: “Ir. Bresson) 2%, , White PRETO OT INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST OF HAROLD WEISBERG The attached documents are proposed for relaase to Veisberd in accordance with a discussion with Weisherd held on March 14, 1975. The details concerning the meeting vith “oisherg are being set out in a separate memoranduri by the FPOIA Tinit, The only requested item not included in the attached documents is one referring to a4 spectroqraphic examination of retal smears on a section of curb. The files are being searched for this item and it will be furnished to Weisberg if it is located. The documents proposed for release are the following: 1. Three pages of results of neutron activation analysis examinations on 01 (CE 399), 0? (CE 567), 4, QS(CE 843), O9 (CE 842), O14 (CE 840). 2. Yorksheet and notes for PC-78243 BX JV GF on spectrographic examinations on 92, Q4, Q5, QS, O14, 015 (CE 341). 3. Worksheet and notes for PC-f01935 BY HUB on spectroqraphic examinations on 0566, Q567, 568, O569. 4. Workshent and notes for FC~78282 PX HB on spectroqraphic examinations on 922 (CE 393), Q24 (CE 385), 925 (CL 394). 5. Worksheet and notes £for PC~78378 BX HB on spectrodranhic examinations on O1, 02, Q3 (Ce 569), 9188 (cr 573). Approximately 50 hours of Agent and clerical tira tare spent in locating and reproducing items attached. Fnelosure ACTION: one. Fox information only. VK: fdh (6) Page 407
_ AT Ne «24B * MeHO® we QLL os t/ nw shag’ Docld:3298952% Sbage 408 iat LO PAPIB. EX IV 6H on goo neds. f 41, 0%, 8445 G4 EY GZ Wortohurf /6-¢0/35 BX HE ne gaetie borchar Pee 763 aS Bx HRB ~ je Atd&eon EL Qt.03, O68 Y pels. orn Q566, QS E2 9 obH Worhehest Pe~ 54992 BXA OE ow . aptele ae Abert on G2} Get, Qir, Qty awe 39° OI PFY a YL 0 Oshe | a yyo- es — $4 393
- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION POSTPONEMENT INFORMATION SHEET (JFK MATERIALS) LT pasete withheld entirely at this location in the file. One or more of the following statements, where indicated, explain this deletion (these deletions). [] Deletions were made pursuant to the postponement rationale indicated below with no segregable material available for disclosure. All references relate to Section 6 of the "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992." 1 C) CJ C] C) | J Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection 1A 1B 1c (intelligence agent's identity) (intelligence source or method) (other matter relating to military defense, intelligence operations or the conduct of foreign relations) (living person who provided confidential information) (unwarranted invasion of privacy) (cooperating individual or foreign government, currently requiring protection) (security or protective procedure, currently or expected to be utilized) Gy’ Information pertained to a matter unrelated to the JFK’ Assassination investigation. {i For your information: _ fOTA {] The following number is to be used for reference regarding this page (these pages): L2-MMb6i0- F3O7X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXK SXXXXXXXXK \ MW 54939 Doocld: 32959522 Page 405
MW 54999 Docla: fats agemedmatyt afb Merchhlre 4/0579) CIVIL SUBPOENA . 2S ~ ® FPI-MI—10-1-75-20H-4437 United States District Court for the District of Colambia Harold Weisberg 5-0226 vs. CIVIL ACTION No. _/ eee You ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear in (this-court) (the office of Mr. James H. Lesar_ 910 16th Street, NW... Suite 600, Washington, D. C.. 20006 ) to give testimony in the above-entitled cause on the __.26th day of _April 1977 __, at 10:00 o’clock _a.m. (and bring with you) _@11 documents produced _in_ response to plaintiff's FOIA request in this action; 2) all files searched in them; and 3) all work sheets or other documents reflecting the time mmm expended in searching for the documents disclosed as a result of Po Re Sn en ne ee een nee aye arti 4+o--POTA “and do not depart without leave. plaintiti’s request. J a . Plaintiff’. Attorney for 4 uf Decheclaar’, RETURN ON SERVICE Summoned the above-named witness by delivering a copy to h____ and tendering to h____ the fees for one day’s attendance and mileage allowed by law, on the ________ day of __------_- 19 ____, ab Subscribed and sworn to before me, a _______.. “ nnn nnnnne , 19 ____ “ 08 off — Nore.—Affidavit required only if service is made by a person other than a U.S. Marshal or his deputy.
Assistant Pirceter Focords Ianacemont Division LO/5/76 Legal Counsel HAROLD VEISRORG ve UNITLD STATES DEPART IN OF JUSEPICT, eat al, (U.8.0.C., D. C.) CIVIL ACTION NQ. 75-226 PURPOSE: To furnish copy of plaints *s £E's Request ’ for Production of Docurzents SYNOPSIS + Attached request concerns records pertaining to the subject of plaintiff's FOTIA request, namely, laboratory examinations conducted in connection with our investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, and also concerns records relating to plaintiff's request itscl£, aleng with other requests he has made. RECOM TIDATIOU s That the FOIPA Section, Records Itanaqement , Division, locate all records falling within the scope of attached request, and also coordinate with Special Agent John Kilty of the Laboratory Division our answers to plaintiff's First Set of Interroqatories. Defendants’ respense to hoth the attached request and the Interrogatories nust he filed with the Court no later than 10/15/76. Enclosure F a -~ Mr. Cochran (Attn: Mr. Kilty) ~ tir. Decker (fittn: tir. Smith) -~ Ur, Mintz ne - Ir. Blake Jot fet fod et PEBernm. (5) COWVITNMD —- OVER Nw 34999 Doold: 32999522 Page 411
| NW 54999 Docld: 32989522 Page 412 Merorandum to Assistant Director Pacords “anagerent Nivision Re: FEareld Veiskherg, v. United States Renartront of Justice, et al., (U.S.D.C., D. C.) Civil Action No. 75-226 DITALLS + On 8/12/76, plaintiff served a copy Of attached Reauest for Production of Documents by Pefendant Tnited States Pepartreant of Justice upon the AUFA handling this case, but the AUSA did not advise the PRI of this or furnish us a copy until 5/17/76. The request concerns records relating to laboratory oxaninations conducted with reqard to the assassination of President Nennedy, as well as plaintiff's FOIN request for materials relating to these examinations. fhe FOIPA Section is being requested to locate all records which would he responsive to this request, so that a determination can he made as to which of these records should be turned over to nlaintiff£. Spealal adent John ‘Llty of the Lakoratory Division has already advised Special Agent Parle Thomas Blake of the Legal Counsel Division that the PRE possesses no records which would be responsive to paragraph 3 of the request, and has also advised that he will assist the FOIPA fection in making any deterrinations as to whether specific documents lacated would refer to the types of laboratory exarinations which are within the scope of plaintiff's FOIA recuest. Special Agent Kilty will also answer the Lahoratory~ related questions in plaintiff's Pirst Set of Interroga~ tories. Special agent Dlake previously furnished a copy of this request to Spocial Agent Ponald L. Smith of the FOIPA Section, and advised hin that portions of the Request for Production are much more broad than plaintiff's original FOIA request, and in the opinion of Leqal Counsel need not he complied with, oven uncer the lihkeral rules of discovery, inasmuch os a plaintiff may not obtain through discovery that which he cannot obtain under his original FOIA request if it is not relevant to that FOTA request,
femorandum to Assistant Director Records Management Division Re: Harold Weiskerg, v. United States Nepartment of Justice, et ali, (U.8.D.C.s, DB. C.) Civil Action Wo. 75-226 At a status call on 10/1/76, the Court indicated that the Request for Production must be responded to by 10/15/76, and that also by that date plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, originally served unon defendants on 5/2/75, must be answered, After this case was remanded back to the District Court for further discovery, these Interrogatories were apparently re-served on the AUSA on 8/9/76, but we were not advised of this until 10/1/76. (Biv 34999 Doold: 32989522 Page 413
~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cee e reer eeoerreevrewreeeeererneeseovere Pd HAROLD WEISBERG, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 75-226 i ao ¢0 08 G6 8e ce 08 6 48 60 fe UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and U.S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVEL- OPMENT ADMINISTRATION, O08 06 06 €8 en op Defendants ° e se e . @eseeeaeeevoeeseeoneeeeoeeepevee eeoeeeenva ee REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, jiplaintiff£ requests that within 30 days the defendant United.States Department of Justice produce and permit plaintiff to make copies of the following documents : a ° ~ , Se 1. All correspondence, notes, memos, routing slips, or any rte . ee “ t wwe other form of record pertaining to any communications, whether written, telephonic, or oral, exchanged in regard to spectrographic or neutron activation anlayses or any other scientific tests per- oR a Eee formed _ on _items_ of evidence) in t the assassination of President RS me ey pa ro Kennedy. This should include all such corréspondence or communica- tions exchanged with respect to any such tests. which were discussed or contemplated but not actually carried out. — ~*~ 2. All correspondence, notes, memos, routing slips, ‘or any other form of record pertaining to plaintiff's 1966, 1970, and 1974 requests for the results of the spectrographic, and/or, neutron acti- j 7 § ae , . Nw 34999 Docld: 32939522 Page 414 — _ ne es 7 eo ou
AH. 5AGAD.. Doc € vation analyses conducted’ on items of evidence in the assassination _ of President Kennedy, \including any such records which reflect the defendant's efforts to ascertain what records it has which come — within the scope of plaintiff's request and any efforts it made to determine what tests were actually conducted. . hts. Any, rules, regulations, procedures, or guidelines which dtpertain to or govern spectrographic and neutron activation testing. oe re ence yi 4. ‘Any instructions, directives, or memorandums issued with respect to the testing of items of evidence in the assassination of President. Kennedy by spectrographic or neutron activation analysis or other scientific means. , Uo cer eh, ay } SY “JAMES HIRAM LESAR 1231 FPourth Street, S. W. ' Washington, D. C. 20024 - a Attorney for Plaintiff _ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ I hereby certify that I have this 12th day of August, 1976, mailed a copy of the foregoing Request for Production of Documents by Defendant United States Department of Justice to Assistant United States Attorney Michael Ryan, Room 3421, United States Court house, Washington, D. Cc. 20001. ; . . : foray “it, fre 0A LA DF 7 JAMES HIRAM LESAR ? [32989522 Page ALG. 2... ence aen qunceue wo rqeus eran, an’
| al Ni 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page 416 yf i % Er. Jd. B. fdans 7/12/76 7 4 ana Legal Counsel / | c if ( IDROLD “EISEEEG v. UNTEED sieners LEPARE ET? OF JUSTICE, ct al. (.8.0.C., B.C.) CIVIL ACTION MO. 75~226 PURPOSE: Shis is to advise of receipt of attached appellate Gecision. SYuOPSIS: Cn 7/7/76 the United States Court of Pppcals for the Etistrict of Columbia Circuit entered attached decision remanding captioned litigation back to the Dis- trict Court to allow plaintiff, through discovery, to ascertain whether the records which he claims exist éo in fact exist. ReCerePUDATIO Ts “one. For information. DETAILS : Plaintiff instituted captioned FOIA Litication in carly 1975 after his request for Lahoratory materials pertaining to our investigation of the assassination of TPPP oy (iP sure he ke, poe, Tie bee, Cochran nr \ittn: ir. Hilty i - fr. Becker tay: ettn: Mr. Eresson i + Mr. Mintz 2, = fir, Plake COYSrraLtp - COVER Proz:Lso (5)
\ NW 54959 Docld: 32989522 Page 417 ‘ Memorandum to Mr. J. B. Adams Re: Harold Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, et al. (U.S.D.C., D.C.) Civil Action Ho. 75-226 President John F. Kennedy was not complied with to his satis- faction. His primary contention was that records which do not exist really do exist, and with the goal in mind of proving that they exist, plaintiff served defendants with a lengthy and detailed set of interrogatories primarily directed toward our Laboratory procedures. Based on affidavits provided by us, defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of mootness, and on 7/15/75, the District Court granted defen- dants' motion, stating that the interrogatories were overly oppressive to defendants, who had substantially complied with plaintiff's request. Plaintiff appealed to the District of Columbla Cirauit, and attached decision is the result of that appeal, The Circuit Court in its decision implies that plaintiff, in this FOIA litigation, is entitled to learn from former FBI personnel, through subpoenaed testimony and/or depositions, whether the records which appropriate present FBI personnel have already sworn do not exist, do in fact exist.
aT CET tee oe tt eens! wo coment ae re Musate vetega See rane ww we eee a ee oe ea etegipats Semi ene _ made before the bound volumes go to press. Hi z t Notice: This opinion is subject to formal révision’ before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S. App. D.C. Reports. Usérs are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that.corrections may be L ma, Wnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT | \ No. 75-2021 | . «  HARoLD WEISBERG, APPELLANT " ve vi t U. S.. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. i Appeal from the United States District Court . for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action 75-0226) , Argued 3 June 1976 € . : Decided 7 July 1976 James H. Lesay for appellant. . ca Michael H. Stein, Attorney, Department of Justice; with whom Rex FH. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Earl J, Silbert, United States Attorney ‘and Leonard Schaitman, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief for appellees. . wee OY hod OG eae . ra
AIMEE Rha dete tN aE aD bags PAP ¥ iS ¥ fa if hat t ; . in ia “ss OZ. DN Sh IND OW War Yard tae ok ~. “ “a; ped attri Siviaatorh tcdiedaiels a ° : | pcti deeb at 205. 2 Before; ROBINSON and WILKEY, Circuit Judges and . ‘ JAMESON,* United States Senior . District Judge for the ‘District of Montana Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY. WILKEY, Cireyit Judge: Following our decision en banc in Weisberg v. Department of Justice> the Freedom of Information Act was amended?’ to facilitate access 4," °": to certein investigatory files, those previously falling’. . ~,. within Exemption 7., Plaintiff Weisberg accordingly re--<>".. we newed his request for scientific investigatory data com- piled after the assassination of President Kennedy and “+ the wounding of Governor Connally, alleged to be in the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United: States Energy Research and Development Admin- istration (formerly the Atomic Energy Commission). In the course of this renewed litigation under the Freedom "of Information Act plaintiff made certain demands for — the production of information and addressed interroga- tories to the Department of Justice. After back and forth demands, responses, and conferences, which we need not detail here, data in various forms was furnished plaintiff, which he claims fo be insufficient. In hearings held on 21 May and 15 July 1975, the District Court (Pratt, J.) refused to order the Govern- ment to respond to plaintiff Weisberg’s interrogatories, which it described as “oppressive,” * found that the Gov- . ernment had “complied substantially” with plaintifi’s de- * Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 ULS.C. § 294(d). 2489 F.2d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993 (1974). . 2 Act of 21 Nov. 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-502, 82, 88 Stat. 1563, amending 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7) (1970). os 8 Transcript of Hearing on 21{May 1975 at 22, Joint Ap- pendix (J.A.) at 185; Transcript of Hearing on 15 July 1975 S89522 “Page 419 .” * a Po toad 3 , ; mands,‘ and accordingly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as moot.’ The Government defendants’ position, sustained by the District Court, was that all data which existed and which had been described in plaintiff’s request had been furnished, and that other data for which Weisberg repeated his demands did not exist. Before yeaching this overall conclusion that the Government defendants had “complied substantially,” the trial court made no detailed findings of fact, nor did it list any material relevant facts as not in dispute and relied upon to support a summary judgment. In response to his demands in this Freedom oft Inifor- mation Act suit plaintiff has received letters from Gov- ernment officials, affidavits from Government employees, some scientific data which he requested, and othen scien- tific data which he maintains he did not request and does not need; he has had conferences with Goveimment officials; and he has heard the statements and arguments of Government counsel in court. He has not received all of the data which he has demanded and which heiclaims still to exist or to have existed at one time. He los not received an answer to any of his interrogatoriés, nor has he had the opportunity to examine a single live . Witness either on deposition or on trial before the Dis- trict Court. We make no attempt to unravel the conflicting claims, assertions, or responses, but we have identified vertain t . * Transcript of Hearing on 15 J uly 1975 at 19, J A. jat 205. 57d. ; Although the District Court dismissed this action as moot, it relied upon affidavits outside the pleadings: on re- view, and therefore this court must treat the dismissal asa grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. Fep. R. », Civ. P. 12(c); Dorado v. Kerr, 454 F.2d 892 (9th Cir), cert. denied, 409 US. 934 (1972). Thus, we must determine’ wheth- er a genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be re solved. FEep R. Civ. P. 56(c). If so, . District Court, (e) we must remand to the . ae Re ra 4 ~ 4 a ' 2 yt er ' wt NY N “1 . h 7 -” May AN ok fo iy, Dewy \ at ‘Lew aa ret ity mote f- # ee t - vay BS }oane rd nen ” ws oe OTE ’ Sop te : ale oy ne ag be t Sa ay rt watt,
demands which appear not to have been answered satis- factorily by the Government defendants, i.e, demands which raise material factual questions still in dispute. 1. Final reports of spectrographic analysis—The FBI — claims it does not have such “final reports” as sought by Weisberg. The FBI asserts that Special Agent Gallagher made an. oral report:of spectrographic analysis to Spe- cial Agent Frazier, who incorporated the oral report in a ‘comprehensive report to the Dallas police, which is a public document, and which has been turned over to Weisberg. The Government asserts this’ is -all there is. _ Special Agents Gallagher and Frazier are now retired from: the FBI but both are living, yet no testimony or affidavit has been received from them. 2. Neuéron activation analyses of bullet fragments— - The FB asserts that these were very small samples and ~ have been turned over to Weisberg. Plaintiff thinks there is more.} The analyses were performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory with FBI participation. Apparently no one with personal knowledge of this has testified or furnished affidavits. The Government representative fur- nishing information by letter to plaintiff originally fur- nished jncorrect infor mation, which subsequently was correeted. 3. ‘Raw data of the spectrographic and neuts ‘on activa- tion analysis tests— Weisberg claims that some of this has been withheld, particularly raw data on the Jarell- Ash spectrographic analysis. The FBI maintains that the only report of this-is on a worksheet already fur- nished Weisber: g,-and that the Jarrell-Ash spectrographie analysis. results are on that worksheet. 4, Neéutron activation analysis testing of clothing— Plaintiff maintains he has been promised the results of _ such testing ‘and at he has not received this, although s,zgeeived certain related materials | raw data given Weisberg. F from the National Archives. The FBI responds that the neutron activation analysis testing has not been furnished because it was never done, and that the statement in the original affidavit mentioning such testing was an error subsequently corrected by the responsible FBI Special Agent. | 5. LEimissions spectroscopy—This allegedly was used to ‘ determine the elemental composition of the borderg and edges of holes in elothing and metallic smears present on a windshield and a curbstone. The FBI maintains) that the results were inconclusive and such results as the FBI has were furnished in the spring of 1975 as. part of ‘the i: The above listing is probably not all of the factual areas which are in dispute between the parties, but the listing of these five indicates that summary judgment was clearly inappropriate. The Government’s assertion to the District Court that the “[c]ase has been settled by fully producing all material sought by plaintifi’s Freedom of Information Act request . . . that is, all laboratory data concerning the John F. Kennedy assassi- nation investigation” * was certainly unwarranted.! The Government’s effort to respond to plaintiff’s request has consisted of fur nishing information by affidavits executed by agents now in the employ of the FBI who have éxam- .Ined the Bureau’s files. None of these agents partici- pated in the original investigation, and there are at least three agents, retired from the FBI and identified by plaintiff, who have not been heard by deposition, affi- davit, or in court. Plaintiff’s attempt to secure information from the Government defendants by. interrogatories was not the . “most efficient means, if used alone, of gaining ‘access to . I . tog *Defendant’s Calendar Call Certification 2 Ma: 1975 JA, at 36. ay @ May 7975), ; |
the whole story, but it was chosen ag a preliminary first step to outline parameters of discovery and as being the most economical means available to plaintiff. We think in these circumstances plaintiff was entitled to insist on his interrogatories being answered and that they should not have been dismissed by the trial judge as oppressive. It may be that plaintiff would now be well advised, given the totality of discovery,~ ‘tfegular as it may be, which he has.been affor ded,” to proceed with depositions or 2 court hearing.’ Céi tainly aint later must do so. Although the choice of” discové inhale ‘ods is normally up to the litigant, we cannot.cai ; ernment defendants here. P: oS reason for plain- tiff obtaining unsatisfactory spoiises undoubtedly lies in the fact that plaintiff: has been addressivig inquiries only to the opposing parties, who by this date in history are nothing but file custodians with no’ personal knowl- edge of the matters in issue. wb The data which plaintiff seeks to have produced, if it exists, are matters of interest not only to him but. to the nation. Surely their existence or nonexistence should be determined speedily on the basis of the best available evidence, i.e., the witnesses who had personal knowledge . of events at the time the investigation was made. This cannot be done by interrogatories addressed to a party, ~ although this might serve to narrow the scope of inquiry. It must be done with live witnesses either by deposition . © or in court. Decades ago Dean Wigmore said that cross-examina- tion “is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever 7 While we think the trial judge should not have quashed the interrogatories in toto as “oppressive,” we do not rule out a detailed evaluation of individual questions, if plain- . ry . tiff renews them and the trial judge so desires, given the yee ok “fliscovery plaintiff has plready received, 7 invented for the discovery of truth.”* We think it time for the trial court to start the engine running, and there- after make detailed findings as to what the evidence adduced establishes, Accordingly, we remand this’ case to the District Court for further proceedings under the Freedom of Information Act not inconsistent with this opinion. > So ordered. 4 ‘of i i f ‘497 a Wicmors, NIDENCE § 1867 at 32 (Chadbourn rev. &
4 ; Attn: Mr. Kilty ( ] oe Hr. MeDermott -. sistant ‘Attorney General . te “" Attn: Mr. Bresson Civil Division , dganuary 19, 1976 Attne Me ssrs. Jeffrey. Axelrad, Michael. Stein “ Director, FBI. eat 1+ wr. Mintz - . os oy a i - FOIA. Litigation (Blake) | HAROLD WRISPERG ye an UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT. OF JUSTICE, et al. (UNITED STATES COURT or APPEA LS FOR. ‘TEE - . DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) fot CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-2021 - | ‘This is to confirm the substance of the _ telephone conversations on January 14, 1976, between. Mr. Michael“H. Stein of..the Civil Division. and Special” Agent Parle Thomas. Blake of our Legal Counsel : Division. It will ‘be. recalled that Mr. Weisberg instituted suit in the United States District Court for- the District of Columbia, and one of his. allegations was that’ the’ ~ ‘PBI had. failed to. comply with his request, made pursuant . -to the freedom of Information Act (FOIA), for FBI. Labora~ ‘tory reports concerning the assassination of. President a John FP. Kennedy. Cur position was that Mr. Weisberg had. a in fact been furnished all material we had been able to. - ' locate which responded | to his request. -On duly 15, 1975, . United States District Court Judge John W.. Pratt granted ‘ . defendants ' motion to dismiss the action. as moot. , ‘ on September 8, 1975, Mr... Weisberg filed his co . Notice of Appeal. to the. United States Court of Appeals ': for the District of. Columbia, ‘although: we were not aware of this until. advised of same by Mr. Stein in his: a _ January 14, ‘1976, telephone call to Special. Agent Blake. During the above-mentioned telephone conversation, “er, Stein indicated. that, on page 17 of his appellate brief Mr.-Weisberg. quoted from the testimony .of Special . Agent Robert A. Frazier before ‘the Warren Commission “(contained on page 69,. volute V, Hearings Before ‘the President's Commission on the Assassination of President an Kennedy) « ir. Weisberg’ s “apparent contention was. €0 the: os PTB: re/isy 7 oS SEE NOTE, “PAGE 3 . (20) RB _— oy \.. 54999 Docld:32989522 Page 422. a
NW 54999 Doold:32989522 Page 423 Aseietent Attorney Coneral Civil pirialon effect that there were two seperate FAI Laboratory reports concerning the spgetrographic analysie of bullet fraqmants and lead recicues iscated hy the F2I in connection with ite investigation of President Fennedy's esaaezination. “x, Walsbery egpareatiy contended that one eeport wes prepered by Special Agent John 7. Gallagher, and the other was prepared. by Special Agent Frasier. Ke. Weishersg farther contended that, although he Rad reauested theae xeportu. he had pever been furnished thes. Bx. Stein dndieated thet ta had been able te anewer 211 ether allegations contained in tr. Neishere's appellate brief, gut requested at ageistance in formajeting a anewer te thie specific allegation. Special Agent Flseke etvised (wr. stede. that, after securing a copy of Xr. selesberaik brie? as wil as tha appropriate volume of the Harren Lomwiseion raport, ba wenld attempt te furnish ur. Stein \the facts concerning oe. ¥alsberg’ B Silegation aa soon 2a sible. bs Special Agent Blake contacted acd ak Agent Jotn w. Rilty ef tha Laboratory Tivision af the ver. Special agent Riley advised aw fellows conperning My. Ke iebegg'e aleenetion: - . X She taperatory report @f Specie. - Agent Prasiex te which Hr, Waiaberg refers was «a jencthy regert dated wovember 23, 1563, directed te Jeane E. Curry, chief of Paiies, Dalles, texas, end contained the regulte of nemescas Laboratory exaninetions conducted by various pecsounel in the FEI Laboratery concerning the Kennedy — tevageiaation. Speelal Agant Rilty ezpisined that Spegial Agent Gallagher had perforeed the shore-sentioned apectxographic analysis, aud furnished the results thereof in ‘rough draft’ dictation to Special Agent Prragier,. whe incorporated it. along with the results of other Labora- tory examinations, inte hie Hovember 23, 1963. seaport. It can be thus seer that there wexe neither teo separake speetrographic snalyses acx two separate “reporte.* ipecial Agent Slake telephonically. adviead EF. Stein of the above. ané aleo advised hin that attachrent G of Mr. Seisberg's Jene 2, 1975. affidavit, filed with the fistrict Court in this aetion, indicated that He. Weleberq wae furnishe’ Special agent Frasier'’s Newerbexr 23, i563, FEY Laboratary regert by letter dated
aAagsiatant Attorney General C4ivil Divisior. May 28, 1975, from Jane F, Smith, Direeter, Civil Beohives Civigien, United States Ceneral Services Adminietration, to Mr. Veisberd's attorney. Janea 2. teser. Mr, Stein indicated that he would need no farther assistance frem the FEI at thia time in anewering Hr. Weisberg's appellate brief, buk woald furnish the FEI copies of all documents flied? in this appeal and keep us advised cf pertinent developments. We vould very much aprrectate being immediately advised in ail cases when Notice of Appeal is filed in actions in which the Pst is a defendant or is invelwed to the extent thet we have a gnbsatantial interest in the final outeorme of the liticatior. l + United States Attorney District of Columbia (Attn: Mr. Michael Ryas} NOTE: See memorandum of Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams dated June 23, 1975, captioned "Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Of Harold Weisberg", which set out three possible problems presented to the FBI by this litigation. In essence, these problems dealt with the credibility of portions of our laboratory investigations concerning the Kennedy assassination. Reference is also made to the July 17, 1975, memorandum of Legal Counsel to Mr. Adams, same caption, which indicated that Mr. Weisberg's suit had been dismissed on July 15, 1975. The purpose of this memorandum to the Department is to confirm in writing the substance of the telephone conversations reported herein, and, more importantly, to advise the Department that, regardless of whether they need our assistance when a case in which we are involved is appealed, we wish to be notified immediately whenever a Notice of Appeal is filed in a case in which we are either a defendant or have a substantial interest in its outcome. Copy of Mr. Weisberg's brief and the voluminous appendix thereto, furnished by Mr. Stein, retained by the FOIA Litigation Unit, Legal Counsel Division, pending final outcome of this litigation. be 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page 424
— UNITED-STATES GOVEggJMENT TO FROM SUBJECT: By 54955" * Mr. Cochran DATE: L/9/76 Fifes & Com. 23. 2 McDermott Uf)! Ja Intett. i . MAY 1962 EOITION | f GSA FPMR (461 CFD 1O1@ 1.6 { “4 - Memorandum ne Ket, roe Comp. Sp ste cnc Ext. Affsire: Gen. fnew Hens laspectiow- Lobocatory Begal Coum. __.. Plon. & Evol. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOTIA) Specs tee an REQUEST FROM HAROLD WEISBERG , Tole;hooe Ram CONCERNING SPECTROGRAPHIC AND . Director Sec'y NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSES REGARDING OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT. Weisberg has pending a request for Spectro~ graphic and Neutron Activation Analyses of bullets and clothing in connection with the shooting of . : Officer Tippit in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Attached is a copy of requester's letter. _RECOMMENDATTIONS : 1. That Laboratory Division determine whether the alleged examinations were performed. 2. If such data does exist, furnish copies to FOIA-PA Section together with your recommendations regarding the feasibility of releasing the data. Enclosure 1 - Mr. Cochran p12 plb:bsj (4) _ SEE LABORATORY ADDENDUM PAGE 2 We ae - Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan * Doold: S2985522 Page 425
Rt. 12, Frederick, ad. 21704 12/20/75 we” pre Poors Bresson z, SOIA REQCEST york wiaeer e . . wet . me . Beshinct wOrM, DT. -. ear Ex. Sressony ; . . . Bis is = =y reanest under f0LA for covies of the spectrographic aralyses, pentron ac chivahion analyses o> any sinilar tests by the Fai in the case of the murder oF Oxfice ES in Dallas, Xexzes, 11/ 22/ 636 . fy this I mean the reports of any end ali such tests as may have seen roertormed on the wecoversd bulisis, all recovered shells, o = the oe niet found in tee yistol ant the sockets of Lee sarvey Oswald, on Officer Tiovit clothine and ali. coxperisons 3 Setween any o- these anu the pistol enc any of ths other objects. , Sor your isSorcestion acd thet of ny searchers, the SSI could not coznect these bullets and the Distal bellistically. ~ tre bullets did not match the shells (thus my interest in any testing or the powder jn the discharged: shells and the unfired ones}. "One eaxtozatic spell was foud at i scene.. o ‘Sn-tre absence of balistics procis = presute there wes sreater interest in the tests the results of which I seek cecause they could enable vhat was ot possibly dallisticelly, co.necting Oswald with that nuréer. “s+ By clothins I + mean to include such objects es butions, one of waich wes. struck by 2 bullet. the ‘Sincerely,
5 . et =e . - . - FY . “ ae : - . ~ * - ae wee a* aa we : ~ 4g . . ae . - . 2 . > . ~~ a = oe * »ow ~ * -“ ~e “eos Se * an . an’ 4 ve . . . .- . +e os 7 * . . < * ae ‘ LABORATORY ¢ ADDENDUM, WK sdb »_ (Enclosures (7) March 5, 1976 ‘ ~ : The ‘Laboratory conducted spectrographic examinations | ~ of Lead bullets removed from the body of Officer J. D. Tippit, .:° ° bullets from cartridges removed from Lee Harvey Oswald's _ oo” mevolver, and bullets from cartridges removed from the pocket a o£ Oswald*s trousers. A search of pertinent files does not ‘.: | yeveal any information concerning neutron activation - mnalyses (SAA) being conducted on any of these items. fe _ "A search of pertinent files does not reveal the OSes _ existance of any information concerning an examination of et "a button allegedly struck by a bullet. There is no ee OP information in the files concerning any examination of Tse Tippit's: ‘clothing. eo ce re * Weisberg’ s letter of request is vague; however, it Soe ‘appears “shat he is interested in analytical test results and Soe ‘not firearms examinations inasmuch as he comments on the ‘73 .. ° inability to associate the bullets from Tippit with Oswald's sv..." 06 gun “ballistically." Therefore, the information recommended - 4 - ‘€or release to Weisberg will not include the notes and [rte worksheets ‘concerning the firearms examinations. Po ie ne ‘the worksheets, notes and reports regarding the ad spectrographic examinations of the previously mentioned items te do not identify the items easily for a person not familiar - - Cyae, With the total vee. For that reason, a Dallas airtel ., Seseribing these tems is being included in the material for wee ‘xvelease.: os eo «7 4 SHR a he on 4 a tae eR 3 aoe : . Ne _ APT royal re = z prey aS ~ ~ ae oS eee The “€ollowing ‘documents which appear to be responsive ot te Weisberg’ 3 request, are enclosed: es ao ‘a two. page ‘Dallas airtel which sets out pro irey* 2 e/ .." “items connected with Oswald and which are wor te aa.  . GLE£icult to identity 3 in the worksheets ee Cee "and reports. | Joli. . - ne oe A two page worksheet numbered PC-78243 which | . . sontains a listing of item 913, a bullet from — “yoo. +. Bippit. “1 Be A worksheet numbered PC~79846 with one page : of notes concerning the. spectrographic analysis of the bullets. 4. An unnumbered worksheet with one page of . - motes concerning the spectrographic oo . , analysis of a wrist watch and a ring. mo. Docld: 32989522 Page 427
a - “SLA two page FBI Laboratory report dated ~ Vo : December 5, 1963, containing a listing for - . ° : 7 0177 and Q178, two cartridges removed from’. - wets - Oswald's revolver. The spectrographic os —_ Co - gnalysis of the bullet from Q178 is contained ~~ Polos e*e > ese fo as)... + dn paragraph 3. ene 7 woes eee Fae A two page FEI ‘Laboratory report dated re . December 5, 1963, which sets out the ~- eee oe wets ~ results of spectrographic examinations ete ~  ' .. ° + o£ some specimens listed in worksheet described.’ vey a le J; 7“ «> dm paragraph 4. ples tt ome 6". Fe " A £our page FBI Laboratory report dated March 30, © tes 2 wat coat ') * . 61964, which sets out results of spectrographic. . ne a co vv... @malysis of bullets from Tippit and bullets ° se ua from cartridges obtained from Oswald. Tt ‘is ‘recognized that information in these documents *.~ wil, no > doubt, cause Weisberg to make additional FOIA requests. - ‘AS previously pointed out, the identification | of . oe * buliets from Tippit and pertinent material from Oswald was - ° . °° @ifFieult. Forty-four hours of Agent time were spent on this ©» o 12, Project... - . ot 7 “eh a an a rai ~ o = oe a 4 ” “ | ? * * ‘ : A . : cd we * * - a tee OS - < os at . . ” ” : a4 a! ¥ . - . ? ‘ . w PA . ‘ lf . o - * any ” 6 * a wan - is ~ +t * WE Wy “ oe ae ; if ; * Ps “ | RAS SS - DooclId: 32038522 Page 426 . ~ at. & -— —— [vem eee ~ * es
{j XEXXXXXXXK XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXK XXXXXXXKXX XXXXXXEXXX XXXXXXXXXX E 54999 Doold: 32999522 Page 429 & FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION POSTPONEMENT INFORMATIOM SHEET (JFK MATERIALS) (05 Page(s) withheld entirely at this location in the file. One or more of the following statements, where indicated, explain this deletion (these deletions). Deletions were made pursuant to the postponement rationale indicated below with no segregable material available for disclosure. All references relate to Section 6 of the "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992." {] Subsection 1A (intelligence agent's identity) [] Subsection. 1B (intelligence source or method) _{] Subsection 1C (other matter relating to military defense, intelligence operations or the conduct of foreign relations) {] Subsection 2 (living person who provided confidential information) {] Subsection 3 (unwarranted invasion of privacy) {] Subsection 4 , (cooperating individual or foreign government, currently requiring protection) [] Subsection 5 (security or protective procedure, currently or expected to be utilized) ‘Information pertained to a matter unrelated to the JFK Assassination investigation. For your information: Fo( ft The following number is to be used for reference regarding this page (these pages): HQ 63-1090L0 ~S?07X
TO FROM SUBJECT: Y ) r Assoc. Dir. f } Dep. AD Adm. —__ Dep. AD Inv. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Aste Dic: ° FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Adm. Servs. Memorandum me :The Director DATE:5/16/80 Legal Coun. Plan. & Insp. —_ Rec. Mgnt. ¢ : Tech. Servs. : Le Training gal Counsel Public Affs. Off. —_ Telephone Rm. Director's Sec’y —__— WEISBERG v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al. (U.S.D.C., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 75-0226 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Number 78-1107 PURPOSE: To advise the Director of the 4/28/80 decision of the United States Court of Appeals in captioned litigation (copy attached). SYNOPSIS AND DETAILS: Plaintiff commenced this action in 2/75 to compel the DOJ and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), to disclose the results of certain spectrographic, neutron activation, and other scientific tests conducted by the defendants during the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The documents at issue in this lawsuit were ; requested by plaintiff under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by letter dated 11/27/74. On 7/15/75, the Court dismissed this action as moot on the basis of affidavits setting forth the Government's position that all material responsive to this request had been identified and provided to plaintiff. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 7/76, and remanded this case to the District Court for further proceedings to determine by either deposition or in Court testimony of the “witnesses who had personal knowledge of events at the time the investigation was made" whether the alleged additional data responsive to plaintiff's request existed. Weisberg v. Department of Justice, et al., 543 F.2d 308, 311 (D.C. Cir. 1976). As a result of this remand, interrogatories and requests for production of documents were submitted by plaintiff and responded to by defendants. ‘Also, plaintiff obtained by deposition the live testimony of SA Cortlandt Cunningham and retired SAs Robert A. Frazier, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, and John F. Gallagher, all of whom Enclosure 1 - Mr. Boynton 1 - Mr. Young 1 - Mr. Colwell 1 - Mr. Roin 1 - Mr. Joseph 1 - Mr. Slicks 1 - Mr. Bailey 1 - IPALU Attn: Mr. Whaley ()- Mr. Greenleaf U2) (CONTINUED -- OVER) , MW 54999 DEKE oaatsb9 ) Page 430 3 Attn: Mr. Kilty «2719? FBI/DOJ
NW 349599 Doold: 32989522 Page 431 Memorandum from Legal Counsel to The Director Res WEISBERG participated in the scientific tests connected with the investigation of President Kennedy's assassination. Plaintiff also attempted to depose SA John W. Kilty relative to the scope of the search that had been made of FBI files. (SA Kilty, prior to the -remand, executed two affidavits avowing that the FBI files contained no information of interest to plaintiff other than that already furnished to him.) The District Court granted the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order in this regard, and ultimately awarded Summary Judgment to the Defendants, holding that all documents within the purview of plaintiff's demands had been released. The record relied on by the Court included, in part, the two previously described Kilty affidavits. Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. On 4/28/80, the D.C. Court of Appeals again reversed the decision of the District Court, holding that material issues of fact existed which made Summary Judgment improper. Weisberg v. Department of Justice, et al., No. 78-1107 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 1980). The Court particularly questioned the non-existence of at least three items that should have been turned up during the search of FBI files, and commented that the agency affidavits addressing the thoroughness of the search were inadequate in that they "do not denote which files were searched or by whom, do not reflect any systematic approach to document location, and do not provide information specific enough to enable Weisberg to challenge the procedures utilized." Id., 13-14. The Court further noted that "the District Court should have permitted him to depose at least SA Kilty and perhaps others who examined the files" Id., 14. LCD does not anticipate that further appellate review of this decision will be pursued by the DOJ, nor will such a recommendation be formally made by the LCD. The LCD also does not anticipate that further proceedings in this case in the District Court is likely to result in the location of additional material responsive to plaintiff's request; however, LCD expects that the deposition of SA Kilty, another search for the records at issue and an affidavit will be required to support a renewed motion for summary judgment. RECOMMENDATION: None. For information.
in Assistant Director . 10/28/76 Records Manacement Division ( te , 7? / Legal Counsel / oo . € “ TAROLD WEISEITG v. "NITED STATES DEPARTIUCN?T OF JUSTICL, et al. (U.G.D.C., D. C.) CIVI2: ACTION NO. 75-226 PURPOSE : fo furnish copies of defendants’ answers to plaintiff's interrogatories, documents referred to in the answers, an@ documents being turned over to plaintiff in response to his Request for Production of Documents. SYNOPSIS: Attached are copies of defondants' ansvers to plaintifi'ts interrogatories, documents referred to in the ansvers, and docuroents being turned over ta plaintiff in resnonse to his Recuest for Production of Documents. The answers were furnished Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Michael Ryan on 18/21/76, and the documents were furnished him on 10/27/76. PECOMIENDATION ¢ None. For information. DETAILS s As set forth in the 19/5/76 rerorandun | from Legal Counsel to Assistant Director, Records Management Division, captioned as above, plaintiff served a copy of his Request for Production of Decmrants Enclosures (3) / jw 7 #x. Cochran LL .ittns Me. Milty - tir. Pecker Attn: Mr. Smith ~ Tir. Hints ~ lier. Blake COLE D - oven TBe xr, (5) Se ‘y Docld: 32989522 Page 432
be S4999 Doold: 32999522 Page 433 e Memrorandun to Assistant Director Records Managqerent Division Re: Harold Veisberg v. United States Pepartment of Justice, et al., (U.S5.0.C., BD. C.); Civil Action No. 75~226 by Nefendant United States Nepartment of Justice upon the AUSA handling this case on 8/12/76, but the AUSA did not advise the FRI of this or furnish us a copy until 9/17/76. SAs John 7. Kilty of the Scientific and Technical Services Division and Donald L. Smith of the FOI-PA Branch, Recards Management Division, supervised the location of all documents which would be encompassed by plaintiff's request, and at a meeting on 10/21/76, SAs Kilty, Smith, Parle Thomas Blake of the Legal Counsel Division, Nepartrental Attorney Lynne Zusman, and AUSA Ryan determined which docurents should ke turned over to plaintiff. Sa Smith then processed these Cocuments and compiled an inventory ef then, three copies of which were furnished AUEA Ryan by a representative of the FOT-PA Rranch on 10/27/76. Defendants’ answers to plaintiff's interrogatories were prepared by SAs Kilty and Blake, and the original and appropriate number of copies were furnished AUSA Ryan at the 10/21/76 neeting. Ms. fusman was also furnished tyo copies at the sare meeting. Alse attached are copies of decurents which are referred to in defendants’ answers to the interrogatories. These docunents are being furnished to AUBR Ryan for his information, but will net be furnished plaintiff or the Court, unless the latter @irects AUSA - Ryan to do so, AUS Ryan plans on filing with the Court and serving upon plaintiff both the answers and the requested documents on 10/28/76. ‘There is a status call set for 10/29/76 in this case, which involves Plaintiff's FOIA request for docunents in our possession concerning the investigation of the assassination of President John F, Fenne‘ly. -~ 2
* 4 6 © UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAROLD WEISBERG, Plaintiff Civil Action No. 75-0226 Vv. UNITED STATES DRPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SFT OF INTERROGATORIFS John W. Kilty, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter FBI), being duly sworn, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby answers the following Interrogatories. These answers are based on information available to a party within the meaning of Rule 33. 8 . Interrogatory No. 1: What are the nihas of tests or | examinations, physical, chemical, microscopic or otherwise, which would normally be conducted to determine: ‘(a) whether or not bullets or bullet fragments have a common origin, or (b) which bullets or bullet fragments struck which persons or objects? | Answer No. 1: (a) Elemental analysis is used tec determine the composition of bullets and bullet fragments. If, say, bullet A has the same compq~ sition as bullet B, our report would say that bullet A came from the same source (origin) of lead as bullet B or another source of lead with the same composition as bullet B. This does not associate bullet A with bullet B to the exclusion of all other bullets. If bullet A is different in composition from bullet B, we point out this fact and say that bullet B MW 34999 Doocld: 32959522 Page 434 Naan a ee a ek
e ©@ could not have come from the same source (origin) of lead as bullet A; however, we point out that bullets of more than one composition are often represented in a Single box 6£ ammuni- tion. Our haboratory and other laboratories have demonstrated that several different compositions of lead are often repre- sented in a single box of cartridges. The two methods of elemental analysis which were used in the Kennedy Assassination _ . case were emission spectroscopy and neutron activation analysis (NAA) . (b) -There are no tests available “which will specifically associate a bullet or bullet fragment to the exclusion of other bullets or bullet fragments with a particular hole in. a person or object. There are tests available which will determine ifa hole in a person or object, or a dent in an object, could have been caused ° by being struck by a bullet. In this case, emission spectroscopy was used to determine the composition at the edges of holes in certain garments and to compare this composition with cloth used as control taken from areas distant from these holes, and also to determine the composition of metal scrapings from an automobile - - oS windshield ‘and curbstone. nad “a — Interrogatory No. 2: - Are there any additional tests which cm, . ~ “oo = - . . ' could have been used in the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy to help make these determinations? If so, what are they? Answer No. 2: Making the assumption that positive . answers to interrogatories 1(a) arta 1(b) are possible, there are no additional tests which could have been used to help make these determinations in the Kennedy Assassina- tion case. | Interrogatory No. 3: Which of the tests listed in response to the above interrogatories were per- formed on the evidence pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy? NW 54999 Doold: 32839522 Page 435 SS
“ee _ NW 54999 Docld:32989529 Page 436 Answer No. 3: Emission spectroscopy and/or NAA were performed on items pertaining to interrogatory l(a) and emission spectroscopy was pérformed on articles of .clothing or other objects relative to interrogatory 1(b). Interrogatory No. 4: Were the tests conducted on the items of evidence pertaining to the assassina- ry . ‘ tion of President Kennedy as complete.-as they could have been? Answer No. 4: Yes. Interrogatory No.’ 5: List -all items of evidence having to do with the shooting of President Kennedy or any weapon used or allegedly used in the shooting, including any and all bullets or bullet fragments and any objects struck or allegedly struck by bullet or bullet fragments. Give the following information with respect to those items of evidence: (a) the type of tests performed on each such item of evidence; (b) the date or dates on which each such item of evidence was tested and the name of the laboratory in which the testing was done; . . . (c) the name of the person.or persons conducting.each such ~< test and the names of any other persons present during the testing? t " (a) the capacity, official or otherwise, in which the persons listed in response to interrogatory 5(c) were present at such testing; and . -(e) the current address and employment of each person mamed in response to interrogatory 5(c). Answer No. 5: SPECIMEN # IDENTIFICATION Ql Bullet from stretcher Q2 Bullet fragment from front seat cushion Q3 Bullet fragment from beside front seat on.right side
SPRCIMEN # O04 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q14 Q15 Q21 Q22 * Q24 . Q25 , Q48 9558 9566, - - 98.67 ~_e ok 0568 — 9569 | 9609 Kl (a) Firearms Identification Examinations IDENTIFICATION Metal fragment from the President's head re] Metal fragment from the President's head 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge case from building 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge case from building & . 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge from rifle Metal fragment from arm of Governor John Connally Three metal fragments recovered from. rear floor board carpet Scraping from inside surface of windshield Trousers worn by President Kennedy Coat worn by President Kennedy Necktie worn by President Kennedy Shirt worn by President Kennedy 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge case from Depository Windshield from President's limousine Coat worn by Governor Connally Trousers worn by Governor Connally Shirt worn by Governor Connally Necktie worn by Governor Connally Piece of Curbing 6.5 mm Mannlicher ~ Carcano rifle with telescope sight, serial No. C2766 ae Ql, 02, Q3, Q4 and Q5, Q6, Q7, O08, 09, O14, 048, KI Elemental Analysis Examinations Ql, Q2, Q3, O4 and Q5, Q9, O14, 15, 922, Q24, 025, Q556, Q567, Q568, Q609 Microscopic Analysis (Fibers) Kl MW 34939 Doocld: 32959522 Page 437 ~4-
Glass Fracture Examination Q558 ) ; , Microscopic Examination e 0609, No records were identified which concern examinations, if any, performed on Q21 and 9569. (ob) With few exceptions the date(s) on which each item of evidence was examined is not recorded. However in order to be as responsive as possible, the date of receipt of the evidence and the date of the communication containing results are listed below; the date upon which the item was examined would of necessity fall between the former and latter date. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on November 22, and/or 23, 1963, and examined therein: ~ Ql, Q2, 03, Q4 and 95, 06, Q7, 98, 09, Q14, Q15, Kl Results of examinations on these specimens are included in a November 23, 1963, Laboratory Report. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory, on November 23, "1963, and examined therein: Q22, Q24, Q25 Results of examinations on these items are included in a - . December 57 1963, Laboratory Report. ‘ Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on November 27, 1963, and examined therein: 048, Kl Results of examinations on these items are included in a November 29, 1963, Laboratory Report. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on March 20, 1964, and examined therein: 0558 Results of examinations on this item are included in a March 26, 1964, Laboratory Report. . NW 54999 Docld:32989522 Page 436
Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on April 9, 1964, and examined therein: ° «” 9556, 9567, Q568 @ Results of examinations on these items were reported to the President's Commission by letter dated April 16, 1964. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on August 6, a 1964, and examined therein: Q609 Results of examinations on this item were reported to CO Re ed the President's Commission by letter dated August 12, pee wonbeabss 1964. Specimens Q1, Q2, 94 and Q5, Q9, and Q14 were examined by neutron activation analysis at the Oak ICA Drea nol eee ee SRO “Ridge National Laboratory. Records indicate that these items were irradiated May 15, 1964, and counted on May 15, 1964, and May 26, 1964. The results of these examinations were reported to the President's Commission by letter dated July 8, 1964. (c) : Firearms Identification Examinations ‘Special Agents Robert A. Frazier, Courtlandt Cunningham, = and Charles L. Killion : o | . o - . Elemental analysis Examinations . 7 ‘ Special Agents John F. Gallagher, Henry B. Heiberger, and William R. Heilman. J. F. Emery and Frank F. Dyer Microscopic Analysis (Fibers) Special Agent Paul M. Stombaugh =e (d) All individuals listed in 5(c) were acting in their official capacity. . (e} Coutlandt Cunningham, FBI Headquarters, Washington, D. C. Paul M. Stombaugh, FBI Headquarters, Washington, D. C. Robert A. Frazier, Retired Charles L. Killion, Retired ie 3 l\. 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page 435 yO
wee ae OL a LL RT ts ale a ane swie ee ee MW 34999 Doold: 32989522 February 18, 1964 March 11, 1964 March 23, 1964. March 24, 1964 April 16, 1964 June 2, 1964 July 8, 1964 August 12, 1964 August 19, 1964 Our records indicate that the-examinations listed in inter- rogatory 5 were referred to in FBI Reports of Special Agent Robert P. Gemberling, Dallas, bearing the following dates: ‘Interrogatory No. 7 i Answer No. 7: Interrogatory No. 8: Answer No. 8: November 30, 1963 December 12, 1963 April 15, 1964 May 28, 1964 July 2, 1964 List all correspondence with respect to such tests which was exchanged _ between the FBI and the AEC. No correspondence between the Atomic - . —_— Energy Commission (AEC) -and the FBI es -was located in FBI records. ~ ~ What are all the chemical components of the bullet (CE399) allegedly used in the murder of President Kennedy? . "+ ¢ CE 399 (Q1) was examined for its elemental composition. An examination of records shows that the lead portion contained bismuth, copper, magnesium, Silicon, ’ tion contained tin, Interrogatory No. 9: Page 441 iron, silver and antimony. The jacket por- lead, copper, Zinc, silicon, iron and silver. Were all of these chemical components ‘tested in each of the tests made? If not, why not? pe
Docld: 32989522 Page 442 Answer No. 9: I am not able to answer this question inasmuch’‘as I do not understand plain- tiff's question. See my answer to interrogatory 8 for a listing of the elements in CE 399 (Q1).° Interrogatory No. 10: What are the normal Standards and procedures for conducting neutron activation analysis? . Answer No. 10: NAA is a method of chemical analysis based on the detection and measurement of characteristic radionuclides produced in a nuclear reactor. The procedures for conducting such an analysis are many and varied depending on the material to be examined and the chemical elements under investigation. Three texts which are publically available and may be of assistance to plaintiff are Principles of Activation Analysis by Paul Kruger, Applied Gamma Ray * spectrometry by Adams and Dams and Neutron Activation Analysis by De Soete, Gijbelis and Hoste. "Normal standards" as this term is used in interrogatory 10 and applied to NAA in general is not understood by me. foe. Interrogatory No. ll: Were the normal standards and procedures followed with respect to the testing and analysis of items of evidence pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy? . : | Answer No. Ll: It is assumed that this interrogatory refers to NAA. The procedures used to examine the items of evidence by NAA were ones that would have been employed by other practicioners given the same kinds of materials with which to work. Interrogatory No. 12: Under normal circumstances, who decides what is tested? Answer No. 12: Assuming that evidence is submitted to the FBI Laboratory, the contributor usually requests that certain items be examined to show rela- tionships to one another and to somehow associate items with a
“ ¢ crime. Based on their experience and expertise, examiners ‘in the FBI Laboratory will usually determine the kinds of examinations to perform on items of evidence. . # Interrogatory No. 13: With respect to the assassination of President Kennedy, who decided what was tested? | Answer No. 13: Our records do not reveal "who decided what was tested" in the Kennedy assassination case. Interrogatory No. 14: In subjecting evidentiary specimens to neutron activation testing, is it normal to make a full and complete tabulation of the results? In this case, was any such tabulation made? If so, was it complete? Answer No. 14: It is "normal" to make a "tabulation" of the results when subjecting speci- mens to NAA. By "results" I mean the numerical quantitative amount of a chemical element measured in the material examined. The use of the "full and complete" characterization of the .’ "tabulation" is not understood by me. A “tabulation” was made of the results obtained’ in the NAA of metal fragments in this | - —_—_— ee 8 a ern _ case. This was given to plaintiff and ‘to the best of my” ne. ~ ~ ~ 7 _ ” ~e knowledge is complete. - Le Interrogatory No. 15: In making a neutron activation analysis, is it normal to reach stated conclusions as to whether the various evidentiary specimens are identical or different in chemical composition? | a y Answer No. 15: The conclusion one makes regarding whether or not specimens are "identical or different in chemical composition" is based on the data available from whatever technique or technigues were employed in the examination. In some cases, due to the-limited size of the : material and/or its state of contamination and/or the character : of its composition, it is not possible to reach an "identical i. or different" conclusion. Additionally, the terms used to , Nw 54999 Doocld: 32989522. Page 443
i NW 54999 describe the conclusion reached are the choice of the person making the conclusion and may not necessarily be stated as "identical" or "different." See ny answer to interrogatory l(a) -for a further discussion regarding the conclusions reached concerning elemental analysis of bullet fragments. Interrogatory No. 16: Were any such stated conclusions Made with respect to the items of ‘evidence tested by spectrographic or neutron activation & analysis in this case? Answer No. 16: Consistent with my answer to inter- rogatory 15 the answer is yes. Interrogatory No. 17: Were full and complete results of ‘the spectrographic and neutron acti- vation tests given to the Warren Commission? _Did the Warren Commission ask for them? . Answer No. 17: In interrogatory 14 I defined "results" as the numerical quantitative amount of a chemical element measured in the material examined. This definition applied to NAA examinations. An extension of this definition for spectrographic "results" would be the relative concentration of a chemical element in the material examined. Using these definitions, the "results of the spec- + trographic and neutron activation tests" were not given to th Warren Commission. “Based on my review of the records, I am unable to determine if the Warren Commission asked for them. Interrogatory No. 18: Were full and complete stated conclu- sions as to what the tests showed given to the Warren Commission? Did the Warren Commission ask for them? Answer No. 18: If by "full and complete stated conclu- sions as to what the tests showed" the plaintiff means our expert opinion as to what the results of the spectrographic examinations and NAA indicated, the answer is yes. Based on my review of the records, I am unable to determine if the Warren Commission asked for them. - ll =~ DocTd: 32989522 Page 444
Interrogatory No. 19: Was the neutron activation testing ) , done .on any items of evidence in the Kennedy assassination other than the paraffin casts’ and the five Commission Exhibits--CE 399 (Q1), CE 567 (02), CE 843 (94, Q5), CE 842 (Q9), and CE (91.4) --mentioned in the April 10, 1975, letter from FBI Director Clarence Kelley to Mr. James H.. H Lesar? é a " Answer No. 19: No. : Interrogatory No. 20: If the answer to interrogatory number i BOR 12 is-affirmative, what are the other & eT items of evidence which were subjected to neutron activation testing? Pons aes Answer No. 20: Assuming plaintiff means to refer to Se Tg ae "“interrogatory 19," no answer is That hecessary. * Interrogatory No. 21: If the answer to interrogatory number 12 (sic) is negative, why were the i following items of evidence not subjected to neutron activation ' , testing: . we (a) CE 141, the live round found in the Mannlicher-Carcano et ee, et ae rifle which allegedly belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald and fired ° _ -. “the shots which killed President Kennedy? ee 7 (b). the clothing of President Kennedy and Governor Connally ‘: struck by or alleged to have been struck by bullets? . (c) the curbstone on the south side of S. Main Street east f of the Triple Underpass which was struck by bullet? . ! ; (a) the bullet fragment’ which is FBI Laboratory Number Q3? 5 Answer No. 21: : (a) Our records do not indicate why CE 141 (08) was not examined by NAA. x (b) Based on my experience and expertise, the reason the ; clothing of President Kennedy and Governor Connally was not examined by NAA in the areas where a bullet allegedly passed is because NAA is not the method of choice for the determination }, Nw 54999 Dooeld: 32969522 Page 445
| MW 54999 Doold: 32809522 Page 446 ‘holes in garments. ‘ of bullet holes. In 1963, emission spectroscopy was the method of choice for elemental analysis of the borders of -(c) Based on my experience and expertise and?an examination of the notes made regarding the spectrographic analysis of the lead smear on the curbstone, it is clear that the minimal amount of lead smear present on the curbstone was not adequate to conduct an examination by NAA. (d)} Records indicate that 03 is a section of bullet jacket devoid of its lead core. Bullet jacket material made of copper, zinc and/or iron is generally unsuitable for examination by NAA unless chemical separations are conducted. The chemical separations: would necessarily destroy markings on the item of evidence. Emission spectrographic analysis was the method of choice for analysis of bullet jacket material in 1963. Interrogatory No. 22: Under normal procedures would the results of the spectrographic or neutron activation analyses be recorded and verified by someone other than the person conducting the tests? Was such a procedure followed with respect to the items of evidence tested by these techniques in connection with the investigation into President ‘Kennedy's assassination? . . -_ er et - Answer No. 22: An examiner often consults with another - 7 - examiner concerning his findings in a specific case, but in all likelihood there would be no reason to commit this consultation to record. An examination of records does not indicate that more than one person recorded or verified the results of the individual spectrographic or NAA examinations. Interrogatory No. 23: Was a full and complete comparison made between the chemical composition of CE 399, the bullet which allegedly wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally and (a) the composition of the metallic traces on President Kennedy's clothing, (b) the com- position of the metallic traces on Governor Connally's clothing, and (c) the composition of all fragments removed from Governor | Conally's body? ~ 13 -
L. (a) i, (b) 6 6 Elemental analysis is used to determine the composition of bullets and bullet fragments. If, say, bullet A has thé same composition as bullet B, our report would say that builet A came from the same source (origin) of lead as bullet B or another source of lead with the same coposition as buliet B. This does . not associate bullet A with bullet B to the exclusion of all other bullets. If bullet A is different in compositioa from bullet B, we point out this fact and say that bullet B could not have come from the same source (origin) of lead as bullet A; however, we point out that bullets of more than one com- position are often represented in the single box of ammunition. . Our Laboratory and other laboratories have demonstrated that ‘several different compositions of lead are often represented im a single box of cartridges. The two methods of elemental analysis which were used in the Kennedy Assassination case were emission spectroscopy and neutron activation analysis (NAA). There are no tests available which will specifically associate MW 54999 Docld: 32989522 Page 449 gr
af LS a bullet or bullet fragment to the exclusion of other bullets or bullet fragments with a particular hole in a person or object. There are tests available which will determine if a hole in a person or object, or 2a dent in an object could have been caused by being struck by a bullet. In this case, emission spectroscopy was used to determine the composition at the edges of holes in certain garments and to compare this composition with cloth used as control taken from areas distant from these holes, and also to determine the composition of metal scrapings from an automobile windshield and curbstone. Making the assumption that positive answers to interrogatorfies l(a) and 1(b) are possible, there are no additional tests which could have been used to help make these determinations in the Kennedy Assassination case. Emission spectroscopy and/or NAA were performed on items per- taining to interrogatory 1(a) and emission spectroscopy was performed on articles of clothing or other objects relative to. interrogatory 1(b). NW 34959 Doocld: 32989522 Page 450
4. Yes 5. SPECIMEN # Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q3 Q9 Q14 Q15 MW 54999 Docld: 32989522 Page 451 IDENTIFICATION Bullet from stretcher Bullet fragment from front seat cushton Bullet fragment from beside front seat on right side Metal fragment from the President's head 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcan cartridge case from buildi ew ‘6.5 mm Mannlicher —- Carcan cartridge from rifle Metal fragment from arm of Governor John Connally Three metal fragments recovered from rear floor board carpet Scraping from inside surfac of windshield
« . ” 4 SPECIMEN # IDENTIFICATION Clothing of President Kennedy | Q21 Trousers Q22 Coat Q24 . Necktie Q25 Shirt Q48 _ 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano ; cartridge case from Depository Q558 Windshield from President's limousine Q566 Black suit worn by Governo John Connally Q567 Black suit trousers worn b Governor John Connally Q568 White dress shirt worn by . - Governor John Connally Q569 Tie Q609 Piece of Curbing KL 6.5 mm Mannlicher — Carcanc rifle with telescope sight, serial No. C2766 NW 34959 Doocld: 32909522 Page 452 Y
Nw 54999 5. (a) Firearms Identification Examinations Ql, Q2 Q3, Q4 and Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q14, Q48, KL Elemental Analysis Examinations Ql, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5, Q9, Q14, Q15, Q22, Q24, Q25, Q566, Q567, Q568, Q609 Microscopic Analysis (Fibers) ‘KL Glass Fracture Examination Q558 Microscopic Examination Q609 No records were identified which concern examinations, if any, performed on Q21, and 9569, 5. () With few exceptions the date(s) on which each item of evidence was examined is not recorded. Therefore, the date of receipt of the evidence and the date Gp of a communication containing results are listed below. Docldad: 325989522 Page 453
| hilt. heated typ lb, fly Quy b, A4bY me
hyd. It, MIBY. = ee oe Sjascinene Ql 7 BE, OY eb es | vee 04. _ ad GIY autre Lpemirad hey Reap. on dept. thet he —_ Cprre | eee dinar 7 Treg Fy Aly 7) NW 54999 DocEd+32989522 Page 45F—i~-.  -, ae materete acon nee
5. (c) Firearms Identification Examinations Special Agents Robert A. Frazier, Courtlandt Cunningham and Charles L. Killion Elemental Analysis Examinations Special Agents John.F. Gallagher, Henry B. Heiberger and William R. Heilman. J. F. Emery and Frank F. byer Microscopic Analysis (Fibers) Special Agent Paul M. Stombaugh 5. (a) All individuals listed in 5(c) were acting in their official capacity. 5. (e) Courtlandt Cunningham, FBI Headquarter, Washington, DC Nw 34939 Paul M. Stombaugh, FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC — Robert A. Frazier, Retired Charles L. Killion, Retired John F, Gallagher, Retired Henry B. Heiberger, Retired William R. Heilman, Retired Docld: 32989522 Page 455 : I}
NW 54999 Doold: 32989522 Page 460 . ® ® Our records do not indicate the present address and employment of retired employees. Our records do not indicate the present address and employment of J. F. Emery and F. F. Dyer. However, in 1963 and 1964 they were chemists for Union Carbide Corporation, oak nidge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Our records indicate that the examinations listed in inter- rogatory 5 were referred to in letters from J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, the President's Commission, to J. Rdgar Hoover, Director, FBI, bearing the following dates: Jan 7, -dune=t, 1964 Feb 4, 1964 Feb 12, 1964 Mar 6, 1964 Mar 18, 1964 Mar 18, 1964 April 9, 1964 May 12, 1964 July 7, 1964 {[t
7 ey . Records indicate that the examinations listed in interrogatory 5 were referred to in letters to J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, the President's Commission, from J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI bearing the following dates: Jan 10, 1964 Feb 7, 1964 Feb 18, 1964 Mar li, 1964 Mar 23, 1964 fs, Mar 24, 1964 April 16, 1964 Jun 2, 1964 July 8, 1964 ‘sug 12, 1964 . Aug 19, 1964 ‘ Records indicate that the examinations listed in interrogatory S were referred to in FBI Reports of Special Agent Robert P. Gemberling, Dallas, bearing the following dates: BW 54959 Doold:i 32989522 Page 461 /2
10. NW 34959 etter Nov 30, 1963 Dec 12, 1963 April 15, 1964 May 28, 1964 July 2, 1964 No correspondence between the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the FBI was located in FBI records... CE 399 (Ql) was examined for its elemental composition. An examination of records shows that the lead portion contained bismuth, copper, magnesiun, silicon, iron, silver and antimony. The jacket portion contained tin, lead, copper, Zinc, silicon, iron and silver. I am not able to answer this question inasmuch as I do not understand plaintiff's question. see my answers to interrogatory #8 for a listing of the elements in CE 399 (Ql). NAA is a method of chemical analysis based on the detection and measurement of characteristic radionuclides produced in a nuclear reactor. The procedures for conducting such an Docld: 32989522 Page 462 , /Y
a 12. analysis are many and varied depending on the material to be examined and the chemical elements under investigation. Three texts which are publically available and may be of assistance to plaintiff are Principles of Activation Analysis by Paul Kruger, Applied Gamma Ray Spectrometry by Adams and Dams and Neutron Activation Analysis by De Soete, Gijbels and Hoste. “Normal standards" as it is used in interrogatory 1g and applied to NAA in general is not understood by me. it is assumed that this interrogatory refers to NAA. ‘The pro- cedures used to examine the items of evidence by NAA were ones that would have been employed by other practioners given the same kinds of naterials’ with which to work. Assuming that evidence is submitted to the FBI Laboratory, the ‘contributer usually requests that certain items be examined to " show relationships to one another and to somehow associate items with a crime. Based on their experience and expertise, examihers in the FBI Laboratory will usually determine the kinds of examinations to perform on items of evidence. [> MW 54999 Docld: 32989522 Page 463
13. 14, 15. NW 34959 DoclTd: 32989522 Page 464 Our records do not reveal who decided "what was tested" in the Kennedy assassination case. It is "normal" to make a “tabulation"™ of the results when subjecting specimens to NAA. By "results" I mean the numerical quantitative amount of a chemical element measured in the _ taterial examined. The use of the "full and complete". - characterization of the “tabulation” is not understood by me. A "tabulation" was made of the results obtained in the NAA of metal fragments in this case. This was given to plaintiff and to the best of my knowledge is complete. The conclusion one makes regarding whether or not specimens are “identical or different in chemical: composition" is based on the data available from whatever technique or techniques were employed in the examination. tn sone cases, die to the limited size of the material and/or its state of contamination and/or the character of its composition it is not possible to reach an “identical or different" conclusion. Additionally, the terms used to described the conclusion reached are the /6
16. 17. 18. choice of the person making the conclusion and may not necessarily be stated as “identical” or "“different"™. Consistent with my answer to interrogatory #15 the answer is yes. In interrogatory 14 I defined "results" as the numerical quantitative amount of a chemical element measured in the material examined. This definition applied to NAA examinations. An extension of this definition for spectrographic "results" would be the relative concentration of a chemical element in the material examined.. Using these definitions, the “results of the spectrographic and neutron activation tests" were not given to the Warren Commission. Based on my review of the records, I am unable to determine if the Warren Commission asked for them. If by "full and complete stated conclusions as to what the tests showed" the plaintiff means our expert opinion as to what the results of the spectrographic examinations and NAA 7 NW 34959 Doocld: 32909522 Page 465
19. — 20, 21. (a) 21. (b) 21. (ec) Le showed, the answer is yes. Based on my review of the records, f I am unable to’ determine if the Warren Commission asked for them. No. No answer necessary. Records do not show or indicate why CE 141 (qa) was not examined by NAA. Based on my experience and expertise, the reason the clothes of President Kennedy and Governor Connally were not examined by NAA in the areas where a bullet allegedly passed: is because NAA is not the method of choice for the determination of bullet holes. In 1963, emission spectroscopy was the method of choice for elemental analysis of the borders of holes in garments, Based on my experience and expertise and an examination of the notes made regarding the spectoteraphic analysis of the lead smear on the curbstone, it is clear that the minimal amount of lead smear present on the curbstone was not adequate to conduct an examination by NAA. 14 NW 34959 Doocld: 32909522 Page 466
Records indicate that Q3 is a section of bullet jacket devoid of its lead core. Bullet jacket material made of copper, zine and/or iron is generally unsuitable for examination by NAA unless chemical separations are conducted. The chemical separations would necessarily destroy markings on the iteng Cc of evidence. Emission spectrographic analysis was the method of choice for analysis of bullet jacket material in 1963. An examiner often consults with another examiner concerning his findings in a specific case, but in all liklihood there would be no reason to commit this consultation to record. An examination of records does not indicate tmt more than one person recorded or verified the results of the individual spectrographic or NAA examinations. No. Referring to my answer to interrogatory 1(b), a "full and complete comparison" between the composition of a bullet and the minute traces of metal left at the edges of a hole will not permit the conclusion that the hole was made by a specific bullet. i) Docld: 32989522 Page 467
23. (b) 23. (2) 24. (a) 24. (b) 25.—(a) 25. (b) e °@ There were no metallic traces on Governor Connally's clothing. Our records indicate that only one fragment of lead was removed from Governor Connally's body. The answer to this portion of the interrogatory is yes. Yes, to the extent tmt the specimens were of adequate size ’ and condition for compositional analysis. Records indicate that the metal fragments recovered from President Kennedy's head were lead and that the five fragments found in the car consisted of a portion of a jacketed ballet (core and jacket), a bullet jacket and three lead fragments. It is apparent from these records tht a compositional comparison was made where appropriate. No. ; No. Although comparisons were made, CE 399 (Q1) was not compared with all other bullet fragments. > MW 34939 Doold: 32809522 Page 465
fe rm -. 6 RIC’T on ot te tyt toe Py mt ATV Afb wowed a x2 3) “ST were Ty % bY ae ennee MON ety woes ” . MATA ated mee AGED HM OMMeE Ce HR Oe HERA E eoeaes ° 6 ‘ so 2 eee ve Oe WH $4 BL by 48 ee ee AB ee BY EE ge bh ae ee SE t AG, SERN Aad ? a ci ~ PLlainti et Hal — at a “ + rs mn Fs is tha. ay G4 en q} ee Le $ a |et Lf £3 2 nal vd tg ty eS hp ¢ “§ aes B) by fe fee oe wy oa ane bi 8 Wi a 5 a ees aed iw se etme moe » , « « . ry ‘ “. rs * Pn as *. Py ‘ . °F mR wef SB # é >. 4 . Go - £3 e . v . . " 3 « e to) 2 v . € . 4 ; » Fr) ¥ r 4 ¢ ‘ow a bin ak Be ie 2 ve Me BRO NETS eh tee x A ¥) bg Mal t w weds we ~ 3 ~ - z Yee ote SLICE - $i as ey ey en des Hn t ZENG S ‘ hy q od Qn Se % a he Pari ov E & Ke Cores fxs % ¥ i ey oy rt 1 rs) 3 9 i bey = 43 rel 9 Mord 9) spel ” oa A DoD 4 3 os & on . i) - ° 5} it hy “rt @ sO yg a) “a vt m vy crs ~“ < o Sn =~ 3 ry] oC we o Poy) t} ie} 6 3 od oi 3 % .o) Ces ot GG & ents an de walt doeenes fe. oe ns ReBES viTep Sa ~ Remi ° a be hasty’ set i rah A ay) x rt > ™m tt ms (2 at a Stok eee c6] 43 Hoo “ry Cs se uy a Eats 44 O Mt or} orf as ed Le ey irs) 74 . 3, wy is or Go oa 3} fy Gy OG ce] vy ti} yt es i °° eh SS AS Aa % et ont caey we Qn a “4 + “Fa tne raemin amen nen anys Ms : .e 3 28 oe mE ut) Pe] : | vy a te ud 0, ge et \e a ana oo w2EL ~ ye cs i Na a we er ee f Bee ter tant eid Be we tee Sata! aot wae Noatwe shan are” gc we < eae ce ag ~ saare oar Pad os Ltoms of cornea) * ae ! ‘ te ua CH CY eri aeanns oeenaty etree ee ee ee 32989522 NW 54959 Docid Page 469 , /)
via” in oes 's i Y GRE ae pe lag ent ee iW 54999 Doold: 32989592 ‘ | 2 - - we ; they could have: been? me oO 7 = | Sa Liot ALL tons of ovidences having to do with the shooting . ? of President Senne Ay. or any weapon used ‘or allegedly’ us ed in. the « shooting, including any and all bullets or “ballet fragments, and | any objects struck ox allegedly struck by puliet Or bulties, feag- Give ‘tha following information with “s waspe Bet to - those. Ltens a - . - woe a "s- the type of teste performed on each such Litem of evi- {hb} the date ar kestad and the nama of the labore dene; m of persons name.of the perso: conductis nrasentk {et} the oy + 0% ~ . and tho namas oF any othe Persovs oa = = W on Pao tons jisted in response to interxogatery d{c) were present. ut! guch tasting; dad . - {a} the current addzegs and @ wployment ‘of each person LR YASS nse bo. inbexrogatory 5 (eh. - 7 et, Bist all correspondence with . res spect & o Such tas vaxren seuntenita, j ing oi . he F 3 aby. VAS nenged between Lhe PSl ana the “ho Camission's Chairman, “Warren, its G General Couass L; o Commi isgion‘s states - ~ any westaar of the ali covrespondenva with wespect td such E WAS GXchy, aged botveen the FRI and tae Roe. cheaical conponenta’ of bac 8. What are all the bullet geaiy usad in { ' {en3 Sy SaiLe $ Saeed Sy Y 4 tt . > ate “ - tow € ote os . * by ad QO, Wera all of these chemical cngenante Gea #8 ORL Ce ; made? If not, why not? Ecats. which: | i i i j i i "4 Page 470
ve . A ~ 3 - “10. What axe the normal, standards and procedures for con- i: . ; fucking neutron activation analysis? 7 Fe | 7 “ 12. Were the normal standards and ‘proced dures followed with . respect to the testing and analysis of items of evidence pertain- ling to the assassination of President Kennedy? : pcote Ort 12. Under normal circumstances, whe decides what is tasted? phys wf Ase With respect to the assassination of President Kennedy , dene | . |who decided what vas casted? — | en a . 7 - | it | 34. Tn subjecting evidentiary specimens to neutron activa- va, tion testing, is it normal to make a fall and os plete tabulation | ' of the results? tn this Case, was. any such tabulation made? tf ‘. } : " me | i tS so, was it complete? . : “| “15, -In making a ne utzon activation analysin, is it normal } to réach stated conclusions as to whether the various evide satdary | a ‘specimens are Ldentical or differant. in chemical composition? | cS ° 16, Were any such s tated conclusions made with reaope sob. to | 7 ~ ithe Ltous of evidence tested by spectrgs graphic ox neutron active~ | 4 tion analysis in this case? ae , | . | a 17. Ware full amd complete results, o of the spectrogra phic: ' and neutron activation tests given to the Warren Comaias sion? Did | i ~ |ithe Warzen Commission ask for th sa? : : -. 18. Were Luli .an d complete stated conclust ng as te what th al q tagts shoved given to the. Warren Cc mrission? Dia the Warret 7 : Commission ask for ‘then? 19, Was the neutron activation testing done on any “items af evidence in the Kennedy assassination other than . the paraffin oustgs and the five Comnissicon Exhibits--CE 399 (Q1), CE 567 {02), OS), Ch 842 (GS), and CE CAO (014}--mentianed in the =) > we eS afte bas —_ e) v woril 19, 1975, Lletcar from #3I Director Clarence Relley to Mr. 1 . Jemes I. Bonar? | oo “ . : dhe sande ES ae oh Bee lett Rat aes She ceed ae [eB che anawer" td” LAtarroysatdry HERES: av” ~ + $y 38 es ve F Fy FF ... wiat axe the. othex stems of evidence which ware subjected to NW 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page “471
‘ a enietioe Ly Se . tivation etd ac ? Rh a wxer 2 eam oe 4 a wr -o # negat ee seu, » u eh 5 Way . % or) ex i2:h subs Tf the answer’ to interrogatery nv , Zhe eutron cea not subjected to n: igen cra the following items of av ar-~Carcano 1 4n the Manniiel i" ty fa) CB 141, the live round foun ed the |. . Bgpwt x ee Hervey Oswaid and 1 Ae % d Prasident Rennady? Lic Lot ee ne which rand Gov % “ Anne oe ae > t & a ta struck by or * LS 2 1 the so lich was struck by bullet? sulte cf the spac~ oe x Se lame Under no3 * ed 2 e LS ,6 fein oon KS 2 vakion 4 3 te subron ack 4 2. Co OF go sppee yy onded and verdl . by someone ether than t ray Se enducting. the + | @- person « Se, z: m- Lhto Fa Nee 3G. iy “f ®e a Gj . eq. Los wd ” ed by OME _Y Q ica) ty f° uw ie} rss) be J m% ry cs ey "4 oO] wey tO] 6) 3 oon xnoy Commalis Cove a _ traces on t AG . sotaLl r¥ RS 1S . 3 - ouition of £ Cone: mane cee) i * eS aad ; BLALS le Governer Con SELACES ON ti Q “A "££ ercoved oa w = oo Cc : e ] es 2 t nnally’s bedy? & ATA a £ull ag Tt . 8 A tee i pe eB, ly tha comnosition o ih) all five Gragnien Gt, } & (a cd an LAC * i oe re 2, & ay, & ernedy > m1 ‘ ‘ 4 i a jn LOST xy Nea 2 de and: ee ~ Shave Page 472 S2989522 | MW 54999 DoolId
a rh & ° . ° - oe , . 456 Hes a full and comple ete compari BOTY made bet tween the chemical cons sordtion Gf CE 399, tha bullet which allegedly wounded doth Prasident Kenn ady and Governor Connally and’ (a) £ che composi- tion of CE 1éh, the bullet found in the Mg anlicher-Care cano rifle, and Go) all other bublot erage Tonks? . ‘Please note that under Rule 23 the Federzl Rules of Chi val . ; Procadure you are reg tivad fo serve upon the und Rqned, witht a: ; 30 cays arter service of this netlee, Your answers in writing and . under oath to th @ above juterroga Rtories. SO ~~ oT SEHES HYISAN CESAR a . i we ey I, be CEREIEL roms 2 SRRVICE Te, heaeeneiieaeebensheteaetenenantineedebeneeemien anita atyrenmenatonored bd . ! / . c . i hereby cextify that service of the foredoing hag kean made upon the defendant United States be partn sont of Justice by daw livering a copy thereof to its attorney, Agsirtant United’ States Attorney Michacl J. Ryan, on this zn doy of May, 1975. ° . S ' “, . * 7 ‘ . . . - + ‘ te 4 “q | BW 54999 ' Docld: 32989522 Page 473
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAROLD WEISBERG, Plaintif€£. Civil Action No. 75-0226 Ve UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SFT OF INTERROGATORIFS John W. Kilty, Special agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter FBI), being duly sworn, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby * answers the following Interrogatories. These answers are based on information available to a party within the meaning of Rule 33. - Interrogatory No. 1: What are the rihas of tests or : f examinations, physical, chemical, microscopic or otherwise, which would normally be conducted to determine: (a) whether or not bullets or bullet fragments have a common origin, or (b) which bullets or bullet fragments struck which persons or objects? Answer No. 1: (a) Elemental analysis is used to determine the composition of bullets and bullet fragments. If, say, bullet A has the same comp@- sition as bullet B, our report would say that bullet A came from the same source (origin) of lead as bullet B or another source of lead with the same composition as bullet B. This does not associate bullet A with bullet B to the exclusion of all other bullets. If bullet A is different in composition from hullet B, we point out this fact and say that bullet B , HW 54555 Dooeld: 32389522 Page 474
could not have come from the same source (origin) of lead as ‘bullet A; however, we point out that bullets of more than one composition are often represented in a Single box 6£ ammuni- tion. Our Laboratory and other laboratories have demonstrated that several different compositions of lead are often repre- sented in. a single box of cartridges. The two methods of elemental analysis which were used in the Kennedy Assassination ‘ case were emission spectroscopy and neutron activation analysis (NAA). (b) -There are no tests available which will specifically associate a bullet or bullet fragment to the exclusion of other bullets or bullet fragments with a particular hole in a person or object. There are tests available which will determine if a hole ina person or object, or a dent in an object, could have been caused ” by being struck by a bullet. In this case, emission spectroscopy Mw 54599 DBocid was used to determine the composition at the edges of holes in certain garments and to compare this composition with cloth used as control taken.from areas distant from these holes, and also ‘to determine the composition of metal. scrapings from an automobile windshield and curbstone. - et ee et NO Interrogatory No. 2: Are there any additional tests which - - “could have been useé in the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy to help make these determinations? If so, what are they? Answer No. 23 Making the assumption that positive answers to interrogatories 1 (a) ana 1 (b) are possible, there are no additional tests which could have been used to help make these determinations in the Kennedy Assassina- tion case. Interrogatory No. 3: Which of the tests listed in response to the above interrogatories were per- formed on the evidence pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy? ~2- 32959522 Page 475
. # ® ® Answer No. 3: Emission spectroscopy and/or NAA were performed on items pertaining to interrogatory 1(a) and emission spectroscopy was pérformed on articles of .clothing or other objects relative to interrogatory l(b). Interrogatory No.’ 4: Were the tests conducted on the items of evidence pertaining to the assassina~ cy . , tion of President Kennedy as complete.-as they could have been? Answer No. 4: Yes. q Interrogatory No. 5: List all items of evidence having to do , with the shooting of President Kennedy or any weapon used or allegedly used in the shooting, including any and all bullets or bullet fragments and any objects struck or allegedly struck by bullet or bullet fragments. Give the following information with respect to those items of evidence: (a) the type of tests performed on each such item of evidence; (b)} the date or dates on which each such item of evidence was tested and the name of the laboratory in which the testing was done; | ‘(c) the name of the person or persons conducting .each such — . test and the names of any other persons present during the _ ee . ~ — - testing; ; ' (a) the capacity, official or otherwise, in which the persons listed in response to interrogatory 5(c) were present at such testing; and . (e) the current address and employment of each person mamed in response to interrogatory 5(c). Answer No. 5: SPECIMEN # IDENTIFICATION Ol Bullet from stretcher Q2 Bullet fragment from front seat cushion Q3 Bullet fragment from beside front seat on right side Mw 54999 Doocld: 32959522 Page 476
04 Q5 Q6 Q7 8 Q9 Q14 Q15 Q21 Q22 ‘ Q24 | Q25 048 Q558 Q566 Q567 ~~ 9568 9569 Q609 Kl Kl _ MW 545999 DBoold: 32989522 Page 477 SPECIMEN # Q556, 9567, 9568, Q609 Microscopic Analysis (Fibers) IDENTIFICATION Metal fragment from the President's head e Metal fragment from the President's head — 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge case from building 6.5, mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge case from building 8 7 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge from rifle Metal fragment from arm of Governor John Connally Three metal fragments recovered from rear floor board carpet Scraping from inside surface of windshield Trousers worn by President Kennedy Coat worn by President Kennedy Necktie worn by President Kennedy Shirt worn by President Kennedy 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano cartridge case from Depository Windshield from president's Limousine Coat worn by Governor Connally Trousers worn by Governor Connally Shirt worn by Governor Connally Necktie worn by Governor Connally ~ Piece of Curbing 6.5 mm Mannlicher - Carcano rifle with telescope sight, serial No. C2766 =e ' (a) Firearms Identification Examinations Ql, 92, Q3, 94 and Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, 09, Q14, 048, Kl Elemental Analysis Examinations ,QL, Q2, 93, 04 and Q5, Q9, Q14, Q15, Q22, Q24, Q25,
‘Glass Fracture Examination 0558 : “Microscopic Examination 8 Q609, No records were identified which concern examinations, if any, performed on Q21 and Q569. (b) With few exceptions the date(s) on which each item of evidence was examined is not recorded. However in order to be as responsive as possible, the date of receipt of the evidence and the date of the communication containing results are listed below; the date upon which the item was examined would of necessity fall between the former and latter date. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on November 22, and/or 23, 1963, and examined therein: * Ql, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5, Q6, Q7, 08, Q9, 914, Q15, Kl Results of examinations on these specimens are included in a November 23, 1963, Laboratory Report. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory, on November 23, "1963, and examined therein: Q22, 024, O25 ee Results of examinations on these items are included ina - December 5; 1963, Laboratory Report. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on November 27, 1963, and examined therein: Q48, Kl Results of examinations on these items-are included in a November 29, 1963, Laboratory Report. Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on March 20, 1964, and examined therein: 9558 Results of examinations on this item are included in a March 26, 1964, Laboratory Report. -5- MW 34939 Doocld: 32959522 Page 476
(c) (d) (e) | NW 34999 Doocld: 32959522 Page 475 é Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on April 9, 1964, and examined therein: ‘ 0556, Q567, 9568 9 Results of examinations on’ these items were reported to the President's Commission by letter dated April 16, 1964. . Specimens received in the FBI Laboratory on August 6, & 1964, and examined therein: + Q609 Results of examinations on this item were reported to the President's Commission by letter dated August 12, 1964. | Specimens Q1, Q2, 04 and Q5, Q9, and Q14 were examined by neutron activation analysis at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Records indicate that these items were irradiated May 15, 1964, and counted on May 15, 1964, and May 26, 1964. The results of these examinations were reported to the President's Commission by letter dated July 8, 1964. : i ‘Firearms Identification Examinations Special Agents Robert A. Frazier, Courtlandt Cunningham, and Charles L. Killion 7 - Elemental Analysis Examinations Special Agents John F. Gallagher, Henry B. Heiberger, and William R. Heilman. J. F. Emery and Frank F. Dyer Microscopic Analysis (Fibers) Special Agent Paul M. Stombaugh ae All individuals listed in 5(c) were acting in their official capacity. Coutlandt Cunningham, FBI Headquarters, Washington, D. C. Paul M. Stombaugh, FRI Headquarters, Washington, D. C. Robert A. Frazier, Retired Charles L. Killion, Retired - 6 -
. John F. Gallagher, Retired Henry B. Heiberger, Retired ‘ William R. Heilman, Retired . , @ ; Our records do not indicate the current address and \ employment of retired employees. Our records do not indicate the current address and employment of 3. F. Emery and Frank F. Dyer. However, in 1963 and 1964 they were chemists for Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Interrogatory No. 6: List all correspondence with respect . to such tests which was exchanged between the FBI and the Warren Commission, including the Commission's Chairman, Earl Warren, its General Counsel, J, Lee Rankin, or any member of the Commission's staff. Answer No. 6: Our records indicate that the examinations listed in inter- rogatory 5 were referred to in letters from 7. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, the President's Commission, to J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI, bearing the following dates: January 7, 1964 -~ February 4, 1964 February 12, 1964 ts March 6, 1964 ee March 18, 1964°— . March 18, 1964 —~. April 9, 1964 May 12, 1964 ae July 7, 1964 -— Our records indicate that the examinations listed in inter- . , rogatory 5 were referred to in letters to J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, the President's Commission, from J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI, bearing the following dates: . | January 10, 1964 ——— February 7, 1964 - NW 34999 Docld: 32989522 Page 460
February 18, 1964 March 11, 1964 . March 23, 1964<~ . & a - March 24, 1964" April 16, 1964 ~ June 2, 1964 July 8, 1964 ~ August 12, 1964 — August 19, 1964 Our records indicate that the-examinations listed in inter- rogatory 5 were referred to in FBI Reports of Special Agent Robert P. Gemberling, Dallas, bearing the following dates: November 30, 1963 December 12, 1963 April 15, 1964 May 28, 1964 July 2, 1964 Interrogatory No. 7: List all correspondence with respect ‘ to such tests which was exchanged between the FBI and the AEC. | Answer No. 7: ‘ No correspondence between, the Atomic | oe ere te nner _ ,  , Energy Commission (AEC) -and .the FBI aor 7 a, _ ~- -was located in FBI records. ~ Interrogatory No. 8: What are all the chemical components of the bullet (CE399) allegedly used in the murder of President Kennedy? Answer No. 8: CE 399 (Q1) was examined for its : elemental composition. An examination of records shows that the lead portion contained bismuth, copper, magnesium, silicon, iron, silver and antimony. The jacket por- tion contained tin, lead, copper, zinc, silicon, tron and silver. Interrogatory No. 9: Were all of these chemical components ‘tested in each of the tests made? If not, why net? -~ B- , MW 54999 Doold: 32969522 Page 481 x. =
© T Answer No. 9: I am not able to answer this question inasmuch‘ as I do not understand plain- tiff's question. See my answer to interrogatory 8 €or a listing of the elements in CE 399 (Qi).° Interrogatory No. 10: What are the normal standards and procedures for conducting neutron activation analysis? Answer No. 10: NAA is a method of chemical analysis based on the detection and measurement of characteristic radionuclides produced in a nuclear reactor. The procedures for conducting such an analysis are many and " varied depending on the material to be examined and the chemical elements under investigation. Three texts which are publically available and may be of assistance to plaintiff are Principles of Activation Analysis by Paul Kruger, Applied Gamma Ray * Spectrometry by Adams and Dams and Neutron Activation Analysis by De Soete, Gijbels and Hoste. "Normal standards" as this term is used in interrogatory 10 and applied to NAA in general is not understood by me. _ ' -  -Interrogatory No. 11: Were the normal standards and procedures followed with respect to the testing and 7 | analysis of items of evidence pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy? Answer No. 11: It is assumed that this interrogatory refers to NAA. The procedures used to examine the items of evidence by NAA were ones that would have been employed by other practicioners given the same kinds of materials with which to work. Interrogatory No. 12: Under normal circumstances, who decides what is tested? Answer No. 12: Assuming that evidence is submitted to the FBI Laboratory, the contributor usually requests that certain items be examined to show rela- tionships to one another and to somehow associate items with a |, BW 54999 Dooeld: 32969522 Page 452
crime. Based on their experience and expertise, examiners ‘in the FBI Laboratory will usually determine the kinds of examinations to perform on items of evidence. . & Interrogatory No. 13: With respect to the assassination of President Kennedy, who decided what was tested? | Answer No. 13: Our records do not reveal "who decided what was tested" in the Kennedy assassination case. Interrogatory No. 14: In subjecting evidentiary specimens to neutron activation testing, is it normal to make a full and complete tabulation of the results? In this case, was any such tabulation made? If so, was it complete? Answer No. 14: It is "normal" to make a "tabulation" of the results when subjecting speci- mens to NAA. By "results" I mean the numerical quantitative amount of a chemical element measured in the material examined. The use of the "full and complete" characterization of the -“ "tabulation" is not understood by me. A "tabulation" was made | of the results obtained in the NAA of metal fragments in this’ - —— ee ee ern _ case. This was given to plaintiff and to the best of _my” es knowledge is complete. an . ae , “ _Interrogatory No. 15: In making a neutron activation analysis, is it normal to reach stated conclusions as to whether the various evidentiary specimens are identical or * different in chemical composition? sous "oy ‘Answer No. 15: The conclusion one makes regarding whether or not specimens are "identical or different in chemical composition" is based on the data available from whatever technique or techniques were employed in the examination. In some cases, due to the-“limited size of the material and/or its state of contamination and/or the character of its composition, it is not possible to reach an "identical or different" conclusion. Additionally, the terms used to ,MW 54939 Doold: 32365522 Page 463 Gq —_ a
describe the conclusion reached are the choice of the person making the conclusion and may not necessarily be stated as "identical" or "different." See my answer to interrogatory L(a) -£or a further discussion regarding the conclugions reached concerning elemental analysis of bullet fragments. Interrogatory No. 16: Were any such stated conclusions made with respect to the items of evidence tested by spectrographic or neutron activation analysis in this case? . Answer No. 16: Consistent with my answer to inter- rogatory 15 the answer is yes. Interrogatory No. 17: Were full and complete results of ‘the spectrographic and neutron acti- vation tests given to the Warren Commission? Did the Warren Commission ask for them? . Answer No. 17: In interrogatory 14 I defined | "results" as the numerical quantitative amount of a chemical element measured in the material examined. This definition applied to NAA examinations. An extension of this definition for spectrographic tresvits" would be the relative concentration of a chemical element in the material examined. Using these definitions, the "results of the spec- trographic and neutron activation tests" were not given to the Warren Commission. Based on my review of the records, I am unable to determine if the Warren Commission asked for them. Interrogatory No. 18: Were full and complete stated conclu- sions as to what the tests showed given to the Warren Commission? Did’ the Warren Commission ask for them? Answer No. 18: If by "full and complete stated conclu- sions as to what the tests showed" the plaintiff means our expert opinion as to what the results of the spectrographic examinations and NAA indicated, the answer is yes. Based on my review of the records, I am unable to determine if the Warren Commission asked for them. ~ ll - ., AW 54999 .Dooclid: 32939522 Page 454
Interrogatory No. 19: Was the neutron activation testing . done on any items of evidence in the Kennedy assassination other than the paraffin casts’ and the five Commission Exhibits--CE 399 (Q1), CE 567 (Q2), CE 843 (04, Q5), CE 842 (99), and CE (914) --mentioned in the April 10, 1975, letter from FBI Director Clarence Kelley to Mr. James H.. Lesar? a Answer No. 19: . No. Interrogatory No. 20: If the answer to interrogatory number | 12 is- affirmative, what are the other items of evidence which were subjected to neutron activation testing? Answer No. 20: Assuming plaintiff means to refer to "“interrogatory 19," no answer is necessary. “ Interrogatory No. 21: If the answer to interrogatory number 12 (sic) is negative, why were the following items of evidence not subjected to neutron activation testing: . -. - (a) CE 141, the live round found iin the Mannlicher-Carcano en eee, rifle which allegedly belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald and fired the shots which killed President Kennedy? re (b). the clothing of President Kennedy and Governor “Connally struck by or alleged to have.been struck by bullets? (c) the curbstone on the south side of S. Main Street east of the Triple Underpass which was struck by bullet? ! (ad) the bullet fragment which is FBI Laboratory Numbér Q3? Answer No. 21: (a) Our records do not indicate why CE 141 (98) was not examined by NAA. " (b) Based on my experience and expertise, the reason the clothing of President Kennedy and Governor Connally was not examined by NAA in the areas where a bullet allegedly passed is because NAA is not the method of choice for the determination -~ 12 ~ (HW 54939 Docld:32989522 Page 485 Cee ee ee ar
LW 54999 Dooeld: 32969522 Page 456 =~ - of bullet holes. In 1963, emission spectroscopy was the method of choice for elemental analysis of the borders of ‘holes in garments. ’ .(c) Based on my experience and expertise and“an examination of the notes made regarding the spectrographic analysis of the lead smear on the curbstone, it is clear that the minimal amount of lead smear present on the curbstone was not adequate to conduct an examination by NAA. (d) Records indicate that 03 is a section of bullet jacket devoid of its lead core. Bullet jacket material made of copper, zinc and/or iron is generally unsuitable for examination by NAA unless chemical separations are conducted. The chemical separations’ would necessarily destroy markings on the item of evidence. Emission spectrographic analysis was the method of choice for analysis of bullet jacket material in 1963. Interrogatory No. 22: Under normal procedures would the results of the spectrographic or neutron activation analyses be recorded and verified by someone other than the person conducting the tests? Was such’a procedure followed with respect to the items of evidence tested by these techniques .* in connection with the investigation into President Kennedy's assasSination?. ~ ——— re ema rece] ' Answer No. 22: An examiner often consults with’ another . : -eXaminer concerning his findings in a specific case, but in all likelihood there would be no reason to commit this consultation to record. An examination of records does not indicate that more than one person recorded or verified the results of the individual spectrographic or NAA examinations. Interrogatory No. 23: Was a full and complete comparison made , between the chemical composition of CE 399, the bullet which allegedly wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally and (a) the composition of the . metallic traces on President Kennedy's clothing, (b) the com- position of the metallic traces on Governor Connally's clothing, and (c) the composition of all fragments removed from Governor Conally's body? ~ 13 -
KMW 54999 Doold:32999522 Page 487 Answer No. 23: (a) No. Referring to my answer to interrogatory 1(b), a "full and complete comparison" between the composition of a bullet and the minute traces of metal left at the edges of a hole will not permit the conclusion that the hole was made by a specific bullet. (ob) There were no metallic traces on Governor Connally's clothing. (c) Our records indicate that only one fragment of lead was removed from Governor Connally's body. The answer to this portion of the interrogatory is yes. Interrogatory No. 24: ‘Was a full and complete comparison made between the chemical composition of the bullet fragments recovered from President Kennedy's head and (a) the composition of the sweepings from the windshield, and (b) ; all five fragments found in the car during two different searches? Answer No. 24: (a) Yes, to the extent that the specimens were of adequate size and condition for compositional analysis. (b) Our records indicate that the metal fragments recovered from President. Kennedy's head were lead and that the five frag- - ee anne ments found in the car consisted of a portion of-a jacketed ‘bullet (core and jacket), a bullet jacket and three lead fragments. It is apparent from these records that a compositional comparison was made where appropriate. Interrogatory No. 25: Was a full and complete comparison made between the chemical composition of CE 399, the bullet which allegedly wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally and (a) the composition of CF 141, the bullet found in the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and (b) all other bullet fragments? Answer No. 25: (a) No.
Y (b) No. Although comparisons were made, CE 399 (Q1) ‘was not compared with all other bullet fragments. e - : . e of « KILTY Lal Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D. C. pad da Ls Subscribed and Sworn to before me this of ° DO A ee a we7. Notary Public My commission expires - GY-50 - ZS . _ et meee me NE -~ 15 - [| MW 54999 Doold: 33989522 Page 488
DEPARTMENT CasUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU 0 ESTIGATION (Rev. 8/25/76) INTERNAL ROUTING?ACTION SLIP Tol, BLDG. | ROOM NAME/TITLE/ORGANIZATION _|¥0| BLDG. | ROOM | | SEH | 7162 Director J 1142! Mr. Farrington ___ JEH [7142 | Associate Director _ ¢ Mr. Hotis |_JEH Assistant to the Director - Adm. Mr. Daly NAME/TITLE/ORGANIZATION ‘_JEH iAssistant to the Director - Inv, | « JEH | 7326 | Mr. Donahue t JEH identification Division 3646 Mr. Mogen i Quanti 0 ‘training Division JEH 7826 i JEH {6012 Finance and Personnel Division H Quanti¢o JEH | 5829 Mr. Olmert Mr. Donelan Records Management Division Intelligence Division Miss Ross JEH {7125 ‘Office of Planning and Evaluation 4336C_; Records General Investigative Division JEH [3090 Laboratory Division 1 JEH |7159 External Affairs Division 3012 ‘Special Investigative Division 6212 JEH | JEH Miss Murphy i Mr. Ms. . 1B327 {. Mail Room JEH 6658 Inspection Division Legal Counsel Division ‘Administrative Services Division Corres. Review JEH 6247 Teletype Room JeH |1535B [ar. Brownfield | Miss lar wane JEH {7825 Ime. Maimfeldt Malmfeldt 5431 Mr. Powers | | yay ama 3 Afar Lee Be ohn AAG ee O L0G (1 NECESSARY ACTION (2SEE REMARKS ON REVERSE O FILE [1 COORDINATE (1 MAKE COPIES (NO. ) O SEEME CO PER INQUIRY O RETURN (BY ) Ol CALL ME C_ INFORMATION FROM ‘ Com, FORM DOJ-359A 8-1-74 var Nw 34999 Docld: 32989522 Page 469
‘ } ‘ hast been ripute by Bb PBL, we Head b 2 tinct ayo AM Sf Boevtnther Yo UF 2b, | hh oF gets toed Lie a get sted x AL wtheel / S on hos ff Lv Cael Ln ote a Bb mibitet of Airis 0 fava ba polis conctrstof, a heletg P Meceral ponte Condirneng fo - a pe yA sfecadir ¢ Zuetl ¢ tn Lie (ew OZZZ Lover of ye LE) andes: ey oi HB vy ~ eA as 2” az ILE satuk, ps apeict ak Lo we - on -_ Zs igo WH LALA In fA LLL " thy A LEE Le bu Lo 4 ad gothe Ler oh Ba Lio ficeks egegsehe hee, £ lite Kom, iG Lean oon bynes, Le A am conghiled Bf Hes ¢& ” | ered t(HTe keine bye ee CIN? Keren (oy hep y oA Lin oe’ CGE" e f4999 Doold: 329895292 Page 494
e @ “ 1 epost Hal Wh ternlel be once baling @ eve HA mypllader: uncencetel  Loestoe bly. ad 1 fou acl dents Ae ES / worl, ancl gor lasts mlb nde 4b 1 poco qld pose Lb crcl ia, L i. he hb bh yA COG. COPE Cel C0 eZ le “ Lge Like of aad obeck wth ~ 4 apt: Sef tolled , 2 pus Leche Lili h oanttrevle “eng iheod ) FA lavlens Lfacty ith, a= y Cote Cie etn : / | of Us Fiat, sath, Han mb thew whack Letal ig ete) eee Lopegi/d p Acthor acral ps cna , f° 7 Le Wey, tases) ces for EO tevttin.f weotlaats of Wo focus? hga me chefs fer tort ws wh Ke ansivers, sath, Hon Hep who como hy Me teamenatlomo ¢ LO Bet LL FOIA ? hw, te’ * Lee fh Lo. Wa 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page 492
poe Yager) 2 BE ee A ——_ / pavteca LE Avan at ackbite of Sle Of Lodles CT, Rieweflo ag tt Calf ete tl Aewectln a x Fe Lo ) oa wee —s Lee p the, wos, ; Va Len 4: aut pe Cott LA. A ZO ACLAE DART 7 pu or fuer : Bs. va LE a; fe, COLCA, MAY C3 “ a tad Lor tf te LLG th . . io “4, bo a UPL oy, LE hot Lor o Au oe Ww CU tI 4 Keo as Le . Gow AH hg hat of oGjeraader of Meas - herly, ? kien 2 as | ary Lote EL. slant Lhe ¢ Gor then hy 2 o | ff f wtitten & feu Los yh Ae te LLIN Cw fo a: ‘ A Lb. 54999 Doocld: 32989522 Page 493 ; |
a iw Ge gece berin Uftrr, “zh a “a tb ae MV an “we fear t1 A Lad /, Lea? feud) ro Goll cok tet Blom a coil” of es Fb) Ctecieets, Maps on, — es er dsintls vette actet Llin vx Hew a sot, to hb 4 (fos C0 lect t ec€he ay ° a Toe, ee L sévw - KY) Abeer , heath S Lhe A Jip ceotbiiptes (A S cbihe of sevllace at) fo Ko Phiwt wnt who convhided Ue (ath i yee bat aphol be he FOIA ep oh, Aes ly Z Mh Fo aL VA Ley, Mary J. bertogy 0 bertlhean K fel nan Jet biow thy Le FE) ull dy Ke tant Aegarobe i“ ape of A A le. Lay eX, 6 a AAC RCE “Lf Aye Le eee ‘b. Le C4 ena et’ Coe tly 54999 Doold: 32989522 Page 494 |
aad tli po 4, C2862 2 A Libel Ze 26 Ze fe foam, Lita picks tot relly, Liter Ltedt, LEE aE a Kaley , ath me Lode por LOLLLDLOD a6 Ps LEV eg C5 OD, ted a bn pecrteng yged) lercdery » + Za FE / stl Leo tle tb 5 a ollg c uf savthc ber “4 7 ho oe ho allt foals, un Lhe cuscide if Eka ie kM ALT Ze se eee 4 pode Lo Pe bie, 4& a ol 1 - Ew Me ies ACCEL. ely | fo “< CrnixtheQttr And) AUTIA Cre pelle . Cc fic yd a Ae ». .. Docld: 32989522 Page 495 foe
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA eeevetrtegeeesveeeoeeoveneeeeeteoerweeeeevesese Pond eo ce 469 HAROLD WEISBERG, et @8 0 Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action No. 75-226 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and U.S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVEL~ OPMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendants ° O80 @f 60 40 848 0 95 Of 66 08 8e Ce 89 eeecetevoeopeoean tee eeseeovrestseeeaeezeoevreeevnet eee REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, |[plaintif£ requests that within 30 days the defendant United. States [Department .of Justice produce and permit plaintiff to make copies of the following documents: 1. All correspondence, notes, mMeMOS , routing slips, or any other form of record pertaining to any communications, whether written, telephonic, or oral, exchanged in regard to spectrographic or neutron activation anlayses(or any other scientific tests per- - ae “ ne A er a en formed _on items of evidence) in ‘the assassination of President Tre mire ete mt re were, o : vs . . . . Kennedy. jzhis should include all such correspondence or communica- tions exchanged with respect to any such tests. which were discussed ™~ yt ' or contemplated but not actually carried out.—,” 2. All correspondence, notes, memos, routing Slips, or any other form of record pertaining to plaintiff's 1966, 1970, and 1974 requests for the results of the spectrographic and/or neutron acti- @ ae 9989599 Page 496 ; a ae Af Tt teeta dace emer ta nn an ee ee ee : eerste ORR AeA tae NDecneA ete SP han ph esnpsrnefernssrnrereapcenrt ree ne ‘ v
vation analyses conducted on items of evidence in the assassination ~ of President Kennedy, \including any such records which reflect the defendant's efforts to ascertain what records it has which come within the scope of plaintiff's request and any efforts it made to determine what tests were actually conducted. 3. Any rules, regulations, procedures, or guidelines which jtpertain to or govern spectrographic and neutron activation testing. ’ 4, ‘Any instructions, directives, or memorandums issued with - ee respect to the testing of items of evidence in the assassination of ; President Kennedy by spectrographic or neutron activation analysis “Uno ul A | or other scientific means. GAMES HIRAM LESAR 1231 Fourth Street, S. W. ‘' Washington, D. C. 20024 - Attorney for Plaintiff _. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘I hereby certify that I have this 12th day of August, 1976, Mailed a copy of the foregoing Request for Production of Documents by Defendant United States Department of Justice to Assistant United States Attorney Michael Ryan, Room 3421,. United States Court Loe I Woe vA 0 LAT le JAMES HIRAM LESAR td house, Washington, D. C. 20001. f2889522 Page 497
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT lu FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 7 y s ca Mas ee We tre ms rs Fs # HAROLD WEISBERG, Plaintif€, WER ae ain v. Civil Action No. 75-226 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., . . serine ererenceeennnnes orn enemies per ne . ) ) ) ) ). ° ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. i“, i lhe ic iD OCT -- 5 4977 ORDER JAMES &.-NAVEY, Cler! This matter having come before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff's opposition thereto, and it appearing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), it is, by the Court this if day of October, 1977, ORDERED, that the plaintiff's motion for leave to file opposition out of time is granted; and it is further ORDERED, thet the defendants' motion for summary judgment be, and. hereby is, granted. Sint John H. Pratt mited States District Judge Sy ew Sem ere aa on coe ene Reser a Mee Saar SOT OCONEE Ome er a 8 a Rt ee en ew er nw A ae Oe TE MW 34939 Do ia: 32580802 Page 495 ae | _ — = oe ~ a ae ee ae CFG GPT IOS Wh a EOI TE GI ROE OT TS a ae
é ® UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAROLD WEISBERG, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 75-226 Vv. U. S. DEPARTYNENT OF JUSTICE et al., - 7 | | { | Defendants. - i lee i D | OCT ~ 5 1977 | | , : | | | MEMORANDUM OPINION ‘AMES F. DAVEY, Clert This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has brought suit under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") to obtain materials relating to scientific and ballistics tests alleged to have been performed on items of evidence in the assassination of eee rere renee Reems ee Hee A eg Ee ee RAT President John F. Kennedy. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (Supp. V 1975). The defendants are the United States Department of Justice, to which plaintiff has directed his requests for laboratory records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Energy Research and Development Adminis~ tration ("ERDA"), to which plaintiff has directed requests for records of . 1/ the Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC"), ERDA's predecessor agency. i/ ERDA's responses to plaintiff's interrogatories indicate that the AEC's role in the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy was limited to making its reactor facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, available for FBI tests on assassination evidence. See generally Defendant ERDA's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of "nterrogatories. Plaintiff apparently does not dispute this po .t; the only respect in which either ERDA or AEC figure in his recent submissions relates to the FBI's alleged failure to follow up on an AEC official's recom- mendations that certain tests be conducted. See Affidavit of Harold Weisberg, at 16; Letter from Dr. Paul C. Aebersold, Director, Division of Isotopes Development, United States Atomic Energy Commission, to Herbert J. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice (December 11, 1963). The AEC recommendations were conveyed to the FBI by counsel for the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (Warren Commission). Letter From J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, to J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, (January 7, 1964). In its reply, the FBI pointed out that it was ‘ already "well-acquainted" with the techniques propounded by the AEC, and that arrangements for such testing already were under way. Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin (January 10, 1964). There is no indication that the FBI followed the AEC recommendations to the letter; indeed, the FBI special agent who conducted the type of testing in question appears to have resented the AEC recommendation as interfering in the FBI's investigation. See Deposition of John F. i 54999 Bog di S298@a? iT aghege aS5 67 oA, _ t
RHEE DRE BI LEA LFNTE RACHEL LD NOME TEI ia . 7 . wa “ . wey _-sumemaaptarrwiomsouanns £6: SS ae OS NL I CE OY ~2- Although the Government's submissions to the plaintiff have been voluminous, plaintiff maintains that much of what he has received was unsought, and that much of what he has sought has not been tendered to him. The Government's position, on the other hand, remains, first, that it has complied fully with plaintiff's requests’as to materials extant, and second, that it cannot possibly comply with the remaining requests because the- ’ materials sought do not exist. In moving for summary judgment, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact impedes its right to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Bloomgarden v. Coyer, 156 U.S. App. D.C. 109, 479 F.2d 201, 208 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Although mere assertions in the pleadings will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment, Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1950), matters'of fact are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp., 151 U.S. App. D.C. 269, 466 F.2d 440, 442 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Semaan v. Mumford, 118 I. BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION. Plaintiff's initial quest for scientific investigatory data related to the assassination of President Kennedy was frustrated in the courts on the ground that the data sought lay within the purview of FOIA exemption seven, covering investigative matter. Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 160 U.S. App. D.C. 71, 489 F.2d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (en banc), Reese ee es aS See cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993 (1974); see Act of June 5, 1967, Pub. L. No. | ' | | | | | | | j U.S. App. D.C. 282, 335 F.2d 704, 705 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1964). 90-23, § 1, 81 Stat. 54 (current version at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (Supp. V 1975)). Congress subsequently narrowed the scope of exemption seven, and plaintiff renewed his requests. Act of Nov. 21, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-502, | § 2, 88 Stat. 1563, amending 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (1970). On July 15, 1975, a orn ne ine re nr gr ee A 9s ce en ne ae ne A A this Court dismissed the action as moot, and plaintiff took an appeal. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia oe: os nner Nw 34939 Do a: 32989522 Page 500
© . ~3- eevee hea get ate erat SL EERE eo Circuit reversed, and remanded for further proceedings. Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, 177 U.S. App. D.C. 161, 543 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The Court of Appeals identified five categories of investiga~ tive tests as to which plaintiff had made demands "which raise material factual questions still in dispute." Id. at 163, 543 F.2d at 310. As the Court of Appeals noted, however, there remain other categories of tests; such as the microscopic examinations performed on certain items of evidence, as to which plaintiff asserts his requests have not evoked satisfactory response. Id. at 164, 543 F.2d at 311. These categories, as well as the five enumerated in the Court of Appeals opinion, must figure in considera~ . errr oe eres reenter nd teem a serene tn eee RE te che re 8 Seren eet ne Re re NR tion of the motion for summary judgment. In addition to identifying several of the factual areas to be explored on remand, the Court of Appeals specified an exploratory technique, namely the taking of the testimony, by deposition or otherwise, with an opportunity for cross-examination in any case, of the SSE individuals who actually conducted the tests, the results of which plainti££ ‘ has requested. Id. at 163, 164, 543 F.2d at 310, 311. In February and March, 1977, plaintiff took the depositions of four former and present employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory, all of whom worked directly with evidence associated with the assassination. The four are Robert A. Frazier, employed as a special agent in the laboratory's firearms and toolmarks unit during the investigation of the assassination, and retired from the FBI as of April 1975; John F. Gallagher, assigned to the laboratory's spectrographic unit during the investigation, and retired as of January 1975; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, laboratory between 1955 and 1975, when he retired from the Bureau; and 9 seem oe ere neces ren 9 ere em ene mm en 0 ar a ie TO Cortlandt Cunningham, formerly a special agent supervisor in the firearms. assigned as a documents examiner and photographic specialist for the | | ‘and toolmarks unit during the investigation, and presently chief of the 1 ren errr unit. Frazier and Cunningham were deposed February 24, 1977, and Gallagher and Shaneyfelt were deposed March 28, 1977. At each deposition save that ———----—-—__. | of former Special Agent Gallagher, examination was by plaintiff's counsel ae ee, MW 54999 Dogid: 32989522 Page 501
Nw 54999 Do flci: e | ® -4- ‘only, with occasionally interposed objections from counsel for the defendants. At a hearing March 30, 1977, counsel for plaintiff indicated that no further depositions of FBI employees who had participated in the 2/ . Bureau's investigation were planned. Weisberg v. United States Department of Justice, No. 75-226, Tr. at 4 (D.D.C., March 30, 1977). These representa~ tions controvert the suggestion in an affidavit of the plaintiff that "Tt]his Court refused me the depositions my counsel and I consider necessary to meet what I regard as the mandate of the court of appeals. . ." Affidavit of Harold Weisberg { 165, at 34 (July 28, 1977) [hereinafter “Weisberg Affidavit"]. Read broadly, the mandate of the Court of Appeals was to resolve whether the data sought exist on "the basis of the best available evidence, i.e., the witnesses who had personal knowledge of events at the time the investigation was made." 177 U.S. App. D.C. at 164, 543 F.2d at 311. Plaintiff has not sought to depose any such witness other than the four whose depositions were taken. To borrow the metaphor employed by the Court of Appeals in its opinion above, the legal engine of cross— examination has done its work on plaintiff's behalf with respect to witnesses with direct knowledge of the FBI investigation into the President's assassi- nation. 177 U.S. App. D.C. at 164, 543 F.2d at 311. The issue devolves to what the evidence adduced in the four depositions establishes, and thence to whether there now remains a genuine issue as to whether the Government has complied with the strictures of the FOTIA. II. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED. The testimony of a . four deponents related not only to specific pieces of assassination evidence and the tests performed, or not performed, upon them, but also to the procedures, and occasionally lack of procedures, employed in those sections of the FBI laboratory with which the deponents 2/ Counsel had previously indicated he planned to depose plaintiff, an employee of the National Archives, which has custody of the evidence involved, and an FBI special agent who had not parti- cipated in the investigation but whose affidavit had constituted part of the Government's response to plaintiff's request. S25989522 Page 502
| NW 54999 q Snestyeyiruiniennyap=yiniionnypetepen/iarerergeerases eee ee age et PE ef r  SAt ~ SS eS ate terre antemeressrapaanenieaeCareatraa vcdecsomone Page 503 -5- were familiar. These laboratory procedures bear significantly on the question whether much of the material plaintiff seeks exists. Laboratory Procedures. The laboratory's Scientific Analysis Section,was known at the time of the investigation as the Physics and 4 , Chemistry Section: then, as now, the section comprised several disparate units, including the firearms and toolmarks unit, and the spectrographic unit, which in 1963-64 was responsible for both emissions spectrography and neutron activation analysis. Cunningham Deposition, at 4-5. During the investigation of the Presidential assassination, investigating agencies in the field--the Dallas Police Department, the Secret Service, and the FBI--forwarded the evidence to the FBI laboratory, in some instances directly to the firearms and toolmarks unit. Frazier Deposition, at 5, 7-8; Cunningham Deposition, at 8. Ordinarily, the evidence would be accompanied by a statement of the matters sought to be ascertained through laboratory testing, as, for example, the presence of gunpowder on a piece of evidence. Frazier Deposition, at 6, 8. The decision as to the specific tests to be conducted, however, was made within the laboratory. Id. at 8-9; Cunningham Deposition, at 8-9; Gallagher Deposition, at 26-27. The decisionmaking process as to which tests would be appropriate apparently was highly informal: in some cases, Frazier, the Laboratory examiner with direct responsibility for the Physics and Chemistry Section'’s efforts in the investigation, conferred with his superiors on the tests to be performed, Cunningham Deposition, at 8-9, and in others, he and the individual examiners who would conduct ie tests conferred on which tests to perform. Frazier Deposition, at 8; Gallagher Deposition, at 27. In still other instances, if the individual examiner determined that tests outside his domain were called for, he and his supervisor (Frazier, in most cases) would approach examiners in the other units with jurisdiction over the requisite type of testing. Cunningham Deposition, at 10; Frazier Deposition, at 8~9; Shaneyfelt Deposition, at 14. Only rarely were these conferences on tests to be performed recorded in comminications between the conferees, re aren eee
| | | | _ MW 34939 Dod a:32969522 Page 504 “step of noting down the readings and done the tabulations in his head. ‘Gallagher Deposition, at 61-62. He indicated later that he did not report ~6- or in notes made by one of them. Cunningham Deposition, at 10; Frazier Deposition, at 8-9; Gallagher Deposition, at 27-28. The tests determined to be appropriate for a given item of physical evidence typically were conducted by examiners working individually, or under the direct supervision of the individual examiner. Cunningham Deposition, at 10; Frazier Deposition, at 10. Three examiners in the firearms and toolmarks unit collaborated on the testing within that unit, all three having been present during all tests conducted by the unit on assassination evidence, save a velocity test. Cunningham Deposition, at 53. Several examiners tested items of evidence in the spectrography unit, although they appear to have worked separately. Gallagher Deposition, at 7, 35-37. Just as there was no established procedure for deciding which tests were to be performed on a particular item of evidence, there was no requirement that test results be expressed in a particular format, or expressed at all if the results were insignificant. In most instances, the examiner performing a test took notes during the testing. Cunningham Deposition, at 11; Frazier Deposition, at 10; Gallagher Deposition, at 38. However, all deponents testified to not having made notes on results they deemed insignificant or insufficiently reliable. Cunningham, for example, testified to his practice of making notes on a weapon's operating condition only if the weapon was not in normal working order. Cunningham Deposition, at 21. Gallagher explained the absence of observation data in a neutron activation analysis folder by suggesting that he might have skipped the a thirty percent variation in primer residue data between shells because he did not consider the variation significant. Id. at 114. Shaneyfelt testified that he had not submitted a report on the four frames allegedly spliced out of the Zapruder film of the assassination because the film print from which he had worked was complete. Shaneyfelt Deposition, at 21.
| | ~7- What an examiner did with test results likewise varied. In many instances, the examiner dictated a report on the tests conducted, either for use on its own or for incorporation in a more comprehensive report prepared by the examiner's superior. Frazier Deposition, at 11; Gallagher Deposition, Tt 38. Gallagher, however, indicated that he occasionally submitted data directly to Special Agent Frazier who transmuted the figures into prose. Gallagher Deposition, at 38. When the examiner himself pre- pared the report, he did not always include in it alli the results obtained, as when the testing was done for "background purposes," Gallagher Deposi- tion, at 57; when flaws in the testing itself cast the results in doubt, see id. at 71, or when the results would simply not be of value, in the examiner's judgment. Cunningham Deposition, at 47. In some instances, the examiner's failure to make a report is unexplained. See Cunningham Deposition, at 33, 53; Gallagher Deposition, at 73-74. After the report was prepared, one copy went into FBI files, another went to the “original contributor" of the item of evidence on which the report was based (generally the FBI's Dallas field office), and a third went to the examiner or examiners responsible, for them to retain informally with their notes of the tests. Cunningham Deposition, at 11-12, 17; Frazier Deposition, at 12, 15; Gallagher Depositdon;,; at 86-87. Whether the Warren Commission received the actual reports, and how the reports the Commission received were transmitted, varied widely. Former Special Agent Frazier recalled the "mechani.s" of the process as being, first, that the laboratory forwarded the report to the Dallas field office; next, that the Dallas office incorporated the report into its report to the Commission, and finally, that the latter report was transmitted to the Commission. Frazier Deposition, at 19-20. In practice, however, there appears to have been substantial, continuing and direct contact between laboratory personnel and the Commission. Cunningham Deposition, at 49-50; Frazier Deposition, at 20-21; Shaneyfelt Deposition, at 8. Frazier indicated that several laboratory employees, whose identities he could not recall, served as 132959522 _ Page 505 ae ORT PUTIETTS PS eee CMe CET RIOA POMRT OO PERON ITEMS CECI DENE Ce NT RT ET ON EA, Ar Famed PHD RE OR” Te dbo FAP PRN AT UATE PAM ONIN OS a vende CU EMITRLOd AA OAT seen enter Marne eens ee areienenes ae: ern en er ees tener heen ent oe et emer 6 aan grceenecnet nee: oo any —.
= SS Ca TN TT ET ° y . ae eee a nore caren ree See apace ee Ne TNR A OI I ee - ey ” -8- liaison between the laboratory and the Commission. Frazier Deposition, at 20. Cunningham stated that he "generated some correspondence” with the Commission every day during the laboratory's participation in the investi- gation. Cunningham Deposition, at 51. Shaneyfelt indicated that his reports went to the Commission via his section chief, and that he testified to the Commission, either live or by deposition, on all examinations he conducted. Shaneyfelt Deposition, at 8-9. In his affidavit of May 13, 1965, John W. Kilty, special agent assigned to the FBI laboratory in a supervisory capacity, . stated that plaintiff had been told that all final FBI laboratory reports . in the pertinent categories of testing had been furnished to the Commission. However , there apparently was no monitoring system known to deponents to log the transfer of final reports to the Commission, and no custodian within the laboratory to collect final laboratory reports. Frazier Deposition, at 68. It is clear, on the other hand, that not all examiners' observation notes went to the Commission, the rule being that examiners retained their notéss: except when the supervisor prepared a report directly from the notes. Cunningham Deposition, at 47, 52-53; Frazier Deposition, at 15; see Gallagher Deposition, at 73, 107. One instance of the latter occurred when Frazier used Gallagher's worksheets to prepare a report on testing of a bullet fragment; both the worksheets and the report went to the Commission, though only Frazier appeared before the Commission. Frazier Deposition, at 42-44; Gallagher Deposition, at 82, 84. Finally, neither observation notes, worksheets, nor final reports were distributed among units within the laboratory, absent a specific reason. Cunningham Deposition, at 12~13; Frazier Deposition, at 15, 18. Former Special Agent Gallagher testified that even within the spectrographic unit one examiner's report on testing would not necessarily, or even customarily, have been circulated among the other examiners in the same unit. Gallagher Deposition, at 7-8. An examiner who performed tests on a particular item of evidence thus might be unaware whether other units within the laboratory had performed other tests on the same item. E.g. Cunningham Deposition, at 22-23; Gallagher Deposition, at 6-7, 26; Shaneyfelt Deposition, at 16. MW 54999 Do@id:329895292 Page 506 | |
2 oh AYE Reet eee 3 . ry - -9— Tests Performed on Assassination Evidence. The Court of Appeals opinion remanding this case for further consideration and testimony adverts to five areas of continuing factual dispute [177 U.S. App. D.C. at 163-64, 543 F.2d at 310-11]: (1) Fingl reports of spectrographic: analyses; (2) Reports on neutron activation analyses of bullet fragments; (3) Raw data of spectrographic and neutron activation analysis tests; (4) Neutron activation analysis of clothing; and (5) Emissions spectroscopy data and reports Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment identi- fies nine specific areas of testing, encompassed within the five areas enumerated by the Court of Appeals, in which plaintiff asserts the evidence shows tests should have been, or were, conducted, yet concerning which plaintiff has received no mat.rials. These areas are: (1) Neutron activation analysis of clothing, Opp., at 7-8; (2) Neutron activation analysis of windshield scrapings, Opp., - at 8-9; (3) Neutron activation analysis of Q3, a bullet fragment dis-— covered beside the right front seat of the Presidential limousine, Opp., at 93 (4) Print-outs for neutron activation analysis of Q3 and other specimens, Opp., at 9; (5) Testing of the live round found chamberedin the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle determined to have been the murder weapon, and comparison of said live round with shells found at the scene, Opp., at 9-103 3/ The distinction between spectroscopic analysis and spectrographic analysis was not observed in deposition testimony and the pleadings. Hence, discussion of spectrography herein should be deemed to encompass spectroscopy where appropriate. NW 34999 Doogd: 32989522 Page 507
Nw 34939 Dos 7 | , | | | eters | -10- (6) Spectrographic testing of the curbstone supposed to have been struck by a bullet, a bullet fragment or fragments, or other airborne debris during the moments of the assassination, Opp., at 10; (7) Testing of the bullet holes below the collar button of the shirt President Kennedy was wearing when he was shot, Opp., at 10; (8) A "formal report" prepared by Frazier on the basis of Gallagher's comparison of windshield scrapings with other bullet matter, and alluded to in an exchange between Commission counsel and Frazier during Frazier's testimony before the Commission, OPP.» at 10-11; and (9) Report on neutron activation testing, Opp., at ll. a As these differently organized catalogs of potential factual issues indicate, there are numerous ways of approaching the factual aspects of this case for the purpose of determining whether they engender issues of sufficient magnitude to defeat the motion for summary judgment. What follows is an amalgam or combination of the Court of Appeals' and plaintiff's approaches, in that this discussion commences with general observations on firearms testing, spectrography, and neutron activation analysis, with particular emphasis on each technique's capabilities and limitations, and proceeds to consideration of testing on specific items of evidence. It should be stressed that the question throughout is not whether tests ought to have been made, or even whether tests that actually were made should have culminated in the preparation of reports, but simply whether there is any genuine issue as to the existence of the reports and other materials plaintiff Weisberg seeks. 4/ Plaintiff does not indicate which item of evidence is the subject of the allegedly extant report; the reference will be construed hereafter as applying both to the windshield residues discussed in the preceding paragraph of the Opposition, and to the body of assassination evidence a a whole. pic: 32989522 Page 506 eee ere er napennamennteer terran ace techy ame santa ene ad REE = EER A ee eo OE ER EE ap oR ret mere ne ee ee eee sn ee : < : - oo eee : a
~L1-+ Firearms Identification. Special Agent Cunningham's work with the firearms and toolmarks unit of the laboratory's Scientific Analysis Section has included the examination of firearms and bullets to determine the source of particular bullets. Cunningham testified that the process commences with the marking, weighing, and identification of the slug as to type and characteristics. Cunningham Deposition, at 18-19. The bullet purposes of identifying the source of the bullet. Id. at 19-20. If a weapon believed to be the source of the bullet is on hand, as was the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the Presidential assassination, it, too, is examined. Id. at 20-22. The examiner then fires the weapon using ammunition ‘as similar as possible to the bullet under analysis. Id. at 25. The "evidence bullet" and the test bullet then are viewed simultaneously under a comparison microscope. Id. Any of three conclusions is possible: identification, indicating that the bullet under study was fired from the weapon in question, and no other; non-identification, indicating that the general rifling characteristics of the two bullets vary to the degree suf- ficient to exclude the weapon as the source of the bullet under analysis; ' indicating that the general characteristics are and "no conclusion,’ similar, but that the individual markings are either different or lacking. | | | | is examined microscopically for rifling marks that might be useful for | | | | ; Spectrography. Former Special Agent Gallagher was a specialist in | both spectrographic examination and neutron activation analysis. In spectrographic analysis, samples are either sparked or burned; the results show up on spectrographic plates from which the examiner derives composition | data. Gallagher Deposition, at 37-38. Spectrographic examination will | elicit information on a range of elements, though specific readings in | multiple tests of the same item of evidence may vary as a consequence of | the technique's relative insensitivity, inherent testing error, and | compositional differences between different portions of the object under analysis. Id. at 41-42, 54, 58-60. Although less sensitive than neutron | MW 54959 podiass2s00s02 Page 505 rere en ee teen meee ener te ree oe see te Settee oa ere nen regen eer tener eres eee se tent err steer etna en SRE A Ee EE eS eA Ga NEE Het 2 ” en ree re RS Th TR cs sinter ee neva tneertte-t tne mime sour ert ertrememnterawren amumaenenntir enya riutty enone parersanireytanranienn Saapegoterenaiee naan
t oo pamemeanuoelna: fake en davon: Neco ARDS s wok AT VOLS A EATER ACMI ae Mr DOLM Ladd TAD hae GT eR TG OD Mae Bl RISE Netah tr how Sad Mw eked dbed | wat BAF Franson haat A Rieke bieehBal the ieee ad 6 , Boe icon t . ¥ : toe . 7 t -12- activation analysis, spectrographic testing appears to have been much more abundantly used in the examination of evidence, apparently because of the limitations inherent in neutron activation analysis. S vation analysis conducted in connection with the investigation into the Neutron Activation Analysis. In 1964, during the neutron acti-- assassination of President Kennedy, neutron activation analysis was rela~ tively in an infant state, particularly so far as the equipment was con- cerned. .Id. at 115. Even so, it was a far more sensitive technique for measuring the presence of certain elements in samples than spectrography: it was about twice as sensitive with respect to antimony, barium and other elements present in items of the assassination evidence, and up to a thousand times as sensitive with respect to other elements. Id. at 116. ‘Its limitations, however, precluded its use on many items of assassination evidence, and vitiated the results of some tests that were performed on a —- ene cece a emcees eee encenreren et ta cae Same aaa Ae meme en4 ome rotamer tenet Samereanemnnenreneny items. Id. at 50-51, 92. One such limitation was that only a handful of elements were discernible through neutron activation analysis. id. at 42. Another was that certain elements, such as sodium and copper, showed up so prominently in neutron activation analysis results as to obscure others. Id. at 51, 74. Thus, items of evidence composed largely of copper, such as copper bullet jackets, were not subjected to neutron activation analysis. up in neutron activation analysis. Id. at 109. On behalf of the FBI laboratory, Gallagher conducted neutron activation analysis on items of assassination evidence at the reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Gallagher Deposition, at 64. The paraffin lifts taken from Lee Harvey Oswald were tested shortly after er ee a ne NT ON Oe ON OE ee the assassination, but other items were not tested at Oak Ridge until May 1964. Id. at 63, 65. When plaintiff's counsel asked him to explain the delay with respect to other items, Gallagher pointed out that the FBI's access to the reactor was limited, and that the paraffin lifts were tested ‘ Id. at 74-75, 97, 98-99. By the same token, however, lead does not show ~~ eal: 32969522 Page 510 ST Nw 34939 Do L
Nw 34939 ee Page S11 ~ iH - ~ se a? é ® ~13- early because they were tested solely by neutron activitation analysis, whereas bullet samples could be tested by spectrography as well. Id. at 65. Two additional observations on both spectrographic examination and neutron Sctivation analysis should be made in response to points raised in plaintiff Weisberg's affidavit. First, plaintiff asserts that none of the reports he has been furnished alludes to microscopic examination, which both Cunningham and Gallagher testified they frequently conducted. Weisberg Affidavit, at 32; Cunningham Deposition, 18-19; Gallagher Depo- sition, at 31. Gallagher's explanation was that microscopic examination, at least within the FBI laboratory, is so widely accepted as a preliminary to spectrographic and other tests as not to be worth noting in a report. Gallagher Deposition, at 107. That, in plaintiff's words, "there is not a word in a single report" about microscopic examination is entirely consistent with Gallagher's statement that FBI laboratory practice was to omit veference to microscopic examination. The second point raised by plaintiff is that the FBI laboratory reports contain "no statement of positive proof in the comparisons" of different items of evidence; "[t]here is only the meaningless description of 'similar.'" Weisberg Affidavit, at 8. Here, too, the deposition testimony reveals the plaintiff to be under a misapprehension, stemming from ignorance not of FBI laboratory practice in this instance, b of the inherent limitations of FBI examina- | technique than spectrography, frequently will not enable bullet fragments, for example, to be positively’identified as having come from a particular builet. Cunningham Deposition, at 45-48; Gallagher Deposition, at 97-98, Neither will it be possible in many instances to exclude a fragment as having come from a given bullet, as when compositional variances are-not suffi- ciently great to indicate different sources rather than fluctuations in composition within the bullet. Gallagher Deposition, at 102-05. tion techniques. Even neutron activation analysis, a much more sophisticated { Fis Sh Page nclll > = i, Re
~14- CE # 399: The "Pristine Bullet."' The Warren Commission con- cluded that Commission Exhibit 399, one of the bullets fired at the Presidential motorcade that day, had passed through the President's neck, and struck successively Governor Connally's chest, wrist, and thigh, ending its j@urney without substantial visible damage to itself. Plaintiff's counsel directed numerous questions to both Cunningham and Frazier on how the slug could have inflicted so much damage without itself sustaining damage. Cunningham Deposition, at 34-37; Frazier Deposition, at 24-28, 31-33. Although plaintiff's line of questioning is, at best, doubtfully relevant to the question whether plaintiff has received all material on CE 399, plaintiff has devoted considerable discussion to the physical state of CE 399. Weisberg Affidavit, at 44~48. Cunningham was asked whether he would expect a bullet alleged to have inflicted the damage attributed to CE 399 to emerge as unscathed as CE 399. Cunningham Deposi~ tion, at 35. Cunningham pointed out that a relatively heavy bullet with a slow muzzle velocity normally is less likely to fragment upon impact than lighter, faster slugs, and that the damage imputed to CE 399 and its out~ wardly pristine condition were not inconsistent. Id. at 36-37. Frazier, who with Cunningham and one other had performed the ballistics tests on assassination evidence, observed that CE 399 had flattened slightly during its journey and might have extruded a significant amount of lead, in the form of fragments, from its base. Frazier Deposition, at 26-27, 32, 38-39. The remainder of plaintiff's assertions regarding CE 399 concern tests he claims ought to have been performed, such as comparison of CE 399 with core fragments. Weisberg Affidavit, at 15, 16. Gallagher indicated that he indeed had made such comparisons, but that aside from the spectro- graphic worksheets which formed the basis of Frazier's November 23, 1963 report, he prepared no reports on the comparison under spectrography or neutron activation analysis. Gallagher Deposition, at 26, 73-74. Gallagher indicated also that a directive to preserve CE 399 "for posterity" precluded his testing different portions of the bullet for composition, ite eearemegce mena etl eteereenste ieee Matra ememe ab Temes re emia eee se Ree ty ae en ren er yee onan pe oo ees 0 oe rN ei Se ee ny enn rt tn bert .
@ @ -15- | t aid. at 57, though he ran multiple tests on the samples he was permitted to remove. Id. at 59-60. Apart from plaintiff's allegations, there is and neutron activation techniques, were prepared other than those furnished a ne ett eee ete ae ed es oe ee tet Ren men | nothing to suggest that any comparative test reports, by spectrographic | to plaintite? That such tests should have been made is not relevant, even if true. i The first report disseminated by the FBI laboratory took the form ‘sof a letter dated November 23, 1963, to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. mee eeure ie eee LA eene Aten eee eee Sener Gallagher Exh. 5. Portions of this letter indicate that CE 399 [referred to in the letter as Q1] was fred from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and that the windshield scrapings as well as certain bullet fragments were determined to be similar in composition to CE 399. Gallagher Exh. 5, at 2. In the course of his testimony before the Commission, Frazier was questioned about a "comparison made of the.lead residues on the inside of the wint:- as a a shield with... the bullet fragments. . ." Frazier indicated he had prepared "the formal report of the entire examination” based on the report Gallagher had submitted. Plaintiff claims not to have received either the * "formal report" or the "report" prepared by Gallagher. Opposition, at 11. The confusion as to the latter appears to have stemmed from differences in terminology: what Frazier called a report consisted of Gallagher's work- sheets. Gallagher Deposition, at 84. As to the "formal report," plaintiff argues that the November 23 letter could not possibly cover "the entire examination" because much testing, particularly the neutron activation analysis, did not transpire until months after the letter was written. Opposition, at 11. Frazier and Gallagher, on the other hand, indicate that the November 23 letter was the "formal report" Frazier alluded to in his Commission testimony. Frazier Deposition, at 41; Gallagher Deposition, at 86. Here, too, the evidence is uniformly against plaintiff's assertion. Frazier's reference to "the formal report of the entire examination" plainly — relates to- the procedures about which he was just queried: the comparison q Nw 34999 Dogtid: 32959522 Page 513 yi — ~ ae oe ; ne EE EEC AOE PE me OER EST ti URE i ttertnynene rnc mn tet 4% Senrtetareth Srna nt We pet eh anepenen enna ma era rn tt maemanerniaterenrene mthantuttinenenirten, _umtennenp matte tandem intr greene en
= oe Uae See eee ooo te or -16- of the windshield residues with CE 399 and bullet fragments. Plaintiff's assumption that the "formal report" covers the entire investigation rather than one of the numerous examinations which comprised the investigation is wholly unwarranted. There is no evidence to controvert Frazier's and Gallagher's Statements that the November 23 letter was, in fact, the “formal report" described by Frazier before the Commission. Plaintiff also contends that neither CE 399 nor any bullet fragment was tested for human residue. Weisberg Affidavit, at 14. Because this allegation does not concern the existence of unfurnished reports but rather the appropriateness of such tests, such contention need not be con~ sidered except to note that the depositions yield no indication that such testing ever occurred. Cunningham Deposition, at 22-23; Gallagher Depo- sition, at 39, 48. Plaintiff asserts he received no report on "the analysis of the copper—jacket material." Weisberg Affidavit, at 15. Gallagher indicated that laboratory practice was not to test copper jackets spectrographically unless such testing would contribute to the investigation. Gallagher Deposition, at 13. Copper's tendency to overshadow other elements under neutron activation analysis precluded testing of that kind. Id. at 74-75. Nothing in the record indicates reports or other materials in this area have not been furnished. Q8: The Live Round. Plaintiff claims repeatedly not to have received reports on Q8, the live round discovered in the chamber of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Opposition, at 10; Weisberg Affidavit, at 16, 57. Gallagher was unaware whether the round had been tested, and indicated that it probably should have been tested. Gallagher Deposition, at 43-46. Defendant Department of Justice has indicated that Q8 was subjected to "Firearms Identification" testing only. Defendant United States Department of Justice's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, at 4. Inexplicably, however, plaintiff directed questions about Q8 only to Td: 32989522 Page 514
o @ ~17- Gallagher, who was unfamiliar with testing in the firearms identification category, and not to Frazier or Cunningham, both of whom conducted firearms identification tests. Though what either of the latter might have said about Q8 is open to speculation, the November 23, 1963 report to Chief Curry descrifies Q8 only as being of the same manufacture as certain cartridges found on the scene in the school book depository building. The inference to be drawn, uncontroverted by any other evidence, is that Q8 was subjected to visual scrutiny only by one of the ballistics examiners, and thus that no reports or other material on Q8 remain to be furnished. It is worth noting parenthetically that the plaintiff does not indicate, and the Court does not discern, what purpose additional testing of Q8 would have served. In that respéct, Gallagher's supposition-—that no further testing of Q8 was necessary because it was sufficient that the live round was of the same manufacture as the cartridges-~seems eminently reasonable. Gallagher Deposition, at 46-47, 68-69. There is no evidence to suggest - that reports or other materials on Q8 have not been supplied. Testing of Clothing. Taken together, the Weisberg affidavit and plaintiff's Opposition to the motion for summary judgment reveal only one point of dispute: whether a report exists comparing the two anterior holes in CE 394, the shirt worn by President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Opposition, at 10; Weisberg Affidavit, at 24-25. As to the remaining tests performed on items of clothing (the President's, Governor Connally's, and Oswald's), the record indicates that spectrographic testing only was per- formed on these items, and t 1t neutron activation analysis was not performed because laboratory personnel did not deem it an appropriate technique for those items. Defendant United States Department of Justice's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, at 12-13; Gallagher Deposition,. at 50-52. ‘ The worksheets reflecting examination of both the President's and Governor Connally's clothing have‘been provided to plaintiff£, together with the FBI's reports, internal and external, on the examinations. B.g-, MW 34999 Doeid: 32959522 Page 515 Hil 7 ae a 7 wee er } i
MW 54999 Do ~18~ Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin (March 23, 1964); Memorandum from R. H. Jevons to Mr. Conrad (April 15, 1964). The sole basis for plaintiff's assertion that an extant report on the comparison of CE 394 holes remains ta be furnished is that former Special Agent Frazier testified in the course of his deposition that he had asked another examiner to determine, by buttoning the shirt, whether the two anterior holes overlap. Frazier Deposition, at 60-62. Initially, Frazier could not recall whether he himself had conducted that aspect of the examination of the shirt, id. at 61, and he subsequently indicated that another examiner, whom he thought was Paul M. Stombaugh, had made the examination, and prepared a report on his conclusions. Id. at 62. Frazier assumed that the Commission had obtained a copy of the report in the course of taking Stombaugh's testimony. Id. There is no indication outside Frazier's deposition testimony that Stombaugh, or any examiner other than Frazier, prepared such a report. CE 394 was discussed only twice in the course of the Commission hearings, by Cmdr. James J. Humes, a pathologist at the Naval Medical Center who testified on the autopsy conducted on the body of the President and by Frazier himself. Frazier stated first that he himself had conducted the examination of the President's shirt. V Hearings Before the President's Comm'n on the Assassination of President Kennedy 60 (1964). He stated that "on the front of the shirt, I found what amounts to one hole. Actually, it is a hole through both the button line of the shirt and the buttonhole line which overlap down the front of the shirt when it is buttoned." Id. Frazier's testimony before the Commission compels the conclusion that he was mistaken in attributing responsibility for the examination of the two anterior holes to another examiner. One 5/ Commander Humes indicated that "with the shirt buttoned, the . fly front of the shirt causes two layers of cloth to be present in this location, and that [sic] there is a defect in the inner layer of cloth and a corresponding defect in the outer layer of the cloth." II Hearings Before the President's Comm'n on the Assassination of President Kennedy 365 (1964). He said also that "the defects in 393 [the President's suitcoat] and 394 [the shirt] coincide virtually exactly with one another." Id. at 366. Td: 323969522 Page 516 cee cere en nr ce een nent rie pe re retie e e omeareee
¢ 4 ~19- : explanation for his error, aside from the lapse of more than thirteen years since the examination in question, is that Special Agent Stombaugh indeed examined the fibers of a shirt linked with the assassination, and testified before the Commission on the results of his examination; the shirt in queStion, however, was CE 150, that worn by Lee Harvey Oswald at the point he was captured by police. IV Hearings, supra, at 74~-75. There being no genuine question as to the existence of the report alluded the plaintiff. Neutron Activation Testing of Fragments and Residue. Plaintiff : | | | | to by Frazier in his deposition, this point, too, must be resolved against: claims not to have received extant reports on the neutron activation analysis of Q3, a fragment recovered from beside the right front seat of the Presidential limousine, and Q15, residues obtained by scraping the inside of the limousine'’s windshield. Opposition, at 8-9; Weisberg | rogatories indicated that neither Q3 nor Q15 was subjected to neutron activation analysis. Defendant United States Department of Justice's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, at 12, 13. When former Special Agent Gallagher was queried about Q3, he initially could not recall testing it, but later, on his own initiative, he remembered sub- | jecting the item to neutron activation analysis and emerging with no | significant result. Gallagher Deposition, at 74-75, 90-92. The lack of results for Q3, a fragment consisting chiefly of copper jacket, is con- i sistent with Gallagher's previous statement that copper is normally not susceptible to neutron activation analysis. Id. at 74. As to Q4d5, the windshield scraping, Gallagher stated, after initial inability to recall, that neutron activation analysis had, just as with Q3, not resulted in any significant finding, chiefly because the Q15 sample was inadequate. Id. Affidavit, at 13. The Department of Justice answers to plaintiff's inter~ | | ‘ i | | | t | accounting for the Department's assumption in its answers to plaintiff's 1 | | i ] ] | at 71. In each case, Gallagher had left his worksheets virtually blank, i i | interrogatories that no neutron activation analysis on these items had been | nw 54999 Dog@Id:32989522 Page 517 a wee ee . i :
v ~20- conducted. The record indicates conclusively that, despite its denial that such testing had occurred, the Government has unwittingly supplied seen are wart pmere rr te mene enemy nan emns Se Antenne the plaintiff with the very worksheets to indicate that such testing did occur, albeit unsuccessfully. As to the printouts from the testing, Gallagher inficated that the data on the printouts was duplicative of that on the worksheets, and hence that the printouts themselves might not have -been kept. Gallagher Deposition, at 92, 117. The deposition testimony on the neutron activation analysis conducted oa fragments does not indi~ cate that tests were conducted for which materials have not been furnished. evcene echecemenennen spent wir semen de een vere mel a Dealey Plaza Curbstone. Plaintiff claims that he was not supplied with materials relating to testing performed on a curbstone removed in 1964 from near the site of the assassination. Opposition, at 10; Weisberg 6/ Affidavit, at 10, 36-42. According to bystanders at the assassination, there were indications that a bullet or bullet fragment had struck the curbstone during the moments of firing at the Presidential limousine. On July 7, 1964, the Warren Commission requested an examination of the curb~ stone, and early in August Special Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt was dispatched to Dallas to retrieve it. The result of his analysis of the "smear" he discovered on the curbstone was that the foreign substances thereon "could be bullet metal." Shaneyfelt Exh. 2. The tests conducted on the curbstone were microscopic and spectrographic only; no neutron activation analysis was conducted. Gallagher Deposition, at 69-70. The decision not to subject 6/ It might be noted that plaintiff's allegations regarding ' the curbstone extend far beyond testing materials supposedly not furnished pursuant to his FOIA requests. His submissions include the affidavit of James T. Tague, a witness to the assassination apparently struck by un- identified debris associated, Tague contends, with the mark on the curbstone. Tague Affidavit, at 7. Much of the affidavits of both plaintiff Weisberg and Mr. Tague are directed toward establishing that the mark on the curbstone underwent drastic alteration, from a chip in 1963 to a smear in mid-1964, when the FBI recovered the curbstone, It is not clear from plaintiff's affidavit whether he is asserting that the FBI removed the wrong curbstone, or that the curbstone is the same, with only the mark different. Compare Weisberg Affidavit {| 185 with id. 194. In any case, none of the allegations on these points needs be considered in the context of . | ; plaintiff's FOIA requests, and the extent of Government \nw 54999 podira: s298S99pLigngé efecewith, ~ P [a a - ere eee te ner mere te Ramet mene pens ee oe 1 meee te epee re anes eens “eae tpn en tr Pe a a rn grains minty narnia A te ee ang amen £ wt oes Se De ae a we eT ON ST RT Le eT en a OT NR a a RN NN NN RR NR a SR “ ;
AMY 54999 © . . " a From fever ncneryarntnsyipnennspiue pen entenenpiny=reseresanre-t eer enapsinoeeneeteeset ramrsetretaarsererieeriaranesysnne-netapt seenqetrerdeevasnesesrecta rosea: -ovesennyanapstenpetyeeectesrercaeeeeepeee eT TT ER Rn nny nr near neneneyenesnpnenenngerirereeer ere eet oe Sa a LT aN 8 oe SO ATT OT SE TE Ne Nc team i, Speer eeeneeeenrencnacnermererentoee iT] Pld: 32989522 Page 515 ~21- the mark to neutron activation analysis explains the disparity between the two elements isolated in the "smear" and the nine isolated from bullet core fragments, and accounts also for the laboratory's reluctance to attribute the mark to a bullet. See Weisberg Affidavit, { 33, at 10; Frazier Deposi- tion, at 48;“Shaneyfelt Exh. 2. As to microscopic examination, Frazier testified on deposition that he had scrutinized the curbstone mark under a microscope, and Shaneyfelt indicated that he might have done so in the course of conducting other tests on the mark. Frazier Deposition, at 51; Shaneyfelt Deposition, at 14. Frazier incorporated the results of his microscopic examination of the curbstone into a draft of a letter eventually © sent August 12, 1964, by J. Edgar Hoover to Commission counsel Rankin. The spectrographic examination of the curbstone was conducted by Special Agent William R. Heilman, now retired. Memorandum from M. J. Stack, Jr. to Mr. Cochran (June 20, 1975). The spectrographic plate which reflects the single run to which Heilman subjected the curbstone has not been furnished te the plaintiff; Heilman believes it was discarded in the course of one o£ the laboratory's periodic housecleanings. Id. Shaneyfelt testified to not having seen any other reports on the curbstone besides those shown to him in the course of his deposition. Shaneyfelf Deposition, at 15. Taken together, these aspects of the record indicate uniformly that all available material on testing of the curbstone has been furnished to plaintiff. CONCLUSION The foregoing analysis of the record has disposed of every con- tention and claim the Court has been able to elicit from plaintiff's various submissions. In many instances, there is direct testimony that a particular test was not performed; in others, testimony as to particular laboratory practices compels the conclusion that the test was not performed. For all its detail, the preceding analysis does not pretend to treat such aspects of plaintiff's argument as the alleged destruction of assassination evidence and falsification of test results. Neither topic is pertinent. The analysis likewise has not dealt extensively with plaintiff's allegations
-22—- and suggestions, sounding of conspiracy, that reports and materials have been stolen or deliberately mislaid, and that Government witnesses have lied under oath; apart from these allegations, there is not an iota of evidence to support either assertion. B A FOIA action demonstrably lacking in genuine issues of material fact is appropriately resolved by summary judgment. See Nolen v,. Rumsfeld, 535 F.2d 890, 891 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104 (1977). This action lacks such issues. Although plaintiff has impugned defendants’ affidavits on the ground that. they do not specify the files searched in compliance with plaintiff's request, Opposition, at 12, the Government's response to a FOIA request need not be as specific as plaintiff would require, it being sufficient that the affiant has personal knowledge that all files which might contain requested material have been searched. Exxon Corp. v. FIC, 384 F. Supp. 755, 759-61 (D.D.C. 1974), remanded without opinion, 527 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1976). As in Nolen, supra, "heyhe Government has, in candor and good faith before this Court, stated that all the records available have been made available to the plaintiff." 535 F.2d at 891. If plaintiff has any further recourse, it is not under FOIA. See id. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted. An Order consistent with the foregoing has been entered this mR Y. day of October, 1977. John H. Pratt nited States District Judge $952 2g Page 520
y? i te a Fon! Tle : P ” (id Sq2o-G5 5 . . T . - vo UNITED STATES DVERNMENT j BE nan oan cven fy eay , . Leicried Etat TO : Nr, J free FROM + Richard G,. Kleindienst Lhe Deputy Attorney Geueral AA supjecT: Harold Weisberg: Requests for Information undexy x) Freedom of Information Act Bee yee Bue waved fj Mr. O-rars. Tele. Room____. i | Hiiss Holmes. | Attached hereto are two letters dated May 16, -, | 1970 from Mr. Harold Weisberg in which he explains | Miss Gandy. E his requests for certain information relating to the * = ===] ‘assassination of former President Kennedy. Also ~ attached are five Forms DJ-118 which s specifically a of identify the materials he is seeking in each case, A Would you please have these requests reviewed jand advise me with respect to their disposition. * 4 ; Z rat 1) om “ re agit Ve if bs Exp ) M id tL . _ 00*°35/933- 17 BS -“~ . - ce t ’ 2 a : ~ Bt : bol”, a“ ate ™ S 59 NUN 9.1970 2 Nw 54999 Doold: 32989522 Page 521 ‘ ie
- 25/90 ot Deremtucnt of Justice !. . - sr "re: ex Se ane veo ans mol ? Sion, muce rosnonre. ws : ee me ; every eas > oe ' . wmesere) GaeG LY CODE | ' i ; réo-s'on “ee nee piceetivels pumeen néercd : ny ris insict uncon . rulss you employ onl: to frusterte | Iny nreper requests ; ‘D_comes neces cory, im mrenereé te test tris in court. : ,* “I woull prefir thet this cet cecone necescery, tied govgour le weyc,” stort. mctciuc 2zesponse, eliminste tis deccution onc felscesse fron “eenedn - fSuort, recommice tact Congress vuscess les ona Preci.cnts sim +..en s0 oor er L tuey grill be obeyed, ost of Sl by tact Depertucnt im Weoch esre te sondin at enti integrity of vuo lew ie vested. Or, She Sepertment Ine whden we Reve . ke rin: so mca sbdout whet 4% calls “lew ene order". Lgke eherity, © -sugoos shoulc tesin st Rome. oot - oo we, _ ‘ . Herevita I enclose ‘thre: conzicted 7-11 fomas, in ecce.s0l tes? © : _ thre: esses my most reecnt reguests dove .becn asce somes tine 650. in rot coms ° of t.om ies tere been respons Qe Se, ‘ Myo cf thom ers conenicuoucly Mlegrent, cnt. ; - sm tion, diy first roousst Lov Sucesuoctretrounie :a:lys frogiinis of tullet snc -ebjec ts scia to Love ben ctruck by 7 oo Preatcent wig eseeccin.ted cul Govirnes Sona. lly infused is % in Loy 2956. Moore hos never veoh vesuonse to 14 or ito subsequent ravetitio a BG.2eSsceu s . . roquset fou uste ecno public, non-seerst davormetion to Une Aviconey Gomes | 40 Guys ogo. My vizsrv request ox your Dopsriuent Lor t..0se Gecu sche nL iting ¥o ay ee ener oe me maybe s08 How CLllons suo mode unser tac provious civicietretion, | ce FANE KR ANS PR ran ASM AR Nw ‘sagas “pda: Saige iad - ee ee a ' .
ee ane eth Beem oe weebateeale egy aA a oct ct) rm w © vt 4? fe) pw. ao sda. i%s ow : eh OG H ft : a @ oe ny ct a ais Ga fs " eda! Of et cl & «4 “ 4 2 Oo a ‘ A vt gla 44 0 to se el @ an F 4? «th £2 fa 2 vu) > : oA ® fs a a> doen ow 4 Vel St ah wh arb : es ee ee ar ft gdepw ae od tg Ne rh UD °o a . o rd ah Ocl oo Sad cd ecb O oid prow a} .! mo re) an af PA op Oo oe fant : vii a a> oO Pret oy Oi Oh oa Oo BS ol pos “ll ‘ i wad nO Poe eS et Sd Aed oa SA od wd fac) us ua $v oO i140 O comm) w O +f AO ee © et ey G Ff a O wt od wi a 3 oO > Om Mert A wi oO Ot 2 6h Ao ey a & , \ ” O iO a1 cH eo iV ort ang yet Ao ds tb F O77. aod GO Det. Orlel @ Bot oe Ca Fy . A ae iar] ya A Pernt 4? 624 a2 4? FA de OD cao) + ee A wed oe sta oO 9 SHA 434 Bort fo tH e134 + Nl ees) mart oA O “1 @O oy Oo ) EY mo po a) t bE oor 4 ebiccd 0 A eh 2y 64 ed aus Fy Ge Fa fry Stet A ; sboyp a : fia mei po om Oh 4 Qo re) wt A A be ) no owe .% OW © rt ESS 8) wd Mm 54 a FS) hoi to a6 Oo tet PP ao 9} w oOo: t} oO we PaO LY set dl errs! Pa Caw o tatoo " fs) > nore <r) ov) QO UU wt MO sh firct a opr @G da PP oO” EE a) e, @ ral Oo) fq Eb cet FA rele our o 7 e i3 ~ : m4 A OK a y ovePruaa & 2 0 ort pai o er) ib wt yw 4? a pa iad a pou a oO RI oct : : ra] at £20 G41 Ht w me P vet cd Pas ra) ‘4 ors did 5 o0 AT ca . aoa sho) | ro) gg oO Cy uy Ho ch fa 3 Ow it ome 3 : at gu 1 4 da Mf cde BPO Qg 0 2 Qeriat w- ae a“ oe | 1 Od FO oO 5 bs sh 42 lop oO o Vio 4 ved nM ai wa th ba gh ert 9 @ Hq Oo sad b) A ‘4 ov Tet me det cl ov te O11 G4? ee) tae A OD FA re] 4? 63 -G, red at} ap) q@ ya us “tov Nom’? Pt aOel @ 9 Pet sa oO 3 Co Oo OG tf “3 uo ~P oa ow 0 Of a A ood rats (3) >) oe fe o o [aD O-rt To no i at chm ato fa i , ¢ Sep A Gab ™ eo Oda Ye ot 63 i) a i ") Oeet ced it O Pr sd rt ee oo Dn ey af »- ad RP oie Pet ‘ QD me A, a oy od a ee of . Tiree @ “ Sort sf O 0) add 42 ‘ a fa 3 jae a Do ed SW A r 4d 4 ; el be Ape Bet Oot fe) a 70. . me 4) Oe a my eM a4 ranae Oo B) “ $4 © iyi 4 : oO. PO a QMrl ¢ ow gy boo - ; we ta pio oat Qn. el oO: : a oS sq 0 4 4 (3) ca) cm) Oo 7 42 6: A oY aet -3 U) Ob th 3 ds QL oe oc 4? : chia et CS TF o wt. (5) - MN A ort (3) iu {3 typo 0 fa AE (3) mw Fa? wh Oped ned dw Ma B32 a BAG 8 Os Fe) .4 ~ ei mony) Of Of vo Aa Gai act + 8 a fe} Ney (a fat 2 QO” a a ar 0 ks orl ae Q etosw Ont yp '47 0 Be ns On id oO FO ag ov . cf he 4d (Read tow. re) a Po fa owe} Fs wt.) rt f as mow ed Go oO o si oO 4 wai Ont oo 8 L. uo 7 Ms 3) cs howe GO 4 Seed td ef CS ord fe > cia PAO mM oo A. G4 a3 yw Pos ts 4? 2 de Geer ea FE rs rr aS > rae iy O on 9 eo wt Of mo 0 0 on ors aw Oo a © 44 © a) A fi ia OEE TE CD mw Deed aio pw Aelh SOW ee Booed Al “fo -.. yey g "ht 6 | : rt) + . oO O fafa elu 44 fi &a OS Fe + os “0 ot 4" ne qe rH 2 © sy UF G4 ot g PO “4 ; aon 4 7207? O 7 et a oe | Qoea 1 2 4 Dnt O | 42 vi 3 3 48 4 ut ¢ et OS en) i904 49 25 feos ft ' oO « ore rs 2 wou ol rs are) do @a Woof oO G4 Pra Gs “AG cl 2 i © 4 ES) ai Poa PP OMe “ O a OY ar Ei Popa ga O Hw q ae ot EL OY - ao .10% 51 mH wt. <2 O a wt 2 WO. we Od 4 agiins Pp Vt H A Woo. a a “ 42 1G . Oa rhoaovonogAme st , ft fa. @ fet 4 4 pint epsta? or 4 oe “04 oO wot fH OO O14 OO Hed BY oO a 7 ol 30 wt. wtowt et 51.0 i Okey ce 99 fA : Hae oy Gd SHOP eda Par cA wt ed ow . . . 4 , ce ‘ . . ° . ; ’ . " ‘ . . ‘NW 54999 Doold Page 523 32989523
Seal fs r pew Vee te De Sy Ce wt cs Pe enn .- .o) et Q, wi a Face ane O c eg G4 ro) “ey es wv ott oO « wo a) fa i: ores id : a el Q ay 4 > «th & ° 4 4et cl I “a co Gt a? owt ¢ C Oat o. 0 ra eee ee ar an “ri 42 a. pea faethe Cy 7 Mart os Gri Dory Feat 8 ’ t, Siw G@ Mf. Ww 4 oot ' c@) feos Mb DO OG al 4 uy x ee ie) oat | w 43 ob 4a is tert DQ OC OG AD t fowtelt oo ct e e 4? acd | es oe Oe a eer QO- Ps cho@ al ro 4> oF) fee Qa 0 eet cd 4> nM ccs ty Bhat 3 ur a > 3 fe} ma 4 at a4 ro) pa gy 3 na ant aay rl 44 ] 33 O ei C 12) ys By a ia] ar © o oh Bt w €. 3 et wos gy ect au 14? @ t ae oO es a) Poe ae | 4240 Ho Doel KS OO ort Fa 4 ao Qg Oo . go st an 7 Oo footy Wh nb Be ta ED 65 “s oq : eu oh VD et Pe ‘dy & let Hoh og o “L Oahe a QO, | ' do oe a Po . we ct 42 69 ts rar nt 4 ca ny i ae ot . Big 2 tH ey 3A H ° Fe ie eos] o ii> os ft t) wt Oo oO es Fa fa {i hoo) O Ae a cd +4 49 _ 3 42 Pe wy a) Sir | ad moot Of ? et 4a v) ut SA ol r? @ fron G ei a ad $s - > oO au ue oe | ‘n ul my €h ou) wa aw Peet 23 be: HOW Oo oO ‘a “ct. A ‘ a 4 ” 4 a sts ” 47 @ ed ne} ww ey a) cs | q) Q@ Of a> + cal ub 4> 2 VY 4 o ce) orl aoe a? " fe) 4 fe Ps io ° By Q AS ag o ee, 6 o v9 3 a) 7) “OQ H a. o>, aa ; we > Fi Qa 4 @ *) vd a 4 r+8) “ . ae | pe Ga Gs ° gold wd ao p 42 wo i) nt CY cebivd $4 is. C4 P At wv : c3) ow foo Sort -. uy r+ o ri 4 . Om . od mitt o A QO srt Q 49 47 na + Wd . Or o : © Fi oa ro) vse ei sf et od 42 iz ou) “8 Flys a“. e dic ©) ert Hot a -P-: ot oy cf owt “oO od QO 4) ra] wy O Oo 4 ~. Pw <1 oO 44 ) O 4? fut ou 3 sy OF aeons Pod s a ~ Co 5s : Pid . m1 oe ‘ 04 <4 st ww Oo Ow . 47 oe . oo oO: fi C ti oo Fad Gd aA ' re ‘SS fate gon fe} SO A OO “33 mPo oO dl 444 9 rs) on oO. oO wae oS Ca eet Her 47 oO aa PA A toh Qo: ® aw bri vv are | od Qa sf Oo wo 4a ‘ Pe | os ee) srs oy t- 02° an 3 | 4242 ba att yao ato a> St Fa Pp i o.a yas Oel o Fa $2 ved a | oe © a 9) frp o@. eo! wp] fH O Gd f> Fy S4 mw O Pref Ou OC tr (1 oO 3 ct i? : FQectc' « oot Te) eh DOI Cod a fi > fa Sted ot Ef oS ert G4 0 ca PP OO hit O et a ste od oO G. a) fi OH ioe) el Ft Fle ort vio re OD G4 is 74> 0) + 1G el o . Q Or? Mt ° 42 4? et & 49 be mer) 'S OM et a) on oc wo at ef oO 42.0 f4 eS . o ou fi a “4 ao aM Wee Ra Ge ut 3) >? 6) pa ord fa) “S ou a $4 a4 “el i) 1S -! > old oO oe ed Yo oO . og Ce) Cc st Jd ip a) QO. mt n a) Q Le me Or 4b 4 aN vb 64 4 Q ort Q) 3 Pd ert > DE a vo oO a ¢ 4 ow cc at oo eon =? rt us ae “rl or rl set 6 st [3 at 44 r 3 . i Sg 199) ve ort fy . a & fF: 4° 4? O sol Caw B wo 44 sbverg wed Page 524 . S2989522 NW 34959 Doold
ry og. won Pruss No, VA RouTe §  ° 6 PRIDERICK, Mp. “701 - PHONE 301 473-bao0 FREDERICK .MD. a PAY TOTHE ~_ — 7? . . . ORDER OFS = lori . DOLLARS FARMERS AND Mecanics National Bank. Freenick. Marv.ann wOSekwOO2Er . weemes . .- le “erie? fe . NW 54999 Doota:32989522, Pagé 525. = oo TT