(Testimony of James C. Cadigan)
Mr. Eisenberg.
paper bag, prepared on December 1, Commission No. 364, was, or may have been, or wasn't taken from the same roll as the replica piece of paper or the sample piece of paper, Exhibit 677, which was obtained from the Depository November 22?
Mr. Cadigan.
Yes.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And can you tell us what you understand the results of their investigation to have been?
Mr. Cadigan.
Yes; they were unable to determine whether the paper from the replica sack, Exhibit 364, came from the same roll or a different roll as the known sample obtained November 22, Commission Exhibit 677.
I understand that in the fall, the Depository is busy, and could very well have changed rolls, but no records are kept along that line.
Mr. Dulles.
Changed rolls in that time, 10-day period?
Mr. Cadigan.
Yes, sir. Actually there were 4 working days in that period.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes. But am I not correct that there probably or maybe certainly, I would like to have your view on that, was no change in the roll between the day before the assassination and the night of the assassination, that is between paper bag, Exhibit No. 142, and the specimen that was taken on the night of the day of the assassination?
Mr. Cadigan.
I can't tell you that, sir. I have no way of knowing, because these papers are similar in all observable physical characteristics, and they are different from a sample obtained on December l. I would suspect that this were true. But I can't----
Mr. Dulles.
I realize that.
Mr. Cadigan.
I cannot make a positive statement on that.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Have you any information as to whether the paper during the period between November 22 and December 1 used in the TSBD--whether it was the same or different rolls--would have come from the same ultimate manufacturer?
Mr. Cadigan.
It is my understanding that they received a shipment of 58 rolls of paper that were shipped March 19, 1963, from the St. Regis Paper Mill in Jacksonville, Fla., and which lasted them until January of 1964. This would mean on an average, in a 9-month period, a little more than six rolls a month.
Mr. Eisenberg.
The inference would therefore be that if the--although the papers in the replica bag obtained on December 1 and the paper in the sample obtained on November 22 are distinguishable by you, they came from the same manufacturer, and--is that correct?
Mr. Cadigan.
That is correct.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And, therefore, that the state of your science is such that you can distinguish even rolls of paper made by the same manufacturer and assumedly made within a reasonably close time, is that correct also?
Mr. Cadigan.
I don't know what period of time is involved here. But I can distinguish at least in this case between paper from the same shipment from the same mill.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you proceed now to discuss the morphology of the fiber as you examined it under a microscope?
Mr. Cadigan.
Well, I might state briefly what a fiber analysis is. We put samples of paper back into their, you might say, original state, in the form of fiber suspension.
You cook samples of paper for a couple of minutes in weak sodium hydroxide solution. Then you wash it, add water and shake it vigorously, and you get a suspension of fibers in the water. Samples of those fibers are put on glass slides and are stained by various reagents.
Then you examine them under a high-power comparison microscope or a binocular microscope under approximately 120 times magnification. In this particular case I used two different stains.
First a malachite green stain. This merely determines if there are any unbleached fibers, or if they are all bleached. I found that on both. Commission Exhibit 677, the paper sample obtained on November 22, and the paper sack, Commission Exhibit 142, that they are almost 100 percent unbleached fibers.
Then I stained other samples, with a stain known as Herzberg stain. It is
|
