Mr. Eisenberg.

L. H. Oswald," with Oswald's signature, or a signature purporting to be Lee Oswald's, and the signature "A. J. Hidell"; and Commission Exhibit No. which appears to be similar to the photograph Exhibit No. 819, except that there is no signature apparent in the space where the signature A. J. Hidell appears Exhibit No. 819, and I ask you whether you have examined these two items.

Mr. Cadigan.

Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Is Exhibit No. 819 a photograph of Exhibit No. 820?

Mr. Cadigan.

It is.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Exhibit No. 820 is seriously discolored now and does not the words "A. J. Hidell" apparent. Can you explain how that came about?

Mr. Cadigan.

Yes; the original Commission Exhibit No. 820 had been for latent fingerprints, and this is a chemical process which has removed the ink of the signature. However, on examination under strong side lighting using low-power magnification, portions of the letters "A," "J," and "H," of signature of the chapter president can be discerned, and are in the same on the photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 819, as on the original Commission Exhibit No. 820.
Furthermore, a comparison of the writing and the rubber stamp, with reference to the position of these with respect to lines and printing and other fixed points on the card, definitely shows that Commission Exhibit No. 819 is a photograph of Exhibit No. 820, and made before it was treated for latent fingerprints.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, apart from this, did you take the photograph, Exhibit No. 819?

Mr. Cadigan.

No; the photograph was made in our photographic laboratory.

Mr. Eisenberg.

But you did see Exhibit No. 820, before it had been discolored, did you not?

Mr. Cadigan.

I don't recall at this time. It may well be that I did, but I have no independent recollection of it now.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that your testimony that Exhibit No. 819 is a photograph of Exhibit No. 820 is based upon your evaluation of the two items as they exist now rather than upon recollection of Exhibit No. 820 before it was discolored?

Mr. Cadigan.

That is true.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?

Mr. Cadigan.

No, this is a latent fingerprint matter.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Can you explain why the signature, "Lee Oswald" or rather "L. H. Oswald" is apparent, while the signature "A. J. Hidell" is not?

Mr. Cadigan.

Different inks.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Some inks are more soluble in the solution used for fingerprint tests than others?

Mr. Cadigan.

Definitely.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801, and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?

Mr. Cadigan.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?

Mr. Cadigan.

Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in their original silvered condition.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints.

Mr. Cadigan.

I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?

Mr. Cadigan.

Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Did you take the photographs?

Mr. Cadigan.

No.