We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. Eisenberg. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. Cunningham. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Mr. Eisenberg. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?
Representative Ford. Based on your testimony this morning, and what you have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted and how extensively are they?
Mr. Cunningham. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the cast and we will process them.
However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction.
Representative Ford. Is this a test that has been conducted by law-enforcement agencies for some time. Is it a new test?
Mr. Cunningham. No, sir; the first test that I reported on here were conducted in 1935.
There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons.