Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Tests?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

@Pat Speer  Thank you for all the effort you put into this and the clear explanation of all the results of the GSR / NAA tests and experimental setup.

I've been looking for more details on the NAA tests for quite a while.

Very well done and also well-written.

Thanks, Bill. 

[Gerry Down]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is all discussed in chapter 4f on my website. They stopped performing the nitrate test performed by the DPD within a few years of the shooting. But the use of NAA to uncover gsr on wax casts is still presumed to be solid science. The problem was that it was very expensive. And was replaced by a less expensive test, that is still performed today. But the results provided Weisberg, and discussed in chapter 4f, are still valid. 

If I commit a homicide today, will the police test my hands for nitrates?

[Pat Speer]

35 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

If I commit a homicide today, will the police test my hands for nitrates?

NO, but they may test them for gsr. The test performed on Oswald by the DPD was one in which the wax casts were exposed to a chemical, which resulted in purple specks on the casts where nitrates were present. But the loose term nitrates included elements that were not related to gunshot residue. The Neutron Activation tests later performed by the FBI, however, could isolate out barium and antimony, the primary components in gunshot residue. Both elements were found to be present on Oswald's hands in numbers sufficient to claim he'd handled a weapon. But the FBI testified, in pre-scripted testimony, that they could not come to a decision regarding the cheek cast because there was too much barium on the outside of the cast. Well, this led me to wonder "Well, what about antimony? Since both barium and antimony need be present in sufficient numbers to claim a positive result, what about antimony? How much was found on the cheek cast?" After years of searching I obtained the papers that provided the answer--these were papers provided Harold Weisberg after he sued the Atomic Energy Commission and FBI for materials related to the NAA testing of the magic bullet and wrist fragment. In any event, within these papers were the results for antimony, along with a control test performed by the FBI. And I then compared these to a number of other controls performed by nuclear physicist Vincent Guinn, that were never provided the WC but were published in a 1965 paper for the Dept. of Commerce.

And these strongly suggest (I would say prove but I would like to get some feedback from an expert on these matters) that the number for antimony was insufficient to claim Oswald had fired a rifle.

Now, back to your original question. In the years subsequent to the assassination a cheaper alternative was developed to assist officers trying to establish the presence of gun shot residue on a suspect's hands. And these tests are still performed today. 

So...to sum it all up. Oswald passed a test that was suggestive of his innocence--akin to passing a lie detector test. It did not prove his innocence, but it suggested as much, and this scared the FBI into concealing these test results from the public. 

 

Edited March 29 by Pat Speer

[Gerry Down]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

NO, but they may test them for gsr. The test performed on Oswald by the DPD was one in which the wax casts were exposed to a chemical, which resulted in purple specks on the casts where nitrates were present. But the loose term nitrates included elements that were not related to gunshot residue. The Neutron Activation tests later performed by the FBI, however, could isolate out barium and antimony, the primary components in gunshot residue. Both elements were found to be present on Oswald's hands in numbers sufficient to claim he'd handled a weapon. But the FBI testified, in pre-scripted testimony, that they could not come to a decision regarding the cheek cast because there was too much barium on the outside of the cast. Well, this led me to wonder "Well, what about antimony? Since both barium and antimony need be present in sufficient numbers to claim a positive result, what about antimony? How much was found on the cheek cast?" After years of searching I obtained the papers that provided the answer--these were papers provided Harold Weisberg after he sued the Atomic Energy Commission and FBI for materials related to the NAA testing of the magic bullet and wrist fragment. In any event, within these papers were the results for antimony, along with a control test performed by the FBI. And I then compared these to a number of other controls performed by nuclear physicist Vincent Guinn, that were never provided the WC but were published in a 1965 paper for the Dept. of Commerce.

And these strongly suggest (I would say prove but I would like to get some feedback from an expert on these matters) that the number for antimony was insufficient to claim Oswald had fired a rifle.

Now, back to your original question. In the years subsequent to the assassination a cheaper alternative was developed to assist officers trying to establish the presence of gun shot residue on a suspect's hands. And these tests are still performed today. 

So...to sum it all up. Oswald passed a test that was suggestive of his innocence--akin to passing a lie detector test. It did not prove his innocence, but it suggested as much, and this scared the FBI into concealing these test results from the public. 

 

Thanks for this info

[Benjamin Cole]

More from Pat Speer's excellent website:

And internal FBI memo regarding paraffin casts...

"He (Guinn, running tests on paraffin casts) advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime.

Really. 

This is not adding up for "LHO is proved innocent." 

1. The paraffin cast was placed on LHO's cheek more than eight hours after the JFKA, not 2 1/2 hours. This memo seems to suggest some sort of time limit at two to three hours.

2. "providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed."  LHO may have washed his face at his rooming house, or the Texas Theater. He also may have perspired, which is also known to remove GSRs. 

3. LHO may have fired only once on 11/22, not three times. I suspect this, as most earwitnesses descrive the first shot as different in pitch and volume from the succeeding shot. 

Edited March 30 by Benjamin Cole

[Kevin Balch]

Shouldn’t there be residue on the right sleeve or in the pocket of the the discarded jacket found under the car during the pursuit of Tippit’s killer?

Maybe it has been dry cleaned out during conservation.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

Shouldn’t there be residue on the right sleeve or in the pocket of the the discarded jacket found under the car during the pursuit of Tippit’s killer?

Maybe it has been dry cleaned out during conservation.

There was a test--the Griess test--that could be performed on clothing. But there is no record of the FBI testing the white jacket or Oswald's clothes when arrested. Now this is mighty curious. Because they DID test the blue jacket found in the depository. 

So I would bet all the clothes were tested, and that the results were all negative, and that this info was then hidden away. 

 

Edited May 23 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

Pat S., how could Killion of the FBI report having no GSR on his cheeks or hands after firing the evidence MC rifle 3 times, whereas Guinn found MC’s fired three times always left GSR? Clearly one of those claims is incorrect, also it is capable of being rechecked. What is the explanation for the contradictory claims? Has this easily checkable point in fact been rechecked in the years since? 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat S., how could Killion of the FBI report having no GSR on his cheeks or hands after firing the evidence MC rifle 3 times, whereas Guinn found MC’s fired three times always left GSR? Clearly one of those claims is incorrect, also it is capable of being rechecked. What is the explanation for the contradictory claims? Has this easily checkable point in fact been rechecked in the years since? 

Killion worked with Cunningham and Frazier, and signed an affidavit saying he reached the same conclusions as Cunningham and Frazier about the rifle, but I am not aware of his testifying about the cheek tests. So I assume you are thinking of Cunningham's testimony, in which he said he wouldn't expect to find gsr on a cheek after someone had fired a rifle.

I wrote what amounts to a book on this very question. FBI experts ALWAYS testify as a representative of the FBI, and not as an individual expert. But Cunningham testified that he "personally" wouldn't expect to find gsr on the face of someone who'd fired a rifle. This served to conceal that 1) Guinn had performed some controls for the FBI and found that gsr was always detected on paraffin cheek casts when his subjects fired M/C rifles, AND 2) that the cheek of an FBI shooter using the assassination rifle (RF=Robert Frazier) was tested at Oak Ridge and found to contain gsr. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Killion worked with Cunningham and Frazier, and signed an affidavit saying he reached the same conclusions as Cunningham and Frazier about the rifle, but I am not aware of his testifying about the cheek tests. So I assume you are thinking of Cunningham's testimony, in which he said he wouldn't expect to find gsr on a cheek after someone had fired a rifle.

I wrote what amounts to a book on this very question. FBI experts ALWAYS testify as a representative of the FBI, and not as an individual expert. But Cunningham testified that he "personally" wouldn't expect to find gsr on the face of someone who'd fired a rifle. This served to conceal that 1) Guinn had performed some controls for the FBI and found that gsr was always detected on paraffin cheek casts when his subjects fired M/C rifles, AND 2) that the cheek of an FBI shooter using the assassination rifle (RF=Robert Frazier) was tested at Oak Ridge and found to contain gsr. 

Thanks Pat but I meant what David von  Pein quoted of that Hoover letter citing a Killion test, here:

On 3/27/2024 at 6:57 PM, David Von Pein said:

Related info concerning the subject of Paraffin Tests....

-----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the complete Hoover letter in CD787:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11185&relPageId=2

-------------------------------------

From Page 165 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"....

"To confirm that firing a rifle will not leave nitrate residue on the firer's cheeks, the FBI had one of their agents, Charles L. Killion, fire three rounds in Oswald's Carcano rifle. The result of the paraffin test conducted thereafter was negative for his cheeks and hands (3 H 494, WCT Cortlandt Cunningham;
WR, pp.561–562)."

------------------------------------

The Warren Commission Report, Pages 561-562....

"In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative."

------------------------------------

Also see:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-952.html

 

 

[Pat Speer]

31 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks Pat but I meant what David von  Pein quoted of that Hoover letter citing a Killion test, here:

 

That's a different test. That was the traditional test then being performed. It was abandoned shortly thereafter. It was a test for nitrates--not specific to barium and antimony. A chemical was poured on the paraffin and purple specks would appear to indicate the presence of nitrates. 

The neutron activation of the paraffin was more specific and could isolate barium and antimony. This test could still be performed today, but is not, because it involves a nuclear reactor and is quite costly. A cheaper easier alternative is available, and that is what they use today. 

As to the possibility the FBI lied...it is in fact possible. One of the things I noticed awhile back is that the sketchiest test results were often reported in a Hoover letter--and had no FBI lab report for support. The FBI's examination of the palm print lift, and Hoover's claim it matched up with the rifle, for example, hasn't the slightest scintilla of support within the FBI's files. There's no report, no sworn testimony, nothing. Just a letter from Hoover, saying it matched on five points, when the normal standard was that it would have to match on 12 points. 

P.S. I just took a look at the date of that letter and realized that these tests were performed MONTHS after the FBI had performed an NAA test using the assassination rifle, and MONTHS after Guinn had reported back to the FBI on his controls. So the FBI well-knew the rifle leaked gsr onto the cheek, but were answering Eisenberg's queries about the diphenylbenzidine tests as a way of shutting down the public speculation caused by Mark Lane, and his frequent claims the cheek cast test was negative. 

Here is the pertinent part of my website on the lead-up to this letter.

 

On 3-16, Melvin Eisenberg from the Commission meets with the FBI’s Gallagher, in order to learn more about neutron activation analysis. The Jevons to Conrad memo on this meeting reflects "As you were previously advised, it was not possible to distinguish the powder residues of the rifle cartridges from the powder residues of the revolver cartridges." Once again, there is no mention of the residue levels found on Oswald's cheek cast, and whether this is pertinent to the question of his having fired a rifle.

On 3-18 Hoover sends the Commission a memo answering some of Eisenberg’s questions.

On 3-23, Agent Gallagher receives a phone call from Louise Campbell of Science Magazine. She asks if NAA is being used in the "Oswald case." She is told "there would be no comment on this subject."

On 3-27, Roy Jevons sends another memo to Conrad, this one discussing the FBI Lab's contacts with Eisenberg. The memo notes that on 3-16 Eisenberg brought up Aebersold's letter from 12-11, and its suggestion that NAA could be used to demonstrate that Oswald had fired a rifle, and was told by agent Gallagher that "no elements were found during (the FBI's recent) tests to distinguish between rifle and revolver deposits" and that "nothing has come to our attention and to our knowledge nothing has been done subsequent to these examinations which would assist further in the interpretation of the data obtained." As Aebersold had suggested that, in addition to the possibility one could differentiate between revolver residue and rifle residue, the distribution of antimony and barium on the body of a suspect might also indicate whether or not Oswald had fired a rifle, the answer purportedly given to Eisenberg is non-responsive. Is Jevons hiding that tests have been performed along these lines, and that they can be used to suggest Oswald's innocence?

It appears so. There is no mention of Guinn's phone call to Gallagher in the memo. Guinn, we should reflect, told Gallagher that tests "indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times." So how can Gallagher, or his boss Jevons, claim "nothing has come to our attention and to our knowledge nothing has been done subsequent to the (FBI's recent) examinations which would assist further in the interpretation of the data obtained." That's just lying.

Speak No Evil

A 3-30 Jevons to Conrad memo reveals that Eisenberg has just conducted a pre-testimony conference with the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham, and has asked him to perform some quick tests using Oswald's rifle, paraffin, and diphenylbenzidine.

A 3-31 Jevons to Conrad memo reveals that these tests had been performed, and that they "once again confirmed the unreliability of the paraffin test." This is ironic. There was no mention of this "unreliability" in the FBI's 12-9 summary report given to President Johnson, when they used these tests to suggest Oswald's guilt.

On 4-1 FBI ballistics expert Cortlandt Cunningham testifies before the Warren Commission. Eisenberg takes his testimony. Even though the Commission initially intended to use the paraffin tests to demonstrate Oswald’s guilt, they have now decided to trash the evidentiary value of these tests. Cunningham states: “We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands. We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day….That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek…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…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.” Cunningham fails to state that these tests were performed just a day before, and at Eisenberg's request.

When asked if residues would normally be found on a man’s cheek after firing a rifle, Cunningham offers his personal analysis: “No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter…"

He then discussed revolvers: "You can see when you close the cylinder, and each chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp and then into the rifling. The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues around the entrance to the rear portion of the barrel which is next to the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself...So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands after he fired a revolver.”

He then discusses a test he performed confirming this analysis, and supports the possible relevance of the test on Oswald’s hands: “The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with green soap and rinsed them in distilled water…To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet- recovery room, four times--and then after firing I opened it up and ejected the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the cartridge cases was in my hand at the time. I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of diphenylbenzidine. The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.”

Eisenberg then steers Cunningham back on course—the goal is to trash the test, not hold up revolver tests while trashing rifle tests. Eisenberg reminds Cunningham “By the way, you testified this morning that many common substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-called paraffin test. Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?” Cunningham responds: “Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this test so unreliable. Handling a recently-fired weapon that is covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and in some cases more especially up here and around here you would.” When asked if the FBI tests revealed any false negatives after someone had fired a revolver, Cunningham admits: “None of those were negative results, but they were not run under the same conditions…The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.” When asked why the FBI continues to perform paraffin tests if they have so many false positives, Cunningham confides: “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….There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, 'We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now,' and they will.”

The irony of this last statement is apparently lost on Cunningham. While he claims the tests are used to pressure suspects, and have little scientific value, he has apparently forgotten that both the Dallas Police Department and the FBI, in the hours and days after Oswald’s death, presented the nitrate tests on Oswald’s hands as compelling evidence he’d fired a rifle and killed the President. A dead man can't be pressured to confess.

On 4-2, Hoover sends J. Lee Rankin a memo regarding the standard paraffin tests for nitrates. He reports that, as Cunningham has just testified, an FBI agent was tested after washing his hands and received positive results, and that this agent then fired Oswald's rifle three times, and received negative results. Hoover notes that "In prior experiments conducted at the FBI Laboratory, it has been found that the paraffin test is unreliable as to whether a person recently fired a weapon." It's funny how Hoover and his FBI said nothing about this in their 12-9-63 Summary Report, which presented the tests on Oswald's hands as evidence of his guilt.

 

Edited May 23 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

Pat Speer -- yes, that looks very much like a coverup related to the gunshot residue tests and the NAA analysis. The FBI's claim and testimony that shots fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano did not leave GSR and giving opinions that all rifles would not, is contradicted by other evidence. Not only the Guinn covered-up findings that you note, but I did some checking and find multiple published studies confirm gunshot residue is ejected from rifles, just in smaller amounts than handguns, but not zero. e.g. "Interpol Review of Gunshot Residue 2019 to 2021", https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X22000870, refers to GSR from rifles in the studies surveyed. Or, "there is greater particle number with revolvers than with automatic rifles" (not no particles from rifles), https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html.

I think your chapter on the GSR and NAA tests, with discussion of the timelines and the obstructions and coverups, is one of your strongest chapters. Thanks for your work on this. https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention