GARY L. AGUILAR, MD. 909 HYDE STREET SUITE 530

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109

TELEPHONE 775-3392

(-(

`-)

Pc.) s ('*C E r t E

L r '7 0

g ( (

C-7f)

`r- c L C

Dr. Gary Aguillar ' 7/27/93 909 Hyde St.,11--530 San Francisco, CA 94109

Dear Gary,

Thanks for the enclosures with your undated note, here today. / I am increasingly disappointed in Nilam.' He im16.essed me as a bright an cautious

\,.,) man when\e not and several times in correspondence, But when he depends on Lane and makes

stl.ong statements 4bsed onhing Lane says he is risking getting kicked in the teeth.

Ditto for some others he ap

art

ars to trujt. Sorry I -can't do a thing about it and I think that

by now Wallce is so hooked he does dot want to get unhooked.

Prom the reeodds I got in thiqfoa suit of doubt at all that Guinn did nothing for the FBI,

Gallagher of the FBI knew. he had to freeze Guinn

sold. And as I told you and that bullshit artist

which I told you there is absolutely no

which means not for the Commission either

ffout and he did, as I told you. Als..t_ E e er- 4 tune should know, the Commission was

talked out of any NAA interest by the FBI. I know nothing about the allegedly quoted news

story and knowing Lane have no reason. to believe it existed. I aih also certain that Guinn 1 '

did not have the face casts. If Ian did not make( this up he is likely quoting someone

who told him there was such a story and repeated its alleged contents,

All that Jenkins says is conjectureyaid some of them are incorr4ct. could not

tall that the back wound.mas of entrance in .Feeling it only, with the body facing upward.

Perry and Clark were specific in saying that the anterior neck wound vas of entrrince-

three times.

I caution you personally not to vest

your reputation in what someobe

also writes or says, no matter how

persuasive that person is.

Lane even phonies his footnotes, aside from whether or not they

-;he page you sent after the first the next nine are but a single one.

say what he says. On

page 2

c. The importance of the Guinn testimony can thus be demon-strated quite easily; (i) The single bullet theory is necessary to explain

how Oswald or any other one person could have assassinated the President.

(ii) Guinn's neutron activiation analysis provides the atrongeet "scientific" proof of the validity of the single bullet theory.

THE CHOICE OF DR. GUINN 1. When he prsented Dr. Guinn as an expert witness, Chief Counsel

Blakey stated: "Dr. Guinn had no relation to the Warren Commission." (HSCA, Vol 1, p, 490)

2. This statement (and Dr. Guinn's later elaboration) is, at worst, patently untrue, and, at best, disingenuous and misleading. Dr. Guinn did neutron activation work on paraffin casts of Lee Harvey Oswald's hand and cheek while working for General Dynamics in 19641 Guinn is quoted extensively about the work in the New York World Telegram k 2an, August 20, 1964. Among other comments, Dr. Guinn said, "I cannot say what wo found out about Oswald because it is secret until the publi-cation of the Warren Report."

3. As Mark Lane wrote (Rush, tg Judgment, p. 153), "Although Dr. Guinn worked closely with the FBI on behalf of the Commis-sion, was entrusted with the precious paraffin casts by the Commission, and submitted his findings to the Commission, there is no reference to his name in the Report."

4. When Dr. Guinn testified, Congressman Fithian asked him about reports of a prior connection to the Warren Commission; FITHIAN. Dr. Guinn, this is not meant to be en embarassing

question, but I think I must ask it. Mr. Chairman, a recent article in the New Times magazine stated that you had worked for the warren Commission and, therefore, your conclusions for this committee would be implicitly biased.

Did you ever work for the Warren Commission or work for the FBI in connection with the analysis of these evidence samples?

GUINN. Neither one. I think Mr. Wolf called my attention to the existence of this article, which I haven't seen, and I don't know where they got their misin-formation, but I never did anything for the Warren Commission, and although I know people in the FBI, I have never done any work for them.

5. Unless the M York, World Telegram & Sun misquoted Dr. Guinn twenty eight years ago, the nuclear chemist's answer is evasive. Although he may not have been paid by either the Warren Commission or the FBI, he clearly worked on eviden-tiary material submitted by the latter to be used in a

report by the former. For a man who worked with the para-ffin casts of Lee Harvey Oswald to say "I never did anything for the Warren Commission" is patently dishonest.

6. The question of who chose Dr. Guinn to do the neutron activation analysis remains unanswered. Blakey stated simply, "....the committee engaged as a consultant Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, pro-fessor of chemistry at the University of California at Irvine." (HSCA, I, p. 490). For his part, Dr. Guinn stated "we made arrangements in advance" and then the samples were delivered to his laboratory. (HSCA, I, p. 495)

THE FRAGMENTS GUINN TESTED 1. Dr. Guinn was given fragments with the same CE and/or 0 numbers

which the FBI had used in its 1964 NAA tests, but none of these "same" fragments weighed the same!

2. HSCA implied that this was due to alteration of the fragments during the previous tests: a. "There are differences in the count and weight of the

materials examined by the FBI and Dr. Guinn. This is attributable to the character of the FBI tests and to the fact that the FBI disposed of the samples examined after the tests." (HSCA Report, p. 599, note 33)

b. No footnotes or other citation offers proof of this explanation.

c. The implication here is that the FBI'a testis were of a kind which destroyed some of the samples being tested. However, pr. Guinn's testimony clearly disputes this explanation:

FITHIAN. You have said this whole process that you go through does not destroy the mater-ial, is that correct?

GUINN. That is correct. FITHIAN. Now, then, did you toat exactly the

same particles that the FBI tested in 1964?

GUINN. Well, it turns out, I did not, for reasons I don't know, because ee they did the, enalyeie, they DID KT Jeetrov the samples either. [emphases added]

FITHIAN. So? GUINN. The particular little pieces that they

analyzed, I could just as well have anal-yzed over again, but the pieces that were brought from the Archives--which report-edly, according to Mr. Gear--were the only bullet-lead fragments from this case still present in the Archives--did not Include env 21 the specific little pieces that the FBI hAA analyzed. Presumably those are in existence somewhere, I am sure nobody threw them out, but where they are I have no idea.

W Milan TEL NO.9012877802 • ,A;,,04.47,r,

Jul 21.93 12:00A)1' iw •

Appendix E--The "Analytical Chemistry" Article

W Milan TEL N0.9012877802 Jul 21,93 12:00 P.04

Appendix s--The "Analytical Chemistry" Article

The article in Number 28 of Transactions of the Amed.can Nuclear pocietv was very helpful, since it contained Guinn's characterization of Western Cartridge Company Mannlicher ammunition as "somewhat...heterogeneous" within a given bullet, and also gave data and insights into the FBI's 1964 NAA teats. It was obvious, however, that the ttm-page text represented only an abstract or a summary. In late iebruary, I called the current editor of Transactions in an attempt to get the entire article. I was informed that the complete article had never been published in Transactions, but that Dr. Guinn had delivered en address on the same topic in June, 1978 [3 months before testifying to HSCA), to a convention in San Diego. The editor doubted that the text of the speech had ever been published.

I decided to turn to Dr. Guinn himself. A telephone call to the University of California Irvine revealed that Dr. Guinn had moved two years previously to the University of Maryland in College Park. After several tries, I finally spoke with Guinn on March 5. He indicated that the complete text of his speech was printed in

Analytical Chemistry in 1979. The April, 1979 issue of Analytical Chemiat..sy contains a 6-page

article by Vincent P. Guinn. It is titled, "JFK Assassination; Bullet Analyses" [Volume 51, No. 4, pp. 484A-493A), and is a brief account of Guinn's entire involvement with Mannlicher ammunition and the Kennedy assassination. I found the article added to both my information about Guinn's work and also my doubts about his conclu-

sions;

1. The piece opens with a "background" to the Kennedy assassi-nation which is little more than a brief for the prosecution. Guinn accepts Oswald as an "avowed Marxist" and follower of Fidel Caetro, asserts that Oswald's palmprint was found on the rifle (glossing over the dubious history of how that "fact" entered the chain of evidence), and generally adheres strictly to the Warren Commission's official line.

2. Guinn's comment° also underscored the accuracy of Nag /2g15, World Telegram j Sun's reporting of his work with paraffin casts of Oswald at Oak Ridge. Guinn wrote;

The FBI took the Oswald paraffin casts to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and analyzed them by neutron activation analysis [NAA) for the possible presence of primer residue...still there after the Dallas dermal nitrate tests. The effort was thwarted by the fact that the casts were bady contaminated, essentially as much Esa and Sb being found on the outside surfaces of the casts as on the inside surfaces--which had been in contact with Oswald's skin. The right cheek cast, if it had not been contaminated by improper handling, might have established that Oswald had recently . .

fired a rifle. (p. 484A)

RU

SH

TO

JUD

GM

EN

T

also cited Com

mission E

xhibit 3o87, 4° a letter from

J. Ed

gar

Hoover." T

his letter, d

elivered

by co

urier to

Ran

kin

," un-

dou

bted

ly rev

eals mo

re than

was in

tend

ed. It refers to

a 27-

page transcript of remarks m

ade by me on the B

arry Gray radio

pro

gram

in N

ew Y

ork

" and to

pag

e 26 o

f a transcrip

t of m

y

remarks at a N

ew Y

ork Tow

n Hall discussion." M

y remarks

were extem

porary on both occasions; the two lengthy verbatim

transcripts evidently had been prepared by F

BI agents in the

audience." In defense of Shanklin, H

oover noted that I asked my

audien

ce to recall th

at 'Chief C

urry

told

the p

ress . . that th

e paraffin

test . . was p

ositiv

e'." He w

ent o

n to

say, 'Y

ou

can

readily see in this instance Mr L

ane attributes this statement con-

cernin

g th

e paraffin

test to C

hief C

urry

of th

e Dallas P

olice

Dep

artmen

t.'" T

he Com

mission w

as presumably content w

ith that unusual explanation by w

hich the blame w

as shifted from S

hanklin and C

urry to Curry alone," even though S

hanklin and not Curry had

been quoted, by The New

York Times as stating that the test show

ed gunpow

der 'remained on O

swald's cheek'." T

he Com

mission did

not call Shanklin" or the reporter from

The N

ew Y

ork Tim

es." It accepted a hearsay denial in defense of S

hankiin." Curry did

testify, but he was spared the em

barrassment of a single question

about his statement." T

he Com

mission's faith in the federal and

local police was thus chastely preserved.

Tests w

ere also made w

ith a nuclear reactor on the cast of

Osw

ald's cheek." Dr V

incent P. G

uinn, head of the activation analysis program

of the general atomic division of G

eneral Dyna-.

mics C

orporation, made an analysis of the paraffin cast, the results

of which w

ere presented to the Com

mission." D

r Guinn said that

he and his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and som

e of the pow

der came back on the hands and cheek, som

e of the bullet p

rimer sh

ould

also co

me b

ack'." T

hey

decid

ed 'to

try

looking for elements by putting the w

ax impressions of hands and

cheeks into a nuclear reactor'." Guinn said he had inform

ed the F

BI that it w

ould be worthw

hile to utilize 'activation analysis '

because the Dallas police had m

erely used the chemical paraffin

test." 'W

e bought a similar rifle from

the same shop as O

swald and

conducted two parallel tests,' G

uinn said." 'One person fired the

rifle on eight occasions'." The scientist stated that paraffin

[ 152

TH

E P

AR

AF

FIN

TE

ST

AN

D T

HE

LA

TE

NT

PA

LM

PR

INT

were m

ade and when tested by m

eans of radioactivity 'it was

positive in all eight cases and showed a prim

er on both hands and both cheeks. T

hen we took the casts of O

swald's cheek and put

them in a nuclear reactor.'" G

uinn added, 'I cannot say what w

e found out about O

swald because it is secret until the publication

of the Warren C

omm

ission Report.'"

The secret has indeed survived publication of the R

eport. The

Com

mission, evidently differing w

ith its own authority, stated

only that it was 'im

possible to attach significance' to the radio-active response to O

swald's paraffin casts." T

he Com

mission,

which gave m

uch space to the results of tests conducted with a

pistol prior to the assassination," refused to inform its readers of

the results of tests performed after the assassination w

ith an Italian carbine identical to the so-called assassination rifle.'° A

lthough Dr G

uinn worked closely w

ith the FB

I on behalf of the C

omm

ission," was entrusted w

ith the precious paraffin casts by the C

omm

ission" and submitted his findings to the C

om-

mission," there is no reference to his nam

e in the Report."

On A

pril z, 1964, Sebastian F

rancis Latona testified before the

Com

mission," identifying him

self as the Supervisor of the L

atent F

ingerprint Section of the Identification D

ivision of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation," a graduate of C

olumbia U

niversity S

chool of Law

, the recipient of the degrees of LL

.B., L

L.M

. and M

.P.L

.," and an employee of the F

BI for 32 years," w

here, he said, he had m

ade literally millions of fingerprint exam

inations." L

atona examined the alleged assassination w

eapon for latent prin

ts* o

n N

ovem

ber 2

3, 1

963," an

d d

iscovered

faint rid

ge

formations near the trigger guard w

hich were insufficient for

purposes of identification." 'Accordingly, m

y opinion simply w

as that the latent prints w

hich were there w

ere of no value,' Latona

said." He exam

ined the weapon still m

ore thoroughly for prints, em

ploying various techniques such as photographing the weapon,

'highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could

conceivably think of'." Latona said that `to com

pletely process the entire rifle' he used a gray fingerprint pow

der" and that 'there

• A print taken by a kw

-enforcement agency is know

n as an 'inked print' and is carefully taken so that all characteristics of the print arc reproduced." A

print w

hich is left without intent is know

n ass 'Latent print'," for it is present but ordin-

arily not visible.

[153]

CIT

AT

ION

S

RU

SH

TO

JU

DG

ME

NT

58. IV

, 250-2

42; X

II, 25-4

2; X

V, 2

24- 1

09. IV

, 260-2

62.

1 33. 6

4.1

. 110. W

CR

, 123.

59- W

CR

, 562;

Now

York

World

- tit. IV .3

49-2

78.

Telegram

and Sun, Au

gu

st 28, 1

96+

:12_ Id. a

t 1-4

8.

60. Ibid. 213. W

CR

, 223, 8

23.

61. Ibid. 114 X

XV

I, 832.

62. Ibid. 115. IV

, 20, 2

61.

63. a

id.

116.1d. at 24

64

- Ibid. 127. Ibid.

65. Ibid. 1

28. X

XV

I, 832.

66. Ibid.

129. IV

, 150, 2

49-2

78.

67. Ibid. 120. Ibid.

68. W

CR

, 562_

121. X

XV

I, 828-8

29.

69. Id. it 5

61.

121. Id. at 829.

70. See N

ew Y

ork World-T

ekgrarn an

d 123. Ibid.

Su

n, A

ugust 28, 1964. 124. Id. a

t 828.

71. Ibid. 125. W

CR

, Tit.

72. Ilnd. 73. m

id. 226. X

XV

I, 8p

.

74- W

OI, 4

-S9, a83-

127. IV, 2o--24.

75. IV

, 2-4

8.

228. X

XV

I, 830.

76. Id. at t.

129. Id. at 8

31; IV

, 261.

77. Ibid. 130. X

XV

I, 831.

78. Ibid. 131_ IV

, 26o.

79- lkid- x32 . X

XV

I, 831-832.

80. W

CR

, 563.

133. Ibid.

8t. /bid.

13

+ IV

, 40 -

41

.

82.. IV

, 20.

135. Id. a

t 26

z.

83. Id

. at x

l. 136. X

XV

I, 831.

&a. Ibid.

137. IV

, 273.

85. Ibid. 138. Ibid.

86. Ibid. 139. X

XV

I, 83

2.

87. Id. at 2

4.

240. IV

, 4o-4

1.

88. Id. at 1

3.

141. Id. at 261; X

XV

I, 83

1.

89. Id. at 29

. 141. Ibid.

90. Ibid. 143. !bid; IV

, 261-2

63.

gt. Ibid.

144 X

XV

I, 832.

92. Id. at 2

2.

145. )0

(IV, 8

21, 8

24-

93_ Id. a

t 23-2

4.

146. IV

, 10-2

1.

94_ Id. at 2

4.

147. X

XV

I, 832-8

33.

95. W

CR

, 12

2-1

2+

148. Id. at 8

33; IV

, 23-2

5, 2

62.

96. Id. a

t la+

149. Id

. at 1

61.

97. Id. at 123; IV

, 249-1

78.

250. Id. at 23-2

4

98. Id. st 24

9.

151. X

XV

I, 833.

99. Ibid. 152. Ibid.

zoo. Id. a

t 24g-2

50.

153. Id

. at 8

32-

101. L

i. at 2

50.

154. IV

, 261.

102. Id. at 26

0.

155. Ibid.

103. Id. at 2

1.

156. )(X

VI, 8

32.

104. Ibid. 157. IV

, 23-2

5.

105. Ibid. 158. Id. at 2

4-2

5.

106. Id. at 26

0.

159. Id. at 74-

107. Id. It 24; W

CR

, 123.

16o. X

XIV

, 762, 7

66.

108. Ibid. 162. Id. at 766.

[ 43

61

.8

1. W

CR

, 158.

3. Id. at 157.

3. Id. at 6

51.

4. rd. a

t 158.

5. Id

. a1 1

54-1

55- 6. Id. 2

1 157.

7. Ibid.

8. Id. a

t 158.

9. Id. a

t 161-1

63.

to. Id. at 1

63.

xi. Id. at z65..

12. Ibid. 13. Ib

id.

14. Id

. at 1

58.

15. Id. at 16o-i6

r.

t6. Id

. at 1

58.

17. Id. a

t 157-1

58.

t8. h

t. 12

15

7.

19

. Id. at 1

54

-15

6.

10. S

OC

e.g., II, 2

34; V

I, 329, 339. 21. W

CR

, 257. 22 b

id

23.. Ibid.

24. Id. a

t 15

8-2

59

. 25.

II, 267, 2

70; X

XIV

, 215, 3

47.

26. Id. a

t 215.

2287: Ildbid. 1.2 34

7; W

CR

, 159- 29.

II, 28a.

30. Id

. at 1

81, 2

83.

31. Id

. it 280-2

81, 2

83.

32. Id

. at 2

81, 2

83.

33. Id. at 279, 2

82, 2

83.

34. Id. a

t 270. 35. L

i. at 3

79.

40.

39. IWI,L

it'2

70

.67°.

38.33176...fxse

ci

d.

dx. vaxx

i,29

0813v2.: 850. 4

a.

42.. Ibid. X

XIV

, •

44-1I4d;

I1.°

' 1V

O4, I69.

7. II It' 11 , 37677

. 283.

CH

AP

TE

R 1

3.

49. X

XIV

, 432

-433.

50. WC

R, 6.

sr. Id. at 2

58, r6

o.

52. Id. a

t '57

-16

0.

53. Id. a

t 157; X

VI, 974.

54_ II, 169-270. 55. Id. at 267-268; V

II, 27

3.

56. II, 2

70.

57.1

4 at270, 279, 28,, 283; X

XIV

, 225,

58. II, 282, 59. )0

(V, 89

9 x83.

-90

,- 60.

WC

R, 490-

62. XX

V, 8

99-9

01.

62- TA

W.

63. /d

at g

oo.

64. 11, 2

63.

65. Ibid; WC

R, 158.

66. XX

V, g

oo.

67. II, 264_

68. W

CR

, 25

9, 1

63

.

11- at 4

90.

70. Id

. at 1

59.

71. Id. at 6

, 157-1

60.

71. Id. 12 1

63.

73. Id. at 6

.

74. VI, 4

01-4

07.

75- .1d. at 4

08-

76. Id. at 408-4

09; H

, 263.

77. VI, 4

08-4

09.

78. Id

. at 4

09.

79- Id. It 410.

80. Ibid.

8t. Id

. at 4

06.

82. Ibid. 83. Id. at 4

03-

407

. 4 Id- at 4

04.

E15. Id. 2

1 4

05.

86. Id. at 403.

87. Md.

88. Id. at 40

6.

89. Ibid. 90. Ibid. 91. Ibid. 92. Id. at 4

07.

93- .11- 11 40

9- g4. II, 2

64-2

65; X

XV

, 900.

95- WC

R, 152.

154-15S.

[ 437

•

Wo

rks byM

ark Lan

e

BO

OK

S A

Citizen k D

issent Arcadia

Chicago Eyew

itness C

onversations with Am

ericans Executive Aaion

Code N

ame Z

orm

The Strongest Poison P

laasibk Denial

SCR

EE

NPL

AY

S Executive Action

Arcadia Slay the D

reamer

Plausibk D

enial

PLA

YS

The Trial ofjam

ez Earl R

ay

DO

CU

ME

NT

AR

Y F

ILM

S

Rash to judgm

ent Tw

o Men in D

allas

2- ra `7--(;

K3