Mr. Stombaugh.

photograph on the right was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 400 times.

Mr. Eisenberg.

The photograph on the right does not seem to show a hair four times larger, so I don't understand it.

Mr. Stombaugh.

It was on the enlarging of the photograph itself.
Had these two prints been enlarged at the same enlarging factor, the hairs on the left, would be much, much smaller than the ones on the right. This was just blown up to this size so the hairs could be seen.
For instance, had we not blown these up, here we see them magnified 400 times, and this other photograph is a natural shot.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, here you are pointing to photograph 669, and the second shot which you call "natural" is 668?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Yes, sir. You can see the difference in the diameter and the difference in the detail of the photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Were those photographs of different magnifications?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Yes; they were.

Mr. Eisenberg.

What was 669, do you recall?

Mr. Stombaugh.

I believe it was approximately 400.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And 668?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Approximately 100.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So it corresponds to the difference in the right- and left-hand portions of 672?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Yes; it would.
Now, the characteristics we look for in making a hair match. First would be the color.
The matches I found in Oswald's hairs. His hairs vary from light brown to a medium brown shade.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Are you talking about the known samples now?

Mr. Stombaugh.

This is his known sample. In this particular match the color was medium brown, and looking at the hair throughout its entire length, it ranged from a medium brown, and this color remained constant to the tip, where the color changed to a light brown and the very tip of it was transparent, it was clear, had no color at all. There were no color pigments in the tip of the hair.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Are you referring now to the pubic hair which you illustrate on the right-hand side of 672?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Yes; I am referring to the pubic hair.
This is the gross appearance. I looked at it under low power where I could see the entire length of the hair.
Next, the thickness of the hair, or the diameter of the hair shaft. I found this diameter to be rather narrow for pubic hairs. Pubic hairs ordinarily are rather thick. Oswald's hairs were relatively narrow. Pubic hairs also have what we term nobbiness. You can see a nob right here, it is twisted----

Mr. Eisenberg.

Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on chart 672?

Mr. Stombaugh.

Here we see that it twists and it is very uneven. The shaft of the hair is generally very uneven in pubic hairs.
However, in Oswald's pubic hairs we had very little of this. The hairs were very smooth. They lacked this nobbiness. The upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs. This was an unusual characteristic.
The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. They had a very sharp tip and very clear. Ordinarily pubic hairs are rounded at the tips, and not pointed--this is from wearing against clothing--at all. This would indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher than the average persons.
The cuticle, in other words the very thin layer of scales covering his hairs, is very thin for pubic hairs. The scales exhibited a very small protrusion on the outside. The distance they protruded from the shaft of the hair is very slight.

Mr. Eisenberg.

When you talk about the protrusion, do you mean the distance between the point of the scale and the balance of the cuticle, the center of the cuticle?

Mr. Stombaugh.

That is correct. Some hairs will have a sawtooth effect, will look just like saw teeth do when you look at the blade of a saw.

Mr. Eisenberg.

From the protrusion of the scales?