Part 43

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I prepared it myself.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8- by 10-inch photograph, is it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 747?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 747, and received into evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a simulated photograph showing this weapon, Commission Exhibit 139, held in approximately the same pose as it appears to be held in Commission Exhibit 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is an 8- by 10-inch photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which you prepared yourself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I prepared the photograph myself, having the rifle held in approximately the same position as in Exhibit 133A, and I attempted to duplicate the lighting of the photograph, Exhibit 133A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 748, and was received into evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Where was this photograph prepared, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was prepared in the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this inside or outside?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Outside.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the roof?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the roof of the Justice Building.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748--have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.

I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.

I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, looking at this Commission Exhibit 139, the weapon, I see that the stock is curved downward, about 8 inches--at a point approximately 8 inches--from the butt of the weapon, and that it then recurves upward at an angle of approximately 10° to the plane of the forepart of the butt--is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I will hand you Commission Exhibits 746 A through E, and I will ask you to select from those exhibits the photograph which best brings out the various details of the weapon.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that the contour of the stock is best shown in Commission Exhibit 746E.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you take----

Mr. McCLOY. Is that better shown than in the larger pictures?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe it is; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a marking pencil, Mr. Shaneyfelt, and circle the point at which the curve and recurve appear to show, and mark that circle with an A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You circled a point which is marked predominantly by a highlight, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, without tampering with the original, 133A, I wonder whether you could show to the Commissioners the highlight as it appears on the original photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the highlight is right at that point there, the bright spot at that point.

Mr. McCLOY. I think I might say for the record, I don't believe you identified the place where these photographs were purported to be sited.

As I understand it these are from the Neely residence?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, sir; I think they were located in the Paine garage. The Neely residence----

Mr. McCLOY. The photographs were located in the Paine garage. I am talking about the site of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir; I think we will show that with independent testimony.

Mr. McCLOY. In the garden of the Neely residence.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I will hand you Exhibits 747 and 748, which are the pictures of the rifle and the simulated picture approximating 133A, and I will ask you to again mark with a circle designated A the curve and recurve of the stock of 139.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you compare the manner in which the curve and recurve marked "A" appears on these photographs with the manner in which it appears on 746, the photograph you have--746E, the photograph you circled earlier?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At a point approximately 6 to 8 inches from the base of the stock, where the stock curves downward, there is a nob formed, and on that nob there is a strong highlight which appears in photograph 746E, and in the simulated photograph, and the photograph of the rifle. The actual stock curves slightly around that highlight, and then recurves back up toward the bolt, and this is visible in Exhibit 746E, and in the simulated photographs 748 and 747.

Mr. EISENBERG. So again in 747 and 748 the recurve appears primarily as a highlight; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. That is the most outstanding point.

Mr. EISENBERG. I also observe, Mr. Shaneyfelt, the telescopic sight on Exhibit 139, the weapon. Referring again to 746E, your reproduction, which shows somewhat greater detail because of the contrast, could you circle the telescopic sight appearing in that picture, and mark it "B"?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right here.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could again show to the Commissioners the telescopic sight on the original 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Along that area, just at the base of the hand. It runs right across from this area to the base of the hand below the rifle and above the bolt.

Mr. McCLOY. It is quite apparent, isn't it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is quite apparent.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, again referring to 746E, could you circle the end of the weapon, the end of the barrel of the weapon, and mark it "C"?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, towards the upper right of the point you have marked as the end of the weapon there is a little mark of some type--right near the point which you have marked "C."

Is that mark part of the end of the weapon?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I interpret that mark as a shadow on the building, a slight shadow on the building.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just to make that clear, could you draw an arrow within your circle pointing to the end of the weapon?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have done it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a negative which, for the record, appears to be a negative of 133B, which is the photograph showing the weapon held slightly above and to the right, and I ask you if you are familiar with this negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you examined this negative to determine whether the picture 133B is in fact a print made directly or indirectly from the negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I have examined it for that purpose and determined that Exhibit 133B is a print from this negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this negative introduced into evidence as Exhibit 749?

Mr. McCLOY. Have you any other identification as to this negative as to where it was found?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; for the record only, nothing that this witness can testify to----

Mr. McCLOY. State for the record where it was found.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this was also found at one of Oswald's residences, I believe the Paine address at which Marina was staying at the time Oswald was apprehended.

Mr. McCLOY. This will be proved?

Mr. EISENBERG. This will be proved separately.

The CHAIRMAN. Will this negative deteriorate as time goes on?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It will not?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It should not.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Normally this depends on the processing, how well it has been processed and how well it has been fixed and washed. If it were going to deteriorate it would have begun by now.

The CHAIRMAN. I see--and it has not yet begun?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has not begun. There is no indication that there will be any extensive deterioration.

Representative FORD. Have we shown any place in the record that that print or a negative came from a camera----

Mr. EISENBERG. That is what I was going to proceed to do, sir.

Mr. Chairman, may we have this admitted as Exhibit 749?

Mr. McCLOY. Admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 749 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I asked you before whether you could say whether this negative, which is now 749, had been used directly or indirectly to make the print 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you say whether it had been used either directly or indirectly?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was made.

I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process.

Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. But at any rate if it was not made directly it was made indirectly? The only process that could have intervened was a rephotographing of the photograph and making a negative and then a new print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. Let me state for the record, that this camera was turned over to the FBI by Robert Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, on February 24, 1964.

Robert Oswald identified the camera as having belonged to Lee Oswald and stated that he, Robert, had obtained it from the Paine residence in December 1963, several weeks after the assassination.

On February 25, 1964, Marina was given the camera and she identified it as the one which she had used to take the pictures 133A and 133B.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, are you familiar with this camera?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 750?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 750 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the camera, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was--I can't pinpoint the date exactly, I don't have the notes here for that. It was, I would say, the latter part of February, not too long after it had been recovered on February 24.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it in working order when you received it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it had been slightly damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. In order to be able to make a photograph with the camera, I had to make slight repairs to the shutter lever, which had been bent. I straightened it and cleaned the lens in order to remove the dirt which had accumulated. These were the only things that had to be done before it was usable to make pictures with it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you clean the inside or the outside of the lens?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The outside of the lens.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the shutter lever you are referring to is the little red-tipped lever protruding at the outside of the camera?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. What did you do with it exactly?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I bent it out straight. It was bent over.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could a layman have performed these repairs?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he could have.

Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States. At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you were able to arrive at such a conclusion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I can.

In order to make an examination of this type, it is necessary to make a negative with the camera, using the camera, because the examination is based on the aperture at the back of the camera, at the film plane.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of that aperture at the film plane?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have an enlarged photograph of that aperture, that I made so that it would better show the back of the camera, with the back removed to show the film plane opening or aperture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take this photograph of the back of the camera yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made under my supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 751?

Mr, McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 751 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement here, by the way?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately two and a half times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, having reference to the chart, Mr. Shaneyfelt, could you explain it in a little more detail, the basis of your examination?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the basis of the examination was a close microscopic study of the negative made in the camera to study the shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture.

As the film is placed across the aperture of the camera, and the shutter is opened, light comes through and exposes the film only in the opening within the edges. Where the film is out over the edges of the aperture it is not exposed, and your result is an exposed negative with a clear edge, and on the negative then, the edges of that exposure of the photograph, are actually shadowgraphs of the edges of the aperture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle or mark with arrows the edges you are referring to as "these edges" or "this edge," that is, the edges of the aperture opening at the plane of the film?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Representative FORD. This would be true in every picture taken?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That would be true of every picture taken and is true of virtually every camera--every roll-film type camera. It would not be true of a press-type camera where the film is loaded into separate holders; then the holder becomes the thing that will leave identifying characteristics.

On any 35 mm. or Leica camera, roll-film camera, box cameras of all types, having an arrangement, where the film goes across an opening leaving an exposed area at the aperture and unexposed area around the aperture, this would be true.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "virtually every camera" you are including every type of camera with this type of aperture?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I would include every camera with this type of film arrangement and aperture.

Mr. EISENBERG. You held up a negative before----

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, gentlemen, you will excuse me, I must go over to the Court now. You will be able to proceed the rest of the day, will you?

Fine. I will be back as soon as I finish.

(At this point the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, you were holding up a negative which appears to be a negative of a simulated photograph you showed us before, Exhibit 748. Is it such a negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is true. That is the negative from which that exhibit was made. The negative was exposed in the camera which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 750. I exposed it myself.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this negative admitted as 752?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. That is the negative from which that exhibit was made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

(Commission Exhibit No. 752 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. McCLOY. And you took that picture?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I took that picture myself.

Representative FORD. Is this a recognized technique or procedure used in or among experts such as yourself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. We have used this technique of camera identification with film on several occasions. It doesn't arise too often. As it normally arises, the majority of examinations that I have made in this connection are the identification of a camera that has been stolen and the serial number removed so that it can't be identified, the owner cannot identify it. We then take the owner's film and the camera that has been recovered and make this examination and determine that this is in fact the camera that the owner's film was exposed in, thereby showing ownership.

So, it is a recognized technique, we do it regularly.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have performed such examinations yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is the basis of your statement, the theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold.

In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little--or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very similar, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a chart on which you have illustrated some of the more prominent points which led you to your identification, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this chart shows on the left a copy of your simulated picture number 748 and on the right a copy of the picture 133B, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you prepared this chart yourself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 753, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 753 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we get to this chart, I wonder whether you could take the negative itself, that is, Exhibit 749, and place it over the camera, Exhibit 750, so that the Commissioners can see how it runs across these--across the sides of the aperture you have been discussing?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I might state that this film at the time it is put in the camera is in a long strip, and at the time of processing it is cut apart into separate negatives. There is an unexposed area between each exposure, and they are cut apart for printing and storage and returning. So that then this would be in a long strip of film--the camera being held in this position, which is the normal position for taking a photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that is upright?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Upright--will give you an image which on the film is upside down because of the light reflecting from the face, going through the lens and going down here; so this negative, Commission Exhibit 749, would have been on the film plane in this manner at the time the exposure was made.

The blackened area that you see would be the area that was exposed, and because of the aperture frame, the clear area around the edge was not exposed.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. And this edge between the dark and the light then becomes the shadowgraph of this aperture of the camera.

Mr. EISENBERG. Your Commission Exhibit 753 illustrates that shadowgraph, or actually shows that shadowgraph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, the charts were printed to show the entire negative and reproduce the shadowgraphs of Commission Exhibit 749 and Commission Exhibit 752.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you refer now to that chart?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir. Referring to the chart then, the examination was made by comparing the edges, not only for size but general contour, and I have marked with numbers from 1 through 8 some of the more outstanding points of identification.

The eight points are not all that accounted for the identification. The identification is based on the fact that not only those eight points but every place else is the same on both negatives.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the contours are also the same?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The contours are the same, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. So you have taken these eight points for demonstrative purposes?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Rather than as being actually what you rested your identification on, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Point No. 1 which is in the lower right hand corner, as you view the picture of the chart----

Mr. McCLOY. Lower left-hand corner?

Mr. EISENBERG. As you view it, lower left hand?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. As you view it, lower left hand of both of the charts, shows a notch that makes the shadowgraph other than a straight line.

Representative FORD. This is very clear.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This appears the same in both charts. Point No. 2 is another similar notch except that it is a double one, and the little notches are smaller. This again is the same in both charts.

Point No. 3 is more of an indentation, a slight curvature where the edge curves out a little and back in toward the corner. It is not as pronounced a dent.

Point No. 4 is only visible by looking at the chart in this direction because----

Mr. EISENBERG. This direction being from left to right as you look?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Left to right, because although this line looks straight it actually dips down and back up again.

Mr. EISENBERG. "This line" is the line at the top of that exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The line of the shadowgraph at the top of the photograph.

Representative FORD. That is point No. 4?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Four. Point No. 5 again is a slight dent or bulge in the edge and shows in both charts.

No. 6 is a more shallow and wide indentation along the edge.

Point No. 7 is again the same type of a characteristic as the others, but a little different shape.