Part 58

Mr. HUBERT. But in any case, from your own knowledge, except for the O-1, as to which you have already testified, the rubber stamp and the other figures in the lower right-hand corner in Exhibit No. 1 in this deposition, being Commission Exhibit No. 838, as to those you know nothing about?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. I know nothing, sir. Once I handed the letter to Lieutenant Revill, then I never saw the letter again until I was called into the captain's office yesterday. I remember it in my mind, but as far as seeing the actual document, I had not seen the actual document, I mean a copy of it or anything.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you think it would be possible for you to call Captain Gannaway and see if he would give you authority to let me have that copy that you have shown us or perhaps take a photostat of it; can you do that?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. Yes; I will do that.

Mr. HUBERT. Suppose we take a few minutes recess, then, and you call Captain Gannaway and ask him if we might have that copy.

Mrs. ROBERTSON. All right; I will.

(At this point the proceedings of the deposition of Mrs. Robertson were recessed, during which time Mrs. Robertson made the call heretofore referred to, and the proceedings were continued as hereinafter shown.)

Mr. HUBERT. Mrs. Robertson, you have attempted to reach Captain Gannaway to see if he could give you permission to either let me have a photocopy made of this letter which you showed me, or else have a copy of that made, but at the moment you have not been able to reach him.

Suppose we do this. I have already asked you all the questions that I would ask you about the document, and suppose we do it this way--that if you do secure permission to give it to me, then when it is delivered at a later time today or at the latest, tomorrow, I will mark it as Exhibit No. 3 of your deposition, do you understand?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. By simply writing my name and the date and then all of the testimony which you have previously given as to that document heretofore, but which did not refer to a numbered exhibit will apply to Exhibit No. 3; is that all right? Do you understand what I mean?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. Yes--I see--I understand what you mean.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, I understand that Captain Gannaway, from what you told me, called you in yesterday and spoke to you about this. Has anyone else spoken to you about this recently, at any time?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. No, captain--I assume it was from this letter that was addressed to the chief requiring my testimony on this--the captain just said I was needed and that I had a choice of Thursday or Friday and which would be more convenient?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes; I understand, and then he asked you if you remembered it?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. He asked me first if I remembered the letter, and I said, "Yes, very well," and I repeated the gist of the contents to him.

Mr. HUBERT. That was the only time anyone had spoken to you about the letter?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. Well, when Lieutenant Revill went to Washington, I believe, he went a matter of a week or 2 weeks ago and he said at that time when he came back, when he returned from Washington, he said, "Mary Jane, you know they may need your testimony on it," and I said, "Well, that's fine. I certainly remember the day, and I certainly remember the incident," and other than that there has been no discussion.

Mr. HUBERT. And there is no doubt in your mind that it was written, as you say, on the afternoon of November 22, approximately between the hours of 4 and 4:30 p.m.?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. I would say that it was written more between--yes--about then, because I was thinking from the--actually the time he started giving it to me and all that--actually the typing and waiting for him to proofread it and all like that--that I am sure--because I went directly home to my family and told my husband that I had typed the letter.

Mr. HUBERT. And there can be no doubt about it being November 22, either?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. No doubt in the world.

Mrs. HUBERT. All right, Mrs. Robertson, thank you very much. As soon as you find out from Captain Gannaway, perhaps you can arrange some way to get the document delivered?

Mrs. ROBERTSON. Shall I personally have to deliver that to you, or can it be sent by one of the officers? Is there a requirement about it?

Mr. HUBERT. Just so that it is identified more particularly with your testimony, if you get permission to hand me that document, or deliver it in person, that's all that will be necessary.

Mrs. ROBERTSON. Well, I'm quite sure the captain will not object.

Mr. HUBERT. If you want to send it over, I would like you to place your name on it just so that we will know it is the document we are talking about, because after all, this is going to be read by people later, and we know what we are talking about, but we must make it clear that others will know from the whole record what it is.

Mrs. ROBERTSON. I see, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you, very much, and I appreciate your assistance.

Mrs. ROBERTSON. All right.

TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT

The testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt was taken at 3:40 p.m., on June 12, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

(The oath was administered by the reporter.)

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state your full name, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have testified before the Commission in this proceeding before?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will not rehearse your qualifications again, since you have already been accepted as an expert in the field in which you are going to be questioned today.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a photograph marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, consisting of a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle, and I ask you whether you prepared that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this a photograph of an existing Commission exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; this is a copy of the small photograph that is a part of Commission Exhibit No. 133.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be 133-A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't recall whether it is A or B.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you photographs of Commission Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B and ask if this serves to refresh your recollection as to whether Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph of 133-A or 133-B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the cover of Life magazine, issue of February 21, 1964, which I have labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2, and I ask you if this is a photograph which you have previously examined in connection with earlier testimony given by you to the Commission?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you page 80 of the same issue of Life, which is labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 3, and I ask you the same question, that is, whether this is the photograph you have previously discussed in connection with earlier testimony?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, I am using duplicate originals rather than the actual exhibits, because the actual exhibits are now being printed up by the Government Printing Office.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the front page of the Detroit Free Press, issue of February 17, 1964, containing a picture similar to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, and the other pictures thus far referred to--and I am labeling this Detroit Free Press page Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4--and ask you whether you have examined the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and a rifle appearing on that exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare this picture with 133-A or Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, your reproduction of 133-A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I found that the reproduction of the photograph of Oswald holding the gun on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 has insufficient detail to warrant positive identification as being the same photograph as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1.

However, I did find that the photograph in the newspaper, Exhibit No. 4, is consistent in all respects with the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1, except for variations in retouching that are a normal part of the process of making halftone reproductions from photographs for newspapers. I further found that there was nothing in these photographs to indicate that they are other than the same photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say that the only variations appear to be variations in retouching, that would be based on the conclusion that they were the same photograph, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe those variations which are apparently due to retouching, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. There is an area to the right of Oswald's head and shoulder, to my left as I look at the photograph, that has been airbrushed or otherwise altered, to intensify the outline of the shoulder, which would be Oswald's shoulder.

In addition there is retouching around the stock of the rifle, and along the other portions of the rifle where it crosses Oswald's body, that has been added to intensify the detail in that portion of the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "around the stock," could you specify as to whether you mean the top, bottom, end, or all three or any two of those boundaries?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 there is retouching on both the top and bottom and butt of the stock, and also a highlight running along the top of the gun from the bolt forward toward the muzzle.

There is an additional highlight along the bottom of the gun just forward of the trigger assembly between the trigger assembly and the hand.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, there is a highlight on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 running near the top of the barrel or receiver, is that correct--terminating at Oswald's left hand?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the relation between the highlight at the top of the barrel or receiver in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 and the highlight just referred to in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. In Exhibit No. 1, that highlight along the bolt of the gun is in two parts, and the highlight in the photograph or the reproduction of the photograph, Exhibit No. 4, is a continuous highlight.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it your opinion that the highlight in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 is based upon the highlight in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. But it differs, at least, in that it makes a continuous highlight where none appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, is that your testimony?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, a telescopic sight is apparent on the rifle, and no such sight is apparent in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4. Do you have any opinion as to the reason for the lack of a sight appearing on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give that opinion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that the sight does not appear in the reproduction of the photograph on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, because it was not retouched to intensify the detail of the sight, and, therefore was lost in the engraving process. I do not believe that there was any retouching over the sight in order to purposely obliterate it from the reproduction in Exhibit No. 4.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is there generally a loss of detail in reproduction of illustrations appearing in newspapers, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is. This is apparent in other areas of this photograph when compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, in areas of Oswald's shirt, where wrinkling appears in Exhibit No. 1, and is lost in the reproduction. Also, the wrinkles in the dark areas of the trousers are not reproduced in the halftone process, but this detail is lost by the process.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is this halftone process which you mention?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the halftone process by which a continuous tone photograph, such as Exhibit No. 1, is photographed through a screen so that it can be broken up into a dot pattern of black dots on a white background and white dots on a black background to give the appearance of a continuous tone in the printed newspaper reproduction. And this is the only means by which a continuous-tone photograph can be reproduced.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is it called a halftone process?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't really know the answer but I would assume that it is because it gives you the tones in between black and white, or the halftones.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, a loss of detail is inherent in this process, is it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true, particularly in regard to newspaper reproductions, where a relatively coarse screen is used in making the halftone. In a magazine publication, where a higher quality of printing is used, and a better quality of paper is used, it is possible to use a finer screen and thereby retain a greater amount of the detail.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, referring once more to the highlight running along the top of the weapon, and terminating at Oswald's left hand in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4; when you compare this exhibit with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, does it appear that that highlight actually runs along the top of the weapon?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. In the reproduction of the photograph on Exhibit No. 4, the impression is given that the highlight is along the top of the rifle, because you see no additional detail above that highlight along the top of the gun.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you compare that with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, where a similar highlight appears, does that highlight actually denote the top of the weapon, or is any detail above the highlight apparent in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, the highlight does not denote the top of the weapon. There is detail present that shows other areas of the gun, the breech, above the highlight.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, would you say then that detail of the weapon itself, that is, the upper part of the weapon, had been lost along with detail representing the telescopic sight?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Bringing your attention back to Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, which are the Life photographs, how did these photographs compare with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The primary difference is in the retouching. In the area above and behind Oswald's right shoulder, the background has been retouched out on Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press. In the Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2, the background has been left in, and the retouching has been added to the shirt area around the right shoulder to enhance the detail along in that area.

The Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2, also has retouching around the scope of the rifle in order that it will not blend into the dark shirt that Oswald was wearing and thus be lost in the reproduction process; this has not been done in Exhibit No. 4. The retouching along the top of the rifle stock is generally similar, in that it is in a straight line from the butt of the stock to the bolt. However, Exhibit No. 4 has a different type of retouching along the end or butt of the stock and the bottom of the stock or the lower edge of the stock between the butt and the trigger guard. Highlights along the top and bottom of the breech area are different in Exhibit No. 4 than in Exhibit No. 2.

There is a dark shadow between the legs of Oswald that is about halfway between the knee and the crotch that has been left in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 4, but has been retouched out of the Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2. These are the primary variations in the retouching on the two exhibits.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the highlight running at or near the top of the receiver or barrel in the bolt area show a continuous or an intermittent form in Commission Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 2 shows a break in the highlight along the bolt, and is reproduced very close to the original photograph, which is Exhibit No. 1.

In fact, this area was probably not retouched, or this highlight was probably not retouched, for the Life magazine reproduction.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you also mentioned that the retouching along the stock was different when Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2 is compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4. Could you go into a little bit of detail on that difference?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I mentioned that the highlight along the top from the butt to the bolt is generally similar in that it is in a straight line. Although the rifle itself is actually curved along that area, they both have been retouched in a relatively straight line along the top edge of the stock. There has been a white or light line added along the butt of the stock where it crosses Oswald's leg in Exhibit No. 4 and this has not been done in Exhibit No. 2. In addition, a white outline has been drawn in along the bottom edge of the stock as it runs from the butt to the trigger guard in Exhibit No. 4. This has not been done in Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, when retouching is effected, is it performed on a negative or on a print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Retouching for newspaper reproduction is almost always done on the print.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what about magazine reproductions?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This would also be true of magazine reproductions.

Mr. EISENBERG. And would that explain how Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 4 could differ from each other, even though they were apparently both taken from the same print, originally from the same print, of which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that would explain the difference.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is--could you go into detail on that? Could you elaborate that answer? By what process would the result of a reproduction of the same print differ, as reproduced in two different media or two different magazines or newspapers?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, the primary variation would be in the retouching that has been added. Different publications and different retouch artists would handle a photograph differently, and add different retouching to them. Therefore, these would be the main variations which you would have between two different reproductions. In addition there can also be differences in the quality of the engraving, as there are differences in quality of many things. A newspaper reproduction is made with a coarser screen and gives less detail than a magazine reproduction that uses a finer screen and, therefore, reproduces more detail. These are some of the basic things that would affect these reproductions and make variations in the reproductions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you page 80 of Newsweek magazine, issue of March 2, 1964, also containing a photograph like those we have been examining, and this is marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, and I ask you whether you have examined that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions, please?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I found that the photograph reproduced in the Newsweek magazine, issue of March 2, 1964, which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, is the same in all general characteristics as the photograph that has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and I found no differences to suggest that it is other than the same photograph----

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Except for variations in retouching.

Mr. EISENBERG. I take it that your testimony concerning Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 is that due to some loss of detail it is impossible to say that these photographs are identical to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1--or rather Exhibit No. 133-A, on which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is based--in the same way you can say that a fingerprint is identical to a given fingerprint impression; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I was not able to positively identify them, because of this loss of detail.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your opinion as to the probability that they are identical, bearing in mind that it is impossible to make an absolute unqualified determination of identity?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. They may very well be identical since I found no significant differences other than the retouching.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there much doubt in your mind?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very little.

Mr. EISENBERG. Apart from the factors which have been mentioned so far as apparently due to retouching, and those factors which you have not yet discussed but will, was there any difference between the reproductions and the original, between the apparent reproductions and the original? That is, was lighting the same, position, and so forth?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I found them to be the same in all of these general characteristics as to lighting and position of hands and position of body, their relation to the background. I found no differences whatsoever.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that for the photograph to be a different photograph, I take it, you would have had to have Oswald line up exactly in the same position, with his elbows and torso in precisely the same relative position, with the rifle at precisely the same relative height and in precisely the same relative position as it had been in previously, with the lighting casting the exact same shadows, insofar as shadows are visible, and so forth, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you found no discrepancies in those items I have just mentioned?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.

To make the record complete, is there any other possibility, no matter how remote?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; even though it would be extremely remote, it is conceivable that a person could actually make a drawing or painting of a picture exactly like this, that when reproduced in a newspaper or publication with its loss of detail would resemble Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, in the same manner that this picture or this reproduction resembles Exhibit No. 133-A.

Mr. EISENBERG. "This reproduction" being which, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Either Exhibit No. 4, or Exhibit No. 5, Exhibit No. 2, any of the magazine or newspaper reproductions that we have discussed.

Mr. EISENBERG. You are not talking about Commission Exhibit No. 133-A itself, which you testified to earlier?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No, no.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you see any evidence of this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I do not, and I think it is in the realm of unreasonable doubt and it is highly improbable.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, could you describe the apparent retouching in that exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is airbrushing in the background area that shows beside the right shoulder of Oswald, where the tree that shows in Exhibit No. 1 has been airbrushed out to a darkened area. There have been highlights added to the rifle, a straight highlight along the top of the stock, running from the butt of the stock to the bolt, a bright highlight along the butt of the stock.

There has been rather elaborate retouching around the bolt area or breech area of the rifle. The highlight that appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 along the bolt of the gun, which appears as a broken line or two segments of a line or highlight, appears in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5 as a broken line very much like the actual highlight in the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1.

There has been a highlight added parallel to that, along the bottom of or just below that area in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5, which does not appear in Exhibit No. 1.