Part 59

The top of the rifle has been emphasized with a strong highlight, and the highlight in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 5 along the top of the rifle does not conform to the actual top of the rifle as it can be seen in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1.

There are some other highlights added above that, that are rather unexplainable but may be highlights relative to the lower portion of the scope.

Also a highlight has been added along the top of the barrel between Oswald's left hand and where the barrel extends past his left shoulder.

There has been some retouching added around the pistol on the right hip of Oswald, and around the holster. These are the primary points that have been retouched.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, does this photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, more closely resemble the Detroit Free Press photograph, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, or the Life photographs, Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It corresponds to the reproduction in the Detroit Free Press, Exhibit No. 4, and not as well to the reproduction on Exhibit No. 2, which is the Life magazine. In fact, the reproductions on Exhibits Nos. 4 and No. 5 both have two white specks along the right leg between the knee and the right foot, centrally located in that area one above the other, that do not appear in the original photograph, which is Commission Exhibit 133-A, and do not appear in the Life magazine reproduction on either Exhibit No. 2 or 3. This would indicate to me that these two photographs may have originated from the same basic source or basic print.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in fact, the credit under Shaneyfelt No. 5 says, "Copyright 1964, Detroit Free Press," is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. But is the picture identical in all respects to the Detroit Free Press picture?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; the retouching, particularly around the breech of the rifle in Exhibit No. 5, which is the Newsweek reproduction, is different than the retouching on the reproduction in Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the reproduction around the breech, that is, just below Oswald's left hand, correspond to anything you have ever seen on a rifle, Mr. Shaneyfelt--that is, the four or five roughly parallel lines?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it doesn't correspond to anything that I recall having seen on a rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. What do you think the genesis of all those lines would be?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe that they are possibly the artist's interpretation of how the rifle may have looked in that area, since the photograph being retouched was indistinct in that area.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you say that would be likely to have been done by a person not familiar with rifles?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is a possibility, but I wouldn't be able to state that with any degree of certainty. That is one possibility.

Mr. EISENBERG. I also see that Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 has an arrow pointing to the revolver, which is not present in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5 differs from Exhibit No. 4, although it seems to be substantially similar, and in fact Newsweek credits its photo to the Detroit Free Press, which is the Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 picture?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I would attribute these differences to the differences in retouching. Since it would be normal procedure in publications of this type for each publication to do its own retouching for its own reproductions, they would normally receive the picture in an unretouched condition from whatever source is available, such as the Associated Press, or, as in Exhibit No. 3, the credit to the Detroit Free Press, and after receiving the unretouched photograph, would then add the retouching that they desired to have on the photo before making the halftone reproduction.

Mr. EISENBERG. The area to the right of Oswald's shoulder and head, that is, to the left of the shoulder and head as we look at the picture, appears to be retouched or airbrushed out in the same way in both pictures. Would that be your conclusion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; with one exception, that while the airbrushing is generally similar, it appears in the Detroit Free Press, which is Exhibit No. 4, as a light area against a black shirt, while in Newsweek, Exhibit No. 5, it appears as a black area against a rather dark shirt, with a light highlight added along the shoulder to make the area stand out against the background.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it your conclusion, then, that two separate retouchings were done to accomplish that effect, one retouching by the Newsweek people and one retouching by the Detroit Free Press people?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have no foundation on which to base a positive statement in that regard, but this is suggested by the variations that are present.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the presence of that same feature as a retouch in both photographs might be coincidental, or at least might not have been done by the same person?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in your mind that similarity of feature does not preclude the possibility that a completely unretouched photo was submitted by the Detroit Free Press to Newsweek?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you page 30 of the New York Times, issue of February 19, 1964, which again contains a photograph similar to those you have been testifying as to--and which page I have marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 6--and I ask you whether you have examined that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what is your conclusion concerning that photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I found this to be generally similar in all visible characteristics to the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and found no differences to suggest that it is other than the same photograph as Exhibit No. 133-A. However, the lack of detail in the halftone reproduction on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 6 precludes a positive identification with Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you see any retouching in this photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. In the photograph reproduced on Exhibit No. 6 this is retouched along the right shoulder and to the right side of the face of Oswald. In this instance, that has been put in in a solid medium gray, to make it appear as the extension of the building or the fence that appears in the background of the original photograph.

There is retouching around the rifle stock--in fact, the stock itself seems to have been lightened all along the lower portion near the butt; a highlight along the top has been retouched along the top from the butt to the breech; some retouching along the butt of the stock, and also along the bottom edge of the stock, running upward toward the trigger.

The highlight that appears in Exhibit No. 1 along the bolt as a two-section highlight or a broken highlight appears in this same general area on the gun in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 6 as a solid highlight and one continuous line. There has been a highlight added along the bottom of the gun just forward of the trigger guard and just below Oswald's left hand. Also a highlight has been added along the top of the gun above Oswald's left hand to show the gun as apart from the dark shirt, so that the gun and shirt do not blend into one continuous tone at that point. There appears to be some retouching of Oswald's shadow, in that it has been toned down to a medium gray shadow so that it will not blend into the lower portion of his legs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which of the reproductions which you have so far examined does this most resemble, Mr. Shaneyfelt: the Detroit Free Press, the Life, or the Newsweek reproduction?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This corresponds to both the Detroit Free Press and the Newsweek reproductions of the photograph, in that it contains the two white dots along the right leg, centrally located between the ankle and the knee as they appear in those two reproductions, and, therefore, may be derived from the same basic print, since this characteristic does not appear in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A or in the Life magazine reproductions on Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the retouching in the New York Times photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt, how does that compare with the retouching in the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek photographs?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The retouching is different from any of the other Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you conclude, therefore, that the New York Times, like Newsweek, may have received from its source an unretouched photograph which it proceeded to retouch?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that again the similarity in retouching to the upper right of Oswald's shoulder and head might be coincidental?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; actually, there is considerable difference in the retouching in that area on the New York Times photograph as compared to the Newsweek and Detroit Free Press exhibits. The New York Times has attempted to make it appear as a wall, whereas the other two have merely airbrushed out the line, and it looks like foliage.

Mr. EISENBERG. The stock in all three of these photographs, that is, Detroit Free Press, Newsweek, and New York Times, has also been retouched in a similar manner, that is, so that the top of the stock appears straight, whereas actually the top of the stock is curved--is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. What do you think accounts for the coincidence of the retouching in these two areas--that is, the top of the stock and the area to the upper right of Oswald's shoulder--given the differences you have noted in the details of retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I would attribute that to a lack of detail in the photographs that they had, and a lack of understanding of the formation of a normal rifle stock on the part of the retoucher.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the front page of the New York Journal-American, issue of February 18, 1964, which again contains a photograph similar to those you have been discussing, and which I have labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 7, and ask you whether you have examined that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my conclusion that this photograph is the same in all visible characteristics as the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and I found no differences that would suggest that it is other than the same photograph. However, because of the lack of detail in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 7, it is not possible to positively identify it as the same photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is retouching apparent in this photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe that in detail?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there has been retouching along the right shoulder of Oswald, and to some degree around the head, in order to have the head and shoulder not blend into the background. This appears to have been done by increasing the highlight or lightening the highlight along the shoulder, rather than darkening the background.

There is a highlight added along the top of the rifle stock that runs quite straight toward the bolt, but it is not as strong a highlight as in the other reproductions we have discussed. There is a highlight along the top of the rifle between Oswald's left hand and the point where the rifle passes his left shoulder. There is a suggestion of some retouching around the rifle scope, which is almost lost in the detail or almost lost against the black shirt, but it is barely visible. There is a dark shadow that appears in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A that has been retouched out of Exhibit No. 7 reproduction, that shadow being about halfway between the knee and the crotch of the trousers between the legs. Those are the primary points of retouching.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which of the various photographs which you have examined does this Journal-American photograph most resemble, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Journal-American photograph reproduction on Exhibit No. 7 is different from the Detroit Free Press, Exhibit No. 4, Newsweek, Exhibit No. 5, and New York Times, Exhibit No. 6, in that the white spots along the right leg between the ankle and the knee do not appear in the reproduction in the Journal-American. It very closely corresponds to the reproduction on the front of the Life magazine, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2. In fact, the retouching appears to be very nearly the same. The lack of detail in the Newspaper reproduction on Exhibit No. 7 precludes positively saying that it is identical, but it is my feeling that it is probably identical.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you point out some of the similarities in retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the retouching along the top of the rifle stock, the retouching around the right shoulder and around the head, to the right of Oswald's head, the retouching around the top of the rifle above the left hand, the elimination of the shadow between the legs just below the breech of the trousers are the same in both reproductions.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any notable difference between those reproductions, the Life and Journal-American reproductions?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; no notable difference in the retouching.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any opinion as to the source of the Journal-American photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is not possible to positively state, but I note in examining the Journal-American reproduction, which is Exhibit No. 7, that the face area in particular has a design in the light shadow areas which I recognized as being typical of a halftone reproduction made from another halftone reproduction. And because of the presence of this characteristic in the shadow area of the face, and the manner in which the photograph is cropped or trimmed, I am of the opinion that it is highly possible that the reproduction in the Journal-American, Exhibit No. 7, was made from a Life magazine cover, issue of February 21, 1964, containing the reproduction of the photograph of Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you elaborate on your statement that the cropping is a factor in leading to this conclusion?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; on Exhibit No. 2, which is the Life magazine cover, if a straight line is drawn vertically past the right edge of the Life sign on the front of the magazine, so that the sign is blocked out, and that straight line is continued through a shadow area comparable to the shadow in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 7, the cropping along that edge of the photograph then becomes identical to the cropping on the Journal-American photograph. This would suggest that the picture was purposely cropped in that manner to eliminate the Life magazine printing in the upper left-hand corner of the magazine cover.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the Life magazine picture, and also the Journal-American picture, show cropping as against the original, that is, Exhibit No. 133-A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. The Life magazine photograph does not show all of the photograph that appears on Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, the photograph having been cropped down closer to the head, cutting out some of the overhead area. There has also been considerable cropping on both the right and left margins, when you compare the Life magazine and Journal-American reproductions with Exhibit No. 133-A.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other feature on the Journal-American photograph which leads you to conclude that it was taken from the Life photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in the lower right-hand corner of the Life magazine cover, Exhibit No. 2, there is a strip set in, containing the printing "February 21, 1964, 25 cents." If the Journal-American did, in fact, reproduce this picture from a Life cover, it would have been necessary for them to retouch out this strip of printing in the lower right-hand corner of the Life magazine cover, and I find on examination of the reproduction on the Journal-American that there is retouching in this area. The background of the grass is inconsistent, in that it has been darkened around that area, and there is also darkening along the foot and leg, and the shadow area has been altered in between the two feet in a manner to strongly suggest that this strip has been retouched out in order to make the reproduction on the Journal-American, Exhibit No. 7.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, do you have anything to add to your testimony?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I believe not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, thank you very much then. That will be all.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN

The testimony of James C. Cadigan was taken at 3:45 p.m., on April 30, 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. CADIGAN. I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, the purpose for which we are here is to go into the facts of the assassination of President Kennedy, and in particular we have asked you to testify concerning analysis of questioned documents. Mr. Cadigan, could you state your full name and your position?

Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan. I am a special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you been in this field, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Twenty-three and one-half years.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your training in this field?

Mr. CADIGAN. Upon being assigned to the laboratory I was given a specialized course of training and instruction which consisted of attending various lectures and conferences on the subject, reading books, and working under the direction of experienced examiners.

Upon attaining a required degree of proficiency, I was assigned cases on my own responsibility, and since that time I have examined many thousands of cases involving handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, forgeries, erasures, alterations, mechanical devices of all types, pens, paper, and ink. I conduct research on various problems as they arise and assist in the training of our new examiners.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in Federal or other courts, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; in many Federal and State courts, and military courts-martial.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 773, and I ask you whether you have examined that item.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that consists of an application to purchase a rifle, addressed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you an item consisting of a roll of microfilm labeled D-77, and ask you whether you are familiar with that roll of microfilm?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. That microfilm will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.

(The article referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, was Exhibit No. 773 developed from a negative contained in Cadigan Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; it was printed from that roll.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 780, consisting of the Marine Corps file of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 778, consisting of two letters extracted from Oswald's State Department file; Commission Exhibit No. 781, consisting of a passport application by Lee Harvey Oswald, dated June 25, 1963--at least "Passport Issued June 25, 1963"; and Cadigan Exhibit No. 2, consisting of a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to John B. Connally, then Secretary of the Navy.

(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 2.)

Mr. CADIGAN. This is in two parts.

Mr. EISENBERG. In two parts, and the second part consists of a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to a Brigadier General R. McC. Tompkins, dated 7 March 1962, and a group of documents, comprising photographs of the balance of Lee Harvey Oswald's State Department file, labeled Cadigan Exhibit No. 3.

(The documents referred to were marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3.)

Mr. EISENBERG. I ask you whether you have examined these various items.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you explain the meaning of the term standard or "known documents" as used in the field of questioned-document examination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Known standards are samples of writings of an individual which are known to be in his writing and which are available for comparison with questioned or suspect writings.

Mr. EISENBERG. You have examined certain questioned writings allegedly prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald, have you, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your examination, what documents did you use as known documents?

Mr. CADIGAN. Cadigan Exhibit No. 2, Commission Exhibit No. 781, Commission Exhibit No. 778, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, and Commission Exhibit No. 780.

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, during the balance of the examination I will refer to these documents collectively as the known or standard writings. Mr. Cadigan, a portion of the known documents and a portion of the questioned documents are photographs rather than originals; is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you able to identify the handwriting of an individual on the basis of a photograph of that handwriting?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you make an identification, such an identification, if your only questioned document was a photograph if the photograph was sufficiently clear?

Mr. CADIGAN. If the photograph is sufficiently clear, it is adequate for the handwriting comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. Similarly with standards, if your only standard was a photograph or your only standards were photographs?

Mr. CADIGAN. If your standards were also photographs, it is possible to make the comparison and arrive at a definite opinion.

Mr. EISENBERG. And were the photographs in this case, both the standard and the questioned documents, clear enough to form the basis of an opinion?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out that some of the known standards are original documents and not photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I am aware of that, but I wanted to set out on the record whether the standards which are photographs are adequate----

Mr. CADIGAN. They are adequate.

Mr. EISENBERG. To serve as standards.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to Commission Exhibit No. 773, did you compare the handwriting on that exhibit with the writing in the known standards to see if they were written by the same person?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. That the writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared photographs or charts which you could use to demonstrate the reason for that, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will you produce them? You are handing me an enlarged photograph of Commission Exhibit No. 773, is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And constitutes an accurate photograph of Exhibit No. 773?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A.

(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A.)

And have you prepared photographs of the standards, Mr. Cadigan?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. The first photograph is an enlargement of the letter to Brigadier General R. McC. Tompkins? Is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 4.

(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 4.)

Mr. EISENBERG. And the second photograph is an enlargement of a letter from the State Department file, is that correct?