the camera exposed on to the negative. This shadowgraph shows the
imperfections and nicks, etc., along the edges of the picture area
of the camera that are individual and distinctive to that particular
camera, and would not be duplicated in any other camera.
Mr. REDLICH. Before you proceed to the specific points of reference,
Mr. Shaneyfelt, in your prior testimony you advised the Commission,
that Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, which is a photograph of Lee
Harvey Oswald holding a rifle, but in a slightly different pose from
Commission Exhibit No. 133-A; that Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was
taken by the camera which has been designated as Commission Exhibit No.
750.
You made that identification based on an examination of the negative
from which Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was produced. At that time you
indicated that you could not make such an identification of the source
of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A because the negative had not been
recovered.
I would like to ask you two questions: First, to the best of your
knowledge has there been any recovery made of the negative from which
Commission Exhibit No. 133-A was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. REDLICH. The second question is, why are you able to make an
identification of the origin of Commission Exhibit No. 2 which is not a
negative but a print, whereas you are unable to make an identification
of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A which is also a print?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because the identification of the origin of the
photograph or negative is based on the reproduction of the picture
area of the camera or the opening in the back of the camera where the
negative is exposed.
This appears as a shadowgraph on the negative, and is the basis for
the identification. If a print is made from the negative that shows
this shadowgraph, then the print can be used as a basis for the
identification.
In the case of Commission Exhibit No. 2, which is a print of the alley
in the back of the Walker residence, this shadowgraph appears around
three of the edges of this photograph and, therefore, it has been used
for such a comparison.
Commission Exhibit No. 133-A has been printed with a white border,
and the shadowgraph portion of the negative has been blocked out and
does not appear on Commission Exhibit No. 133-A. Therefore, it was not
possible to associate it with any specific camera.
Mr. REDLICH. Will you proceed now to indicate the points of reference
which enabled you to make the identification concerning Commission
Exhibit No. 2?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, in photograph B, point No. 1 is near the
lower left-hand corner of the picture, and shows a depression in the
black edge and a little point sticking out from the black edge into the
white area of the picture.
This is caused by an irregularity in the camera area where the film
lies across the back portion of the camera. This characteristic, which
is No. 1 on photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, appears in that
same area which has been labeled No. 1 on photograph A of Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 23.
It appears as a shallow depression and a little black point coming
into the white area. Farther along the right-hand side of the picture
centrally located between the top and the bottom, are points 2 and 3
in photographs A and B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23. These refer to
two small notches in the black area where the white of the picture
runs into the black line causing the appearance of two notches, one,
the lower one, about twice the width of the upper one. This same
characteristic is present in both photographs A and B.
Point No. 4 is an irregularity or a curve in the line on the right edge
of the photograph in both A and B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Point No. 5 is a long shallow depression in the black edge, of the
photographs A and B.
This point is located centrally on the right-hand border, and has the
same appearance in both of the photographs on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Point No. 6 is a little black point that comes out into the white area
of the picture, and this, I found, in the lower right-hand corner of
the photograph of the alley in back of the Walker house, which is
photograph A on Exhibit No. 23, and is also present as point No. 6 in
the photograph that I made from the camera which is photograph B of
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Based on these characteristics, it is my opinion that the photograph,
which is Commission Exhibit No. 2, is a print of a negative that was
exposed in the Duo Flex camera which is Commission Exhibit No. 750.
Mr. REDLICH. Is the scientific method which you have used to make this
identification sufficiently precise so that you are able to state
that this negative was exposed in Commission Exhibit No. 750 to the
exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, Commission Exhibit No. 150 is a shirt
which has been described in testimony as the shirt worn by Lee Harvey
Oswald at the time of his arrest on November 22, 1963.
The Commission has forwarded to the FBI two photographs which have been
heretofore designated as Gerald L. Hill, Exhibit A, and Gerald L. Hill,
Exhibit B, which have been identified by the photographer as having
been taken under the marquee of the Texas Theater as Oswald was being
removed from the theater on November 22.
Gerald L. Hill Exhibit A has been heretofore identified as having been
taken at a point of time very close to the time that Gerald L. Hill
Exhibit B was taken.
The Commission also forwarded to the FBI a photograph which has
heretofore been designated as Yarborough Exhibit A which appeared in
the Saturday Evening Post issue of December 14, 1963, page 26.
For purposes of identification, the photograph appearing in Yarborough
Exhibit A has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 1797, since
Yarborough Exhibit A consists of the entire Saturday Evening Post
article.
The Commission asked the Bureau to examine the three photographs,
Commission Exhibit No. 1797, Gerald L. Hill Exhibit A, Gerald L. Hill
Exhibit B, in order to determine whether the shirt worn by Lee Harvey
Oswald in these photographs was in fact the same shirt which has
heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 150.
Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt? Did you perform the examination in
connection with this request by the Commission?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. In connection with that examination, the FBI furnished to
the Commission an additional photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. Would
you please describe that photograph in relation to any of the other
photographs that we have furnished to the Bureau?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. REDLICH. I would like to add that the photograph which the Bureau
furnished to the Commission has been designated as Commission Exhibit
No. 1796.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 1796 was furnished to the FBI
by the photographer who took the picture that has been designated
as Commission Exhibit No. 1797. The photographer stated that the
photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 1796, was taken seconds before the
photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 1797.
Mr. REDLICH. On the basis of the photographs in your possession,
which you examined, would you please describe the nature of your
investigation and the conclusions which you reached?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I compared the shirt which is Commission Exhibit
No. 150 with the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No.
1796, and Commission Exhibit No. 1797.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 was marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. And in connection with that comparison, you prepared
a chart which you have here today and which has been designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 contains four photographs lettered A, B, C,
and D.
Photograph A on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 is an enlargement of the
shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796.
Photograph B is a photograph of the actual shirt, Commission Exhibit
No. 150, being worn by an employee of the FBI laboratory. The
photograph was made with the shirt in the same approximate position as
the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796.
Photograph C is an enlargement of the shirt being worn by Oswald in
Commission Exhibit No. 1797.
And photograph D is a photograph made in the FBI laboratory of
Commission Exhibit No. 150 being worn by a laboratory employee, and the
photograph was made to show the shirt in the approximate position and
contour of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No.
1797.
The comparison of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission’s
Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, were made with the shirt itself, and it
was found that photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, shows at
points that have been designated on this photograph A as 1, 2, 3, and
4, little bits of foreign deposits that are adhering to the shirt.
These little specks of foreign material are present on the shirt
now, and are shown in the photograph in the same relative positions
or locations at points numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 in photograph B of
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24.
In addition, it was found that in photograph A, points 5 and 6, that
two of the buttons are missing. The second button down from the collar
and the third button down from the collar are missing from the shirt
in photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24. These buttons are also
missing from the shirt and the torn condition of the area where the
button has been pulled away or removed has the same configuration in
both photographs A and B at points 5 and 6.
Point 7 indicates that the button on the shirt being worn by Oswald in
the photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, is the same type and
color and configuration as the button in the photograph B at point 7.
Points 8 and 9 refer to areas of the shirt in photographs A and B, 8
being at the tip of the collar on the right side of the wearer, and 9
being the corner of the left pocket nearest to the buttons. These two
points indicate the similarity in pattern at those specific locations
and show that the pattern of the fabric in both shirts at those points
is identical. Two shirts cut from the same fabric would not logically
have an exact duplication of the pattern at cut or sewn edges of this
type.
On photographs C and D on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 points 10, 11, and
12 again refer to the similarity in pattern along the edges of the
shirt and would relate to the manner in which the material was cut from
the original fabric.
Point 11, for instance, is two white lines of the same length in both
photographs, and in the same location from the edge of the shirt. All
of these points are of the same general type to show that the fabric
design in a specific area close to an edge is identical.
Points 13 and 14 in photographs C and D of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No.
24 refer again to the torn areas where the buttons have been pulled
from the shirt and show that they are similar in all their visible
characteristics. Based on these points it is my opinion that the shirt
being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, is the
same shirt as Commission Exhibit No. 150.
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that Commission Exhibit No. 150 has a
hole approximately 1 inch by 2 inches in the right elbow. Is this hole
visible in any of these photographs, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it is not.
Mr. REDLICH. Referring to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, photograph D, does
the right elbow of the shirt in this photograph appear to show a mark
which might be a portion of that hole?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.
Mr. REDLICH. In your opinion, is it a portion of that hole?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is, because this is a photograph that I made of
this shirt and I know it to be the same shirt.
Mr. REDLICH. But why then does it not appear on photograph C which is
the photograph of the shirt as it is being worn by Oswald?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It doesn’t show it in that photograph because the
individual standing beside Oswald is blocking off that portion of the
elbow and in fact has his thumb over Oswald’s arm, you can see the
thumb on the right arm where the officer is holding Oswald’s arm.
Mr. REDLICH. The absence of the hole in the photographs designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 A and C and Commission Exhibits Nos. 1796 and
1797, does not in any way effect your identification of the shirt as
being the same shirt which is Commission Exhibit No. 150?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.
Mr. REDLICH. During the course of its investigation, the Commission
received a series of slides taken by a Mr. Willis. These slides show
various pictures of the motorcade and have, in a deposition of Mr.
Willis, been identified by him as having been taken on November 22,
1963. Have you examined these slides, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. REDLICH. And of these slides, does any one appear to be a slide
taken at the time of the actual shooting?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in the vicinity of that period of time.
Mr. REDLICH. That slide has been processed by your laboratory and
appears, does it not, in an exhibit which has been designated as
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 was marked and introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to identify that slide in terms of the number
which it has been given in the Willis sequence of slides?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. This is the slide that Mr. Willis designated as
No. 5.
Mr. REDLICH. The Commission asked you to examine this slide with
reference to its background and with reference to other photographs
which you have examined of the motorcade at the time of the
assassination, in order to determine the relationship of this slide to
the shots which were fired at that time. Did you personally conduct
this examination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. In connection with that you prepared the photograph and
the diagram which have been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to describe for us now the results of your
investigation?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 is an
enlarged color print made from the No. 5 slide of the Willis slides.
The photograph B is a copy of the plat map of the assassination
area which was prepared for the Commission and has previously been
designated as Commission Exhibit No. 382.
Point No. 1 in photograph A shows Mr. Zapruder in his position----
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that the reference to Mr. Zapruder is
to Mr. Abraham Zapruder, who is an amateur photographer, who took the
photographs which were used as the basis for the reenactment which was
performed in Dallas by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and Secret Service, and attorneys for this Commission; is that correct,
Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Point 1 of photograph A shows Mr. Zapruder in his position from which
he took his 8-millimeter motion picture film of the assassination.
Point 1 in the plat map shows again the point indicating Mr. Zapruder’s
position as related to other portions of the area.
Point No. 2 is the President riding in the Presidential limousine,
which is on photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.
Point No. 3 is the Stemmons Freeway sign that is on the north side
of Elm Street in the general area of the assassination. This is also
designated as point 3 on the map which is photograph B of Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 25.
In order to relate the photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 to the
specific frames in the Zapruder motion picture film, I first determined
from correspondence, that Mr. Willis was standing along the south curb
of Elm Street, approximately opposite the Texas School Book Depository
Building.
By looking at the photograph A, I find that from the camera angle
of Mr. Willis a line drawn from Mr. Willis to Mr. Zapruder would go
just to the right of the Stemmons Freeway sign which is point 3 in
photograph A.
I drew a line from Mr. Zapruder’s position with lavendar pencil just
past the freeway sign which is position 3 on photograph B over to the
general area of the side of Elm Street where Mr. Willis is reported to
have taken his pictures.
Mr. REDLICH. And that line appears as the top line in Chart B of the
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25; does it not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I then noted in the photograph A of
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25, that a line from the eye of the cameraman,
to the President, would pass the Stemmons Freeway sign somewhat farther
away from the sign than the line to Mr. Zapruder, approximately three
to four times greater distance.
I drew a line from an area about that far from the sign to the area
where Mr. Willis was reported to be standing and find that that line
passes through a point designated on the map as frame 210 which
relates to the frame No. 210 of the Zapruder assassination films.
I then drew a green line from Mr. Zapruder’s position to President
Kennedy, at frame 210, and find that that green line passes directly
through the Stemmons Freeway sign which is position 3 in photographs A
and B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.
Based on this, it is my opinion that photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit
No. 25 was taken in the vicinity of the time that frame 210 of the
Zapruder picture was taken. This is not an accurate determination
because the exact location of Mr. Willis is unknown. This would allow
for some variation, but the time of the photograph A, as related to
the Zapruder picture, would be generally during the period that the
President was behind the signboard in the Zapruder films, which covers
a range from around frame 205 to frame 225.
Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that prior investigation has revealed
that President Kennedy emerges from the sign at frame 225, and that he
starts going behind the sign at approximately frame 205.
Prior investigation has also revealed that when viewed from the
southeast corner window of the sixth floor, the President emerges from
the oak tree at approximately frame 210.
Mr. Willis has stated, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that he took this photograph
almost at the instant that the President was hit by a shot which
sounded to Mr. Willis as if it was the first shot that he heard.
On the basis of your examination of the Zapruder films, and your
examination of the Willis photograph, would it be a correct statement
that this photograph, the one appearing in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25,
was taken at approximately the same time as the shot which struck
President Kennedy at the rear of the base of the neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that would be a correct statement, to the best of
our knowledge at this time.
Mr. REDLICH. Returning for just a moment to Mr. Willis’ location,
would it not have been possible for you to fix his exact location by
reference to two different fixed points in the background at different
points in this picture?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it would be possible having Mr. Willis’ camera,
to fix his location with some degree of accuracy by using it at the
specific location in Dallas, and relating various objects in the
photograph to their location as they appear in photograph A of Exhibit
No. 25.
Mr. REDLICH. You are reasonably satisfied, however, that the technique
that you have used to fix his location is a reasonably accurate one
upon which you can base the conclusions which you have stated today?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes. I feel that the exact establishing of the
position of Mr. Willis would not add a great deal of additional
accuracy to my present conclusions.
Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, during the course of the Commission’s
investigation we have had occasion to request the Bureau to investigate
whether any bullets or fragments of bullets struck any of the street or
curbing or other area around Dealey Plaza.
In connection with this investigation, the Commission asked the Bureau
to investigate a photograph taken by Mr. James Underwood, a newsman
for KRLD-TV in Dallas, and a photograph taken by Mr. Tom Dillard, a
photographer for the Dallas Morning News. In connection with this
request the Commission received a communication from the FBI dated July
17, 1964, which is now designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26.
(The document referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26 and
introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. Would you briefly summarize the results of that
investigation as of that time, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. The Commission requested that we conduct an
investigation relative to reports that there was a mark or a nick on
the south curb of Main Street in the assassination area, and that we
attempt to locate it and make whatever tests could be made to determine
whether or not a bullet could have struck the curb at that point. The
investigation was initiated by requesting our Dallas office to contact
the photographers, James Underwood of KRLD-TV in Dallas, and Mr. Tom
Dillard, a photographer for the Dallas Morning News, and to use the
photographs previously made by these two photographers to attempt to
locate this mark or nick on the curb on the south side of Main Street.
Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26 is a report of the results of that initial
search which resulted in failure to find the exact location of this
mark or nick on the curb along the south side of Main Street at the
assassination site.
Mr. REDLICH. Following this letter, you yourself went down to Dallas in
order to pursue this matter further, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
(The document referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27 and
introduced.)
Mr. REDLICH. I introduce into the record at this time Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 27, which is a letter from Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin
summarizing the results of this investigation.
Mr. REDLICH. I also introduce into the record Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos.
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
With reference to these exhibits, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I ask you to
summarize at this time the results of your investigation into the
existence of a mark on the curb, and if such a mark was found to exist,
its location with reference to other photographs of which you have
knowledge.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Using photographs made by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Dillard in November
1963, either the 22d or 23d, of this mark on the curb, I went to Dallas
and was successful in locating a mark. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29
contains the photographs used to locate the mark on the curbing on the
south side of Main Street at the assassination site.
Photograph No. 1 of this exhibit is the photograph of the mark made by
Mr. Underwood, the red arrow indicating the mark on the curb.
Photograph No. 2 is the photograph made by Mr. Dillard of the mark on
the curb, and the red arrow again designates the mark.
Photograph No. 3 of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 is a photograph that was
made by Mr. Underwood by placing his camera on the mark and pointing it
toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, and he stated he did
this so that the resulting photograph could be used to relocate this
mark on the curb should it ever be necessary.
Mr. REDLICH. I gather that without that photograph taken by Mr.
Underwood it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
have located this mark, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would have been more difficult. Mr. Dillard’s
photograph actually contained some background that was of value, and
we would have found it without this, but this made it much easier.
Photograph No. 3, which was made by Mr. Underwood, allowed us to go
immediately within a foot to a foot and a half of, the actual mark.
Mr. REDLICH. Continue.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The photograph which has been marked as Shaneyfelt
Exhibit No. 28, is the photograph that I made after having located the
mark, this in effect duplicates the photograph made by Mr. Underwood,
which is photograph 3 of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 and, as can readily
be seen in comparing these two photographs, the relationship of the
lightpole to the buildings on either side of it on the right side of
the photograph, the relationship of the sign to the concrete abutment
in the back of it to the right edge of it, the relationship of the
lightposts between the cameraman and the Texas School Book Depository
building, and their relationship to the building in back of them, show
that they are entirely consistent, and that the mark that was located
is, in fact, the mark that was photographed by Mr. Underwood and Mr.
Dillard.