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.