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.
Point No. 8 is a little fragment of bakelite or debris extending out
from the edge, that shows in both of the charts in the same manner. In
addition the corner at eight tends to curve in towards the picture as
it approaches the corner, there tends to be a curvature in and not a
nice neat square corner.
In addition, between points 2 and 3 there is a very definite S-curve
where the bakelite from which the camera is made apparently warped
slightly making this S-curve, and this is apparent in both charts.
Again, more apparent as you hold the photograph flat and look down the
line.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the margins of the shadowgraph in the right-hand
side of the chart, which is based upon 133B, look somewhat larger than
the margins on the left-hand side.
Could you explain that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was merely a matter of masking during the printing
process.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say it is the interior which is crucial
rather than the width of the margin?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. This mark along the bottom appears in one. How do you
explain that?
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. McCloy is pointing to a mark along the right-hand
side, a white mark along the bottom of the shadowgraph.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the cut edge of the negative, where this
particular negative has been cut very close to the shadowgraph line and
this then appears as a white line along the chart and represents the
actual edge of the negative.
The other three edges of that negative and all four edges of the other
negative do not show in the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart actually prepared by use of exhibits--by
the negatives, Exhibits 749 and 752, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I made the charts directly from those negatives.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately what is the enlargement here?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately eight times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why--eight times?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Six to eight, it is in that area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why the enlargement of 133B is haloed
with a white, light halo?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the reason for that was to print the photograph
so that it would be clearly a photograph of the negative and show the
individual in the picture but not print too dark around the outside
edges to give the best possible reproduction of the shadowgraph.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that
in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect,
that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the
picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some type.
Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are
composite pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that
question?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.
Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely
eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite
photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting
of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a
different lens used for the part that was added to the original
photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is
a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite
variations that are not consistent throughout the picture.