PHOTOGRAPHS
Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald’s possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine’s garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.[A10-383] In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine’s garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker’s house.[A10-384] An Imperial reflex camera,[A10-385] which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother.[A10-386] Testimony concerning the photographs, the negative, and the camera was given by Lyndal D. Shaneyfelt of the FBI.[A10-387] Shaneyfelt has been connected with photographic work since 1937. He has made 100-300 photographic examinations, and has testified frequently on the subject in court.[A10-388]
Photographs 133-A and 133-B.—The background and lighting in 133-A and 133-B are virtually identical; the only apparent difference between the two photographs is the pose. However, in 133-A the rifle is held in a position showing many more of its characteristics than are shown in 133-B.[A10-389] In order to bring out the details in the rifle pictured in 133-A, Shaneyfelt rephotographed 133-A and prepared prints of varying densities from the new negative.[A10-390] He also took two new photographs of the C2766 rifle itself: one shows the rifle in approximately the same position as the rifle pictured in 133-A. The other shows a man holding the rifle simulating the pose in 133-A.[A10-391] Shaneyfelt compared the actual rifle, the photograph 133-A, his rephotographs of 133-A, and the two new photographs to determine whether the rifle pictured in 133-A was the C2766 rifle. He found it to be the same in all appearances, noted no differences, and found a notch in the stock of the C2766 which also appeared very faintly in 133-A. However, he did not find enough peculiarities to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C2766 rifle, as distinguished from other rifles of the same configuration.[A10-392]
The rifle’s position in 133-B is such that less of its characteristics were visible than in 133-A; essentially, 133-B shows only the bottom of the rifle. However, the characteristics of the rifle visible in 133-B are also similar to the observable characteristics of the C2766 rifle, except that while the C2766 rifle was equipped with a homemade leather sling when it was found after the assassination, the rifle in 133-B seems to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.[A10-393] The portion of the sling visible in 133-A is too small to establish whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope, and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in 133-B.[A10-394]
The negative.—Shaneyfelt’s examination of the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed that the photograph, 133-B, had been printed directly or indirectly from the negative. It was Shaneyfelt’s opinion that 133-B had been directly from the negative, but he could not absolutely eliminate the possibility of an internegative, that is, the possibility that a print had been produced from the negative 749, a photograph had been taken of that print, and 133-B had been produced from the new negative, rather than from the original negative.[A10-395] “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 the added process.”[A10-396] In any event, any “intermediate” print would have been virtually indistinguishable from 133-B, so that Shaneyfelt’s testimony conclusively established that either 133-B or a virtually indistinguishable print had been produced from the negative 749.
Commission Exhibit No. 751
Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera, with the back removed to show the camera’s film-plane aperture.
The camera.—The Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, was a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, one-shutter-speed, box-type camera, made in the United States.[A10-397] Shaneyfelt compared this camera with the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, to determine whether this negative had been taken with the camera.[A10-398] To make this determination, Shaneyfelt compared the margins of the image on Commission Exhibit No. 749 with the margins of the image on a negative he himself had taken with the camera. Microscopic examination shows that the margins of a negative’s image, although apparently straight, are actually irregular. The irregularities usually do not show on a finished print, because they are blocked out to give the print a neat border.[A10-399] The cause of these irregularities can be best understood by examination of Commission Exhibit No. 751 ([p. 594]), a photograph of the Imperial camera with the back removed to show the camera’s film-plane aperture. When the camera’s shutter is opened, light exposes that portion of the film which is not blocked off by this aperture. The edges of the aperture, therefore, define the edges of the image which will appear on the developed negative. In effect, the edge of the image is a shadowgraph of the edge of the aperture. As Shaneyfelt testified:
* * * 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.[A10-400]
The basis of the identification is that the microscopic characteristics of every film-plane aperture, like those of a rifle barrel, are distinctive, for much the same reason; that is, when the camera is manufactured, certain handwork is done which differs microscopically from camera to camera, and further differences accrue as the camera is used. As Shaneyfelt testified:
Q. 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.
Q. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?
Mr. Shaneyfelt. Very similar; yes.[A10-401]
Based on his examination of the shadowgraph on the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, Shaneyfelt determined that it had been taken with the Imperial camera.[A10-402]
Three edges of the shadowgraph of the film-plane aperture were also visible on one of the photographs of General Walker’s house, not having been blocked out in the making of the print. On the basis of these three margins, Shaneyfelt determined that this photograph had also been taken with Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera. Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found, and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area.[A10-403]
During his interrogations Oswald had been shown 133-A, and had claimed it was a composite—that the face in the picture was his, but the body was not.[A10-404] Shaneyfelt examined 133-A and 133-B to determine if they were composite pictures. He concluded that they were not:
* * * 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.
I found no such characteristics in this picture.
In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it, and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite—points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn’t been entirely retouched out.
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
Q. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
A. Yes.[A10-405]
Furthermore, the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed absolutely no doctoring or composition.[A10-406] Since the negative was made in Oswald’s Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, a composite of 133-B could have been made only by putting two pictures together and rephotographing them in the Imperial camera—all without leaving a discernible trace. This, to Shaneyfelt, was “in the realm of the impossible”:
In addition, in this instance regarding 133-B which I have just stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.
This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn’t seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular photograph.[A10-407]
* * * * *
Q. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]
A. We have the negative of 133B.
Q. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?
A. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.
Q. So that the only composition that could have been made would have been in this process which you have described of picture on picture and negative and then photographing?
A. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.
Q. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?
A. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.[A10-408]
Following the assassination, photographs similar to 133-A appeared in a number of newspapers and magazines.[A10-409] At least some of these photographs, as reproduced, differed both from 133-A and from each other in minor details.[A10-410] Shaneyfelt examined several of these reproductions and concluded that in each case the individual publisher had taken a reproduction of 133-A and retouched it in various ways, apparently for clarifying purposes, thus accounting for the differences between the reproductions and 133-A, and the differences between the reproductions themselves.[A10-411] Subsequently one of the publishers involved submitted the original photographs which it had retouched. Shaneyfelt’s examination of this photograph confirmed his original conclusion.[A10-412] The remaining publishers either confirmed that they had retouched the photographs they had used, or failed to contradict Shaneyfelt’s testimony after having been given an opportunity to do so.[A10-413]
APPENDIX XI
Reports Relating to the Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Department
As discussed in chapters IV and V, Lee Harvey Oswald was interrogated for a total of approximately 12 hours between 2:30 p.m. on Friday, November 22, 1963, and 11:15 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. There were no stenographic or tape recordings of these interviews. Several of the investigators present at one or more of the interrogation sessions, prior to testifying before the Commission, had prepared memoranda setting forth their recollections of the questioning of Oswald and his responses. The following are the most important of these reports.