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.
TheChairman. 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.
RepresentativeFord. Have we shown any place in the record that that print or a negative came from acamera——
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.
RepresentativeFord. 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.
Mr.Eisenberg. You held up a negativebefore——
TheChairman. 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.
RepresentativeFord. 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 entirenegative 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 thechart——
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.
RepresentativeFord. 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 directionbecause——
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.
RepresentativeFord. 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.
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.
RepresentativeFord. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
In addition, in this instance regarding Commission Exhibit 133B 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.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph area.
Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. No; it does not.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why does it not show on either 133 A or B?
M.Shaneyfelt. Because they are printed in a normal processing procedure, where this area is normally blocked out to give a nice white border and make the picture a little more artistic. In the printing process, masks are placed over the area, or the shadowgraph, in order to cover it up, and the resulting print is a photograph with a nice white border.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind of identification you have made for us earlier?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Looking at 133B, are the observable characteristics of the weapon pictured in this picture—shown in this picture—similar to the observable characteristics of Exhibit 139, the weapon used in the assassination?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; they are less apparent in this photograph because it is a photograph of the bottom, or the base of the rifle, the bottom of the rifle along the trigger-guard area, but it does show this bottom of the rifle in that photograph.
Mr.Eisenberg. Looking at 133A and 133B, do the lighting conditions seem to have been similar?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. They are consistent, entirely consistent, in both photographs, the lighting on the face is the same, the lighting on the background is identical, there appear to be no major differences or no significant differences.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.
Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it—you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the rifle.
However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.
Mr.Eisenberg. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It has that appearance, yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; it is entirely consistent.
Mr.Eisenberg. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; it has that appearance.
RepresentativeFord. Can you tell from a negative about when it was, the picture was taken, or can you develop any time from that?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It is possible on some negatives. In this instance it is not. On some negatives there is a numbering system along the edge that is coded by the company that indicates manufacturing date, approximate manufacturing date, and it is usually by year, so that you could state that a film was coded by the company in 1947, therefore, it could not have been used prior to 1947.
This is about as far as one can go in the establishment of time that a picture was taken from the actual film. This cannot be done in this instance.
RepresentativeFord. I notice on some prints which are now developed commercially that they have a date on the edge.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
RepresentativeFord. Is this a universal practice now?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. No; this varies with the different processors. It is used by the large companies. I believe Eastman Kodak uses it. Your larger processing companies use it, but your smaller, maybe one-man shop or small photographic shop will probably not use it. It is at the discretion of the shop actually.
RepresentativeFord. Can you tell from a print which has been developed which processing plant processed that print?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Not without some specific stamp of the processing company on it.
Mr.Eisenberg. I think we should add here for the record that the sling which is presently on the rifle is, as any other sling, a removable sling, and not one that is fixed into the rifle.
Mr.McCloy. It seems to me that this band here in Exhibit 746 is a, might very well be a reproduction of this, this lighter side of this rather enlarged leather part of the sling.
It seems to be just about the same length.
RepresentativeFord. That is, what is on the, rifle.
Mr.McCloy. Which is on the rifle. I wonder, and here it is again in Commission Exhibit 133A—133A has that—of which it is an enlargement. Isn't it possible that is a reproduction of that leather sling?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It could be possible.
Mr.McCloy. This is not a string by any means.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is true; it is broader. I get the impression by this shadow at the top, closest to the rifle, just below the bolt, there is a faint shadow there that would indicate a double string or rope, and it then becomes narrower as you are looking at the edge of two ropes lying together. On the Exhibit 133B I get the same interpretation of a double-rope effect, partly because of the knot-tying and so on, and you see the shadow between the strands slightly in some areas, and, as I stated before, I cannot, because of the limited amount of that showing, say that it is not the sling. I find it more consistent with the sling showing in Exhibit 133B, which is verydefinitely——
Mr.McCloy. A bowknot—133B seems to have a knot at the swivels.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.McCloy. Which doesn't appear on the rifle now.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you the cover of Life magazine for February 21, 1964, which consists of a photograph quite similar to Exhibit 133A, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this photographic cover?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I am.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this introduced, Mr. Chairman, as 754?
Mr.McCloy. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 754 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you compared Exhibit 754 with Commission Exhibit 133A?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It is my opinion that it is the same picture reproduced on the front of Life magazine, which is Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does Commission Exhibit 754 appear to have been retouched in any significant way?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; it does.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you show the Commission that retouching?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I could. I might state that it has been my experience in the field of reproduction of photographs for publication, in which a halftone screen is made from which the photograph is then printed, it is normal procedure, and was at the time I worked for a newspaper, to retouch the photograph to intensify highlights, take out undesirable shadows, generally enhance the picture by retouching the photograph so that when it is then made into a halftonestrip pattern for reproduction by printing, this retouching, if it is done well, does not show as retouching but appears to be a part of the original photograph.
This retouching is done either by brush or by airbrush, which is a device for spraying gray or shades of gray or black, onto the photograph. I point to the area between the legs of the individual on Life magazine.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you circle that and mark it A on Exhibit 754?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Suppose I use arrows.
Mr.Eisenberg. Oh, sure.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. On Exhibit 746B, there is a shadow between the individual's legs.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you mark that A?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I will mark that A. In that same area of the photograph on Exhibit 754, that dark shadow has been removed in this area, I will mark that A.
Mr.Eisenberg. It appears there is a continuous fence slat there, where noneappears——
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; the shadow has been removed. Lower down in that same area of the legs, near the calf of the leg, again, and I will mark that B, theshadow——
Mr.Eisenberg. B on 754?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. 754; has been softened but not entirely eliminated. That same area is marked B on Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr.Eisenberg. Has the weapon been retouched?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The weapon has been retouched by placing a highlight along the stock almost up to the end of the bolt. The highlight is brushed right across the top of the highlight that we have previously discussed at the nob or the curvature of the stock where it goes down and then back up to the curve.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you put an arrow pointing to the brushed-in highlight and mark it C?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you put an arrow pointing to the original highlight and mark it D; both on 754 and 746B? You had earlier marked with a circle 746E at point A, showing the highlight as it appears in 133A?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Of course, this highlight does not appear in that same area of Commission Exhibit 746B.
Mr.Eisenberg. You mean the highlight marked C on 754?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Looking at the photograph, at the weapon, the stock appears to be straight, which does not correspond to the Exhibit 139. As I understand your testimony, this is simply a retouching; this effect of a straight stock is simply achieved by retouching the photograph or doctoring it?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is my opinion. I would refer to it as retouching rather than doctoring, because what has been done has been retouched, and doctoring infers an attempt to disguise.
Mr.Eisenberg. I didn't mean to imply such a thing—but retouched, then?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the actual highlight showing the curve and recurve still appears as point D?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you circle—do you see a telescopic sight on the Life cover of 754?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I do.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you draw an arrow marking that E? Would it have been possible to retouch the photograph so that the telescopic sight does not appear?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Oh, yes; that is possible. With a halftone process—it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.
Mr.Eisenberg. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and yourexperience as a photographer generally, could you state the possible purpose of such retouching?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The purpose of the retouching in reproduction work is merely to enhance the detail so that it will not be lost in the engraving process.
Mr.Eisenberg. When you say "enhance the detail," why would a stock be retouched so as not only to enhance the detail, but actually to change the apparent configuration? Could you conceive of any reason for that?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I think the reason that the stock was retouched straight in the photograph on Life magazine, and my interpretation would be that the individual retouching it does not have a familiarity with rifles and did not realize there was curvature there, and in doing it just made a straight-line highlight without even considering whether that curved or not. There was curvature in that area which is not readily apparent—it is quite indistinct—and I think it was just made without realizing that there was curvature there.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is, the individual might have thought he was actually enhancing detail rather than putting in detail which was not present in the original?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is there anything else you would like to point out in this photograph, Exhibit 754?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. There is other retouching at the shoulder, to the left of the photograph as we view it; that area has had some retouching of the highlights. Along the barrel of the gun, or the stock of the gun above the hand, there is retouching, a little highlight enhancement there. These are all generally consistent with the type of retouching that we have previously discussed and I have previously pointed out.
RepresentativeFord. I am not clear why they would retouch, from a photographic point of view.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. They retouch because in the halftone process there is a loss of detail, and had they not retouched this photograph, had they not put the highlight along the rifle stock, then you would only have seen a black area. They were afraid you would only see a black area and you wouldn't get the definition here of the rifle. You lose the detail, and you would lose the view of the rifle. You wouldn't see the rifle there because this line would be lost. The same way along here. This one very definitely, had they not retouched it, it would have blended in and been a continuous tone of dark gray all across there.
RepresentativeFord. That is—up here—that is, above the hand on the stock?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. When you said a highlight "along the rifle stock," you actually meant on top, above the rifle stock?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The upper edge.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is it the upper edge, or is it a place that does not correspond to the rifle stock?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It is an edge along the rifle stock that corresponds. I am speaking now of the highlight above the hand.
Mr.Eisenberg. No; you said before, in describing the highlight which you can see, you said they drew a highlight "along" the rifle—the rifle stock. Actually it was drawn, as I understand it, considerably above the edge of the actual rifle stock?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; that is true.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you used this technique yourself?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have done retouching of photographs for halftones; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. When you said before that this retouching is done by airbrush or brush, what medium is used in the brush or airbrush to achieve the effect?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It is a water-soluble pigment, and it is available in varying shades of from white to black; it is available in different shades of gray tones, so that you could actually match the gray tone of the picture—since in these instances we are dealing entirely with gray, shades of gray—and youselect a gray that is not too prominent that would give you a highlight that would look normal.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that the negative is painted, so to speak?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The actual photograph is painted.
Mr.Eisenberg. The photograph is painted. Now, would there be any conceivable reason for eliminating in a retouching the telescopic sight?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The only reason again would be to enhance the detail. I cannot determine from Commission Exhibit 754 whether there was retouching around the stock. There are indications that there is some retouching—I mean around the telescopic sight. It appears to me they did do some retouching around the telescopic sight which we have marked as point E on Commission Exhibit 754.
Mr.Eisenberg. Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; it could be done.
Mr.Eisenberg. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.McCloy. Do you have anything?
RepresentativeFord. No further questions.
Mr.McCloy. It may be because I am, and I am sure it is, because of my ignorance in regard to this composition of photographs, but the negative of which we have a copy is that from which this photograph was taken; isn't that right? [Referring to Exhibit 133A.]
Mr.Shaneyfelt. We do not have the negative of this photograph.
Mr.McCloy. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B]
Mr.Shaneyfelt. We have the negative of 133B.
Mr.McCloy. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows no doctoring or composition at all?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.
Mr.McCloy. 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?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.
Mr.McCloy. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm of the impossible.
Mr.McCloy. Yes. There is nothing in Exhibit 754 that, to you, insinuates any sinister type of touching up?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct. This is entirely innocent retouching, completely normal operation for a newspaper cut or a magazine reproduction.
Mr.McCloy. I think I have no other questions.
Mr.Eisenberg. Just two other questions. Is there anything in the negative of 133B—that is, Commission Exhibit 749—to indicate whether it was developed commercially or not commercially?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. No; I cannot determine that from the negative.
Mr.Eisenberg. And finally, I hand you a page from that same issue of Life, the issue of February 21, 1964, page 80, which has a photograph similar to the cover photograph, and I ask you whether this photograph appearing on page 80 appears to you to be the same as the photograph used on the cover?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; it appears to be the same photograph.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does the retouching appear to be the same in both?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The retouching is consistent; yes. It appears to be slightly clearer in the photograph on page 80; the highlight along the stock is sharper and more crisp and in more detail.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again you say "highlight along the stock."
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Along the stock.
Mr.Eisenberg. You mean the highlight introduced by the retoucher?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes. And the scope appears to be much clearer in the photograph on page 80 than the photograph on the front cover, which is Exhibit 754, and is much clearer than is apparent in the photograph 133A.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you account for that?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. My only explanation would be retouching, from retouching around the scope. The primary reason for the additional clarity between the entire photograph, without specific reference to the scope, the clarity that I mentioned in the entire photograph on page 80 as compared with the cover is, I believe, basically the fact that the cover is so enlarged. There is a tendency on big enlargements to separate the detail out by enlargement so it appears not as clear, so a smaller picture will sometimes look clearer than one of the same picture that has been enlarged. This would account for some of the additional detail and more distinct sharpness in the photograph.
Mr.Eisenberg. May this photograph on page 80 be introduced as 755?
Mr.McCloy. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 755 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. One final question: Can you compare the sharpness of the scope on Exhibit 755 with the sharpness on Exhibit 746E, one of the reproductions you prepared?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; there is the same difference in sharpness between the photograph on Commission Exhibit 755, which is page 80 of Life magazine, and the photograph which I made from the Government's Exhibit 133A, which is Commission Exhibit 746E. Again this difference in sharpness, I believe is due to retouching in part, and in part to the picture in Life magazine being smaller, and thereby the detail is not spread out so much. It is a combination of retouching of the photograph and size.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my examination.
Mr.McCloy. I am further interested as you look at this rifle as it lies on the table you can see the highlight, even without any photograph, very clearly. The shine centers on the curvature of the stock. It is quite interesting.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is very apparent on Exhibit 748 also, where you get the duplication of the lighting. This nob tends to reflect more light.
Mr.McCloy. It is obvious that it is right up there as a conspicuous highlight. I didn't realize that it was so indicative of the curve of the stock of the rifle.
Thank you very much indeed for your cooperation and very enlightening and very interesting testimony.
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Thank you.
(Recess.)
Mr.McCloy. Mr. Bouck, you know the purpose for which you are here?
Mr.Bouck. Yes, I do.
Mr.McCloy. And we are very happy to have you help us to acquit ourselves of our responsibility here in determining all of the relevant circumstances in connection with the assassination of the President.
I believe you are going to give us something of the routine by which Presidents are protected?
Mr.Bouck. Yes.
Mr.McCloy. I will ask you to rise and hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr.Bouck. I do.
Mr.Stern. Mr. Bouck, I would like to outline first the order of questioning I have in mind to give you a notion of how I would like to proceed and how you might respond to particular questions.
I would like to cover first your biographical background, then the functions of the Protective Research Section, generally the organization of the Section, the sources of information on which you rely regarding potentially dangerous people, the criteria you employ to determine when an individual might be dangerous, what you do with the information once you receive it, and then some detail on how your filing system is set up and operates, how do you get at data.
Then based on all that background information, the preparations that were actually made for the President's trip to Texas.
I will begin by asking you to state your name, age and address.
Mr.Bouck. My name is Robert Inman Bouck. I am 49 years of age. I live at 411 Norwood Drive, Falls Church, Va.
Mr.Stern. What is your education, Mr. Bouck, at the college level?
Mr.Bouck. I have a B.S. degree in police administration.
Mr.Stern. From what college?
Mr.Bouck. From Michigan State College.
Mr.Stern. And that was awarded when?
Mr.Bouck. 1939.
Mr.Stern. What is your experience in the Secret Service—when did you join the Service?
Mr.Bouck. I came to the Service in 1939 upon leaving college. From 1939 to 1945 I worked on protective assignments for the President and the presidential family and other people in the Washington area.
From 1945 until 1951 I worked in Chief's office on supervising and reorganizing various activities in the Chief's office.
In 1951 I was loaned to the Treasury Department as coordinator, I organized schools and directed them in the enforcement area until 1957, and in 1957 was assigned to the present job I now have of Special Agent-in-Charge, Protective Research.
Mr.Stern. Mr. Bouck, I show you this document of six pages which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 760.
Can you identify that for me?
Mr.Bouck. Yes. This is a memorandum of December 3 that I prepared, also a second memorandum of December 3 that I prepared.
Mr.Stern. And these were prepared in response to instructions to you?
Mr.Bouck. In response to instructions from my headquarter's office, yes.
Mr.Stern. With the help of these memoranda I would like to touch briefly upon the functions of the Protective Research Section that you head—for the moment those functions other than with respect to persons of concern as a possible danger to the President.
If you will turn to the last page of this exhibit, there are a list of other duties of PRS, and would you explain briefly those and give some idea of the magnitude of the task involved?
Mr.Bouck. Yes.
The manufacture and control of White House passes are the admittance passes to the White House issued to the press, employees and others who have occasion to come to the White House or the Executive Office Building that houses White House staff. This is some four to five thousand, fluctuating in volume.
The procurement and evaluation of character investigations and clearances for some categories of employees, these are the employees that passes are issued to and these are the clearances that we require.
Some of them we investigate ourselves, many of them are investigated by other agencies, and we review and evaluate the results, the number being roughly the same as the number of passholders in this category.
The procurement of national agency file checks and determination of admittance restrictions on a large number of tradesmen, contract employees and so forth who service the White House—these are non-White House employees. These are people who come to fix typewriters, clean rugs and that sort of thing.
Mr.Stern. Approximately how many people are involved in that category, Mr. Bouck.
Mr.Bouck. This, we have a file of about 20,000 of these people, about 4,000 are active at any one time, and several hundred a month turn over in this.
Item No. 4, control of security processing of mail and gifts received at the White House, this is done by postal and White House employees under X-rays and security equipment provided by us under our guidance and we take over whenever any dangerous situation is indicated. This varies at Christmas time, when there are many hundreds of items reviewed; normally a few a day.
No. 5, handling and disposition of suspicious packages or objects that may contain bombs or infernal devices; we have a bomb transporting truck, we have bomb analyzing equipment, we have a location and a place where we candismantle bombs, and this, I am happy to say, we have had many scares but we have not had the real thing. We do this frequently as a precaution on things that we cannot analyze under the X-ray, but we have not actually had a bomb at the White House.
Mr.Dulles. May I ask where is the White House mail handled, right in the White House itself?
Mr.Bouck. No; it is handled in the Executive Office Building which is across the street from the White House.
Mr.Dulles. The old State, War and Navy Building?
Mr.Bouck. Yes, sir.
No. 6, evaluation of safety and control of disposition of all foods, beverages and similar consumable items received by the President or White House as gifts.
We do not, even though these are handled by White House and post office employees, we pass judgment as to whether any consumable item may be used and under what conditions it may be used or whether it must be destroyed. This particular function we do entirely.
And again at Christmas time and birthdays it would be very high, many hundreds of items. Other times a few a day.
No. 7, control and investigationof——
Mr.McCloy. Can I interrupt there, have you had any poisoned foods?
Mr.Bouck. We think not at the White House, but this we are always watchful for. We have some food that we think sanitationwise is very bad, it smells bad, it looked bad, some has spoiled and some have been prepared under very bad conditions but we know of no actual case of intended poison. We have had some where poisons may have generated because spoilage has set in.
Mr.McCloy. Yes. You don't have a royal taster, do you? (Laughter.)
Mr.Bouck. No, I am afraid we do not.
Control investigations on personnel and establishments that are supply sources for food, beverages, drugs and so forth, these are the places that the White House buys those supplies. We find out from the White House where they would like to buy, we check on the employees of these establishments, we check on the procedures by which it is handled, and we check on the sources of their food, where they get the raw materials.
This is an investigative process and a control process.
RepresentativeFord. How often do you go through this process?
Mr.Bouck. The process is continuous in that the control, for instance a White House policeman goes and picks up, when the food is picked up. But the reinvestigation is every 6 months. We take a new look at each of these establishments every 6 months to see if any change has occurred. In between times we have arrangements with Public Health to make frequent health inspections, much more frequent than an ordinary establishment would be inspected.
RepresentativeFord. If there is a change of an employee at one of these shops or stores, are you notified?
Mr.Bouck. We are supposed to be notified. Sometimes we aren't aware until we make the next check, although our White House policeman and our purchasing people do keep watch for this and usually we have established that only a small percentage of the people who handle White House orders, perhaps the manager and one clerk. It works quite well.
No. 8, the performance of technical and electronic inspections to protect against covert listening devices.
This is something that has been done for a great many years, the volume has gotten quite great in recent years, and we do this regularly at the White House and for the people close to the President, we do it regularly when he has stopover points on trips.
Mr.Dulles. Do you ever call the FBI in on this or do you have your own staffs to handle this detection of listening devices?
Mr.Bouck. We have our own staff but we frequently use people of other agencies, including the FBI where they have specialties or are able to perform something better than we could.
Mr.Dulles. Did you consider there is any duplication there, I mean of facilities in government?
Mr.Bouck. No; I think not. This really requires bodies, and if thereis——
Mr.Dulles. And skills?
Mr.Bouck. Yes; and if, once in a while a special skill is required that we do not possess then we turn to another agency to help us.
No. 9, determination of feasibility of application, establishment of specifications for procurement, and assistance in maintaining operation of a wide variety of electronic and technical protective aids. These are alarms, both for hazards, intrusion, and all sorts of dangers where a mechanical or electronic device can augment personal services.
Mr.Dulles. Could I just ask on that, do you have arrangements, say, with the FBI, CIA and others to keep abreast of the art, as it were?
Mr.Bouck. Yes.
Mr.Dulles. I have in mind that time when we discovered the Russians had developed a new device and applied it in the Embassy in Moscow, you may recall which was quite novel, when they put in a hollow cavity inside the shield of the Great Seal of the United States, and then they could beam on that and they could listen to conversations in the room. That type of thing, you would be following that up through the FBI or through the CIA?
Mr.Bouck. Very much so, yes.
We have rather low resources in those areas so the other agencies in the areas of research and development and hardware help us continuously and very well.
Mr.Stern. Now these, Mr. Bouck, as I understand it, are the functions of PRS which it has in addition to its main responsibility, and would you describe that just briefly and we will get to that in a minute.
Mr.Bouck. Yes, the other responsibility that is not listed here, is the responsibility of attempting to detect persons who might intend harm to the President, and to control those persons or take such corrective measures as we can take securitywise on them.
RepresentativeFord. I am not sure I understand that.
Mr.Bouck. This is an effort to detect people who might intend to harm the President, people who make threats against the President, people who do things that indicate they may intend to harm him, and the various sort of things we do to see that they do not accomplish that, to prevent them from accomplishing them.
Mr.Dulles. Does your particular office maintain the central files for your agency?
Mr.Bouck. For this function?
Mr.Dulles. For this function.
Mr.Bouck. Yes.
Mr.Dulles. I mean if the FBI sent in to the Secret Service a name or a description of a particular man, or a particular area that would be filed in your office?
Mr.Bouck. That is right.
Mr.Dulles. Do you file that alphabetically, by location or how do you develop those files?
Mr.Bouck. The information in its file jackets is filed numerically but it is indexed alphabetically and by location as well as by certain other characteristics that may help us find it.
Mr.McCloy. To come back to this matter of bugging again, do you feel that you are thoroughly well equipped, which is a repetition perhaps of what Mr. Dulles asked, Mr. Dulles' question, do you have an expert staff that know this business and that keep up to date with the developments in the area, and that can constantly keep your equipment in shape?
Mr.Bouck. Yes; I think so. I think we, our contacts with the intelligence community in this area are very excellent. Our people are excellent. I think our big problem has been one of enough resources.
Mr.McCloy. How many bodies have you got in this field?
Mr.Bouck. I have three bodies devoted entirely to it, myself and my assistant have also had years of experience, and we devote part-time to this, which makes approximately four and a half full time bodies.