Mr.Guinyard. I don't know his name.
Mr.Ball. You don't know his name?
Mr.Guinyard. No, sir; I don't know his name but I know him now if I would see him.
Mr.Ball. Before you went in there, did the police officers show you any pictures?
Mr.Guinyard. No, sir.
Mr.Ball. Did the police officer say anything to you before you went in there?
Mr.Guinyard. No, sir.
Mr.Ball. Did he say that he thought they had the man that killed the police officer?
Mr.Guinyard. No, sir; he didn't tell me that.
Mr.Ball. Did you hear Ted Callaway say anything before you said you thought that was the man?
Mr.Guinyard. No, sir.
Mr.Ball. Were you with Ted at the time?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes, sir.
Mr.Ball. How close was Ted to you?
Mr.Guinyard. Oh—sitting about like that.
Mr.Ball. You mean 3 or 4 feet away from you?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes; something like that.
Mr.Ball. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr.Guinyard. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a little sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr.Ball. A gray jacket.
Mr.Guinyard. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mr.Ball. A white T-shirt?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes; a white T-shirt on under it.
Mr.Ball. Now, he had a light gray jacket on?
Mr.Guinyard. And a brown shirt on.
Mr.Ball. And a white T-shirt on?
Mr.Guinyard. Underneath it, because this brown shirt was open at the throat and the white T-shirt under it like this [indicating].
Mr.Ball. That's all I've got to examine you about now, except to show you these clothes, and they are upstairs. We will go up now and take a look at them.
(At this time Counsel Ball, the witness Guinyard and the reporter Oliver left the deposing room on the third floor of the Federal Building and resumed in a deposing room on the fourth floor of the Federal Building and the deposition proceedings continued as follows:)
Mr.Ball. Sam, I'll show you an exhibit here, which is a piece of clothing and which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 150. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes, sir.
Mr.Ball. When and where?
Mr.Guinyard. In Oak Cliff.
Mr.Ball. Did you ever see anybody wearing it?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes, sir.
Mr.Ball. Who?
Mr.Guinyard. Oswald.
Mr.Ball. Where?
Mr.Guinyard. Oak Cliff.
Mr.Ball. Tell me a little more about it.
Mr.Guinyard. In Oak Cliff and down in the courtroom.
Mr.Ball. Where?
Mr.Guinyard. Down in the examining room.
Mr.Ball. When this man came down Patton Street toward Jefferson with his gun, you have mentioned he had a shirt on?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes, sir.
Mr.Ball. You described that shirt as a brown shirt?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes.
Mr.Ball. Does this look anything like the shirt?
Mr.Guinyard. It looks just like it does.
Mr.Ball. You saw that shirt before?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes.
Mr.Ball. Where?
Mr.Guinyard. Down at the city hall.
Mr.Ball. At the police station?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes.
Mr.Ball. And what did you tell them when they showed you this shirt?
Mr.Guinyard. I told them that that's the shirt he had on.
Mr.Ball. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr.Guinyard. That's the jacket.
Mr.Ball. This is a gray jacket?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr.Ball. It has a zipper on it?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes.
Mr.Ball. You say that's the jacket?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr.Ball. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr.Guinyard. Yes, sir.
Mr.Ball. I have no further questions for you, Sam, and I thank you for coming down, and you can go home now.
Mr.Guinyard. Thank you.
The following affidavit was executed by Lt. J. C. Day on May 7, 1964.
AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSIONON THE ASSASSINATION OFPRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
State of Texas,County of Dallas, ss:
Before me, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lt. J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department, who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
When testifying before the President's Commission, I stated I did not remember who returned the two spent 6.5 hulls and envelope to my possession on the night of November 22, 1963. Since returning to Dallas Detective C. N. Dhority has called my attention to the fact he brought the three hulls in the envelope to me and asked me to check them again for fingerprints even though I had checked them when they were picked up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository about 1:20 p.m. November 22, 1963 by Detective R. M. Sims and myself and placed in a manila envelope. Since talking to Dhority I remembernow that he was the one who returned the shells to me about 10:00 p.m. and stated that his office wanted to retain one. He left me two shells and the envelope that Detective Sims and I had previously marked. It was then that I scratched my name on the two shells that were released at 11:45 p.m. to Agent Vince Drain along with the rifle and other evidence.
Signed this 7th day of May 1964.
(S)J. C. Day,J. C. Day.
(S)J. C. Day,J. C. Day.
(S)J. C. Day,J. C. Day.
The following affidavit was executed by Lt. J. C. Day on June 23, 1964.
AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSIONON THE ASSASSINATION OFPRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
State of Texas,County of Dallas, ss:
Before me, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lt. J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department, who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. The hulls were picked up by Detective R. M. Sims and Lieutenant J. C. Day and placed in an envelope. Detective R. L. Studebaker was also present. The envelope was marked and dated by Sims and Day. Detective Sims took the hulls after they were checked for fingerprints by Day. The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI. Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. the same day. When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority. On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty and myself at the local FBI office. Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three hulls in my possession. Both Detective R. L. Studebaker and Detective R. M. Sims, who were present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked them as they were found under the window.
Signed this 23d day of June 1964.
(S)J. C. Day,J. C. Day.
(S)J. C. Day,J. C. Day.
(S)J. C. Day,J. C. Day.
The following affidavit was executed by Thomas J. Kelley on June 1, 1964.
AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSIONON THE ASSASSINATION OFPRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
City of Washington,District of Columbia, ss:
I, Thomas J. Kelley, being first duly sworn do upon oath depose and state:
I am an Inspector in the United States Secret Service assigned to Secret Service Headquarters in Washington, D.C. On November 22, 1963, I was not in the City of Dallas at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I was instructed through Deputy Chief Paul Paterni to go to Dallas directly from Lexington, Kentucky, where I had been engaged in a special assignment and arrived on Friday evening in Dallas at approximately 10:30 p.m.
I attended a total of four interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald, all of which were held in the office of Captain J. W. Fritz of the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas Police Department. Three of these interviews occurred on November 23 and the fourth on November 24. (Prior to my arrival in Dallas, Oswald had been interrogated on November 22.)
Subsequent to these interviews I dictated summaries from my notes of the subject matter discussed and these dictated summaries were transmitted to Chief James J. Rowley on November 29 and December 1, 1963.
Copies of these written summaries are attached to this affidavit as exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof. The summary of my last interview with Oswald which occurred on Sunday, November 24, 1963, was the first portion of a four-page memorandum which included in addition to the report of the interview, my report on the circumstances immediately following the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.
I hereby certify that the attached memoranda constitute my total written memoranda of the interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald at which I was present. I have no additional recollection at this time which I can add to the attached memoranda. I further certify that these memoranda accurately summarize my notes and recollections from these interviews.
Dated this 1st day of June 1964.
(S)Thomas J. Kelley,Thomas J. Kelley.
(S)Thomas J. Kelley,Thomas J. Kelley.
(S)Thomas J. Kelley,Thomas J. Kelley.
The following affidavit was executed by J. W. Fritz on June 9, 1964.
AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSIONON THE ASSASSINATION OFPRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
State of Texas,County of Dallas, ss.:
Before me, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared J. W. Fritz, Dallas Police Department, who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: I wish to supplement the evidence given by me on Wednesday, April 20, 1964, before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, as follows:
The Spent Rifle Hulls
Three spent rifle hulls were found under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Dallas, Texas, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. When the officers called me to this window, I asked them not to move the shells nor touch them until Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department could make pictures of the hulls showing where theyfell after being ejected from the rifle. After the pictures were made, Detective R. M. Sims of the Homicide Bureau, who was assisting in the search of the building, brought the three empty hulls to my office. These were delivered to me in my office at the police headquarters. I kept the hulls in an envelope in my possession and later turned them over to C. N. Dhority of the Homicide Bureau and instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the Identification Bureau. I told Detective Dhority that after these hulls were checked for prints to leave two of them to be delivered to the FBI and to bring one of them to my office to be used for comparison tests here in the office, as we were trying to find where the cartridges had been bought. When Detective Dhority returned from the Identification Bureau, he returned the one empty hull which I kept in my possession. Several days later, I believe on the night of November 27, Vince Drain of the FBI called me at home about one o'clock in the morning and said that the Commission wanted the other empty hull and a notebook that belonged to Oswald. I came to the office and delivered these things to the FBI. We have Mr. James P. Hosty's receipt for these items in our report.
Reference to the Testimony of Roger Craig
I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald leaving the building. I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember it. There were other officers in my inner office at the time, and I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked about.
Signed this 9th day of June 1964.
(S)J. W. Fritz,J. W. Fritz.
(S)J. W. Fritz,J. W. Fritz.
(S)J. W. Fritz,J. W. Fritz.
The testimony of Mrs. Mary Jane Robertson was taken at 12:20 p.m., on May 28, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr.Hubert. This is the deposition of Mrs. Mary Jane Robertson.
Mrs.Robertson. Right.
Mr.Hubert. Mrs. Robertson, my name is Leon D. Hubert, and I am a member of the advisory staff of the general counsel on the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Under the provisions of Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, the joint resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of procedure adopted by the President's Commission in conformance with the Executive order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission's inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular, as to you, Mrs. Robertson, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine what facts you know about the death of Oswald and any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry.
Now, Mrs. Robertson, I believe that you appear here today by virtue of a general request made to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the President's Commission, in a letter addressed by him to Chief Curry, asking Chief Curry to request that you come here. Under the rules adopted by the Commission, you are entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking ofthis deposition, but the rules adopted also provide that a witness may waive this 3-day notice if he sees fit to do so. Now, I must first ask you if you wish to receive the 3-day notice, or whether you are willing to waive it?
Mrs.Robertson. I am quite willing to.
Mr.Hubert. Will you rise then, and raise your right hand so that I may administer the oath?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; I do.
Mr.Hubert. Will you please state your full name, please, ma'am?
Mrs.Robertson. My name is Mary Jane Robertson or Mrs. Jim G. Robertson, as I go by.
Mr.Hubert. What is your present residence address?
Mrs.Robertson. 619 Lacewood, L-a-c-e-w-o-o-d [spelling] Drive, in Dallas, of course.
Mr.Hubert. And your occupation?
Mrs.Robertson. I am classified as a clerk-typist with the city civil service.
Mr.Hubert. That's Dallas?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes—Dallas—and I work in the special service bureau of the Dallas Police Department.
Mr.Hubert. In other words, you are a civil service employee but assigned to the Dallas Police Department?
Mrs.Robertson. Right.
Mr.Hubert. How long have you been so assigned?
Mrs.Robertson. Just about a year and a half—October the 1st I started to work there, so just about a year and a half.
Mr.Hubert. Now, were you there on Friday, November 22, 1963?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes.
Mr.Hubert. The day the President was killed?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; I certainly was.
Mr.Hubert. Do you remember what time you went to work there and what time you left?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; at that time I was coming to work at 7:15 and leaving at 4:15—those were my hours.
Mr.Hubert. At 7:15 in the morning?
Mrs.Robertson. At 7:15 in the morning and leaving at 4:15 in the afternoon. Now, as to the exact time I left that afternoon, I cannot tell you to the minute because, well, further on in the testimony you will probably want to ask, but Jack Revill, Lieutenant Revill, asked me to take a letter for him, the exact time of which I cannot tell you, but I do remember this very well—my husband had a vacation. He had been on a hunting trip and he was at home, so when Jack asked me to write this letter I went in and phoned home and I said, "I might run just a few minutes late because I don't know if this will be a long letter or a short letter, or what it will consist of," and I did have the car, and ordinarily I would have been home, say, leaving the office at 4:15, in 20 or 25 minutes, you know, but I did get home more or less around 5 o'clock—which was the usual time. I mean, I didn't run, you know, real late or anything, but that part—I definitely remember, and my husband does, too.
Mr.Hubert. And the letter of Lt. Jack Revill you just talked about was the thing that caused you to be delayed?
Mrs.Robertson. That was what I stayed to write—yes.
Mr.Hubert. And that is a fact?
Mrs.Robertson. That is a fact.
Mr.Hubert. So, that was the last thing you did that day?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; when I completed the letter.
Mr.Hubert. Normally, you would have left at 4:15?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; and I am saying that I didn't run too much after 4:15—the point of it—now, exactly what time I started on that—I don't know.
Mr.Hubert. Normally, how long would it take you to get to your home from your office?
Mrs.Robertson. Well, you see, if I leave at 4:15 I make a little better time than if you wait until 4:30 because the more traffic starts then, and it's hard tosay exactly, but I go on the freeway, and it's probably 20 minutes and if it's heavy traffic probably 25—you know what I mean?
Mr.Hubert. Would it be fair to state, then, that you probably left at about 4:30?
Mrs.Robertson. I would assume so. Now, I'm not saying to the very minute or anything like that, but I am saying that approximately—if it was after 5 o'clock, it was very shortly after when I got in the car, you know, I did not run what you would call late by hours or so.
Mr.Hubert. Now, I'm going to show you two documents, but I want to identify them with reference to your deposition, so I am marking a document which has been already identified as Commission Exhibit No. 838, as follows: "Dallas, Texas, May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 1, of the deposition of Mrs. Mary Jane Robertson," and I am signing my name below that, all of which appears in the left margin, and I am doing precisely the same to the other document, which bears the identification, Commission Exhibit No. 709, except that I am marking this as Exhibit No. 2 of the deposition of Mary Jane Robertson, signing my name to that.
Now, Mrs. Robertson, I would ask you to look at Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit No. 2 which are identified and ask you if that is the letter to which you have previously referred as having been written or typed by you for Lieutenant Revill?
Mrs.Robertson. I didn't this—because I know nothing about this down here [indicating].
Mr.Hubert. You are pointing to Exhibit No. 1 and you are covering with your hand the affidavit portion?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes.
Mr.Hubert. You say you know nothing about that?
Mrs.Robertson. No.
Mr.Hubert. The letter itself, you have noticed that they are actually identical, one appears to be an original and the other a copy?
Mrs.Robertson. That's right—I was trying to see if there was a difference.
Mr.Hubert. Do you remember writing these letters yourself?
Mrs.Robertson. Why, yes; I wrote them.
Mr.Hubert. Is there anything on the letter that identifies you as having written them, I mean like the usual little marks put on the letter by a stenographer?
Mrs.Robertson. No; that's something I always do, but what I mean, the state of confusion—well—I'm sure you can't have a conception of the state of confusion that office was in—our main secretary was out, she had a dental appointment and she had left earlier that morning, there were only two girls in the office and the two deskmen.
Mr.Hubert. Well, you do identify the letter?
Mrs.Robertson. Definitely—I identify the letter.
Mr.Hubert. You identify it from the sense of it or what?
Mrs.Robertson. Well, this is something that I did not memorize verbatim, and could not have repeated—what I mean—per word, but I could have told you the general gist of the letter, is what I mean, yes—the actual facts.
Mr.Hubert. Was it dictated to you?
Mrs.Robertson. Lieutenant Revill came in and said, "Mary Jane, I would like for you to take a letter," and like I said, our stenographer was out of the office on an appointment, and I said, "Of course, now, Jack, this has been a hard day and you know I don't take shorthand and if you will be patient with me and let me write it out in longhand, I will be happy to do it for you." That is when I made my phone call home, and so he said, "Well, you take your time," and he said, "I know you don't take shorthand and that's quite all right," and I had him even spell such names so as to be certain of—you know—the agent's name and all like that. He sat across the desk from me, as we are doing here.
Mr.Hubert. In other words, it was written out in your hand?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; now, Jack, as I remember—I speak of him, we are very informal in our office, as Lieutenant Revill—Lieutenant Revill, as I recall, did have several papers or rough drafts that possibly he had written out orsomething, but he did speak verbally to me and I wrote in my own handwriting and I used a shorthand notebook. I wrote in my own handwriting.
Mr.Hubert. And then you used your own handwriting for the purpose of writing the letter?
Mrs.Robertson. That's correct.
Mr.Hubert. What did you do with your own handwriting notes?
Mrs.Robertson. Anything like that I always take and I tear up and put in the wastebasket.
Mr.Hubert. And you think that's what happened here?
Mrs.Robertson. Well, I'm certain it did.
Mr.Hubert. But you don't know the existence of those notes now, is what I am getting at?
Mrs.Robertson. No, sir.
Mr.Hubert. Do you know how many copies you made?
Mrs.Robertson. There again, I could not swear to you under oath exactly. Ordinarily we make an original and five. Now, whether Lieutenant Revill just might have said that an original and three will be enough, I cannot tell you.
Mr.Hubert. You don't know how many you made?
Mrs.Robertson. No—I cannot—I absolutely do not remember that.
Mr.Hubert. But the normal practice would have been to make more than one copy?
Mrs.Robertson. More than the original?
Mr.Hubert. More than the original and one copy—normally you would write the original and how many copies?
Mrs.Robertson. Now, by this going to the captain that is not necessarily so. Anything we address to the chief we would have definitely more than one carbon copy, but for little instances like that, I cannot remember—Lieutenant Revill just might have said "an original and one will be enough."
Mr.Hubert. Do you recall that he did say so?
Mrs.Robertson. I do not—absolutely.
Mr.Hubert. And you don't really know how many you did make?
Mrs.Robertson. I cannot tell you—I cannot remember.
Mr.Hubert. When the letter was finished, what happened to it?
Mrs.Robertson. I called Lieutenant Revill, as well as I can remember, I called him into my office. Now, I might have gone into his office, but I took it directly to him. I waited and let him read it and let him proof it over to see it and I know he questioned me—he said, "Are you sure this is the correct way to spell assassination?" And I said, "Yes, sir; I looked it up in the dictionary," and he read the letter and then as I remember, I got my personal belongings together and I left the building then.
Mr.Hubert. So, you handed the original and copy or copies to him?
Mrs.Robertson. Directly to Lieutenant Revill.
Mr.Hubert. And you don't know what he did with it, to your own knowledge?
Mrs.Robertson. Oh, no; I left the building.
Mr.Hubert. Do you know anything about what the figures in the lower right-hand corner on Exhibit 1, that is to say, Commission Exhibit No. 838, mean?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; I do.
Mr.Hubert. What do they mean?
Mrs.Robertson. The captain has files of copies and that is his own, and his own personal file. In fact, he gave me a letter, a photostat, which he said it would be quite all right to show that that is his own and that that appears on his file, you know what I mean, the way he has it set up.
Mr.Hubert. You are talking about what?
Mrs.Robertson. The O-1 is what I'm talking about.
Mr.Hubert. Now, you are showing me a document that is exactly the same actually, it seems to be a photostatic copy of Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, that you have just testified to.
Mrs.Robertson. That's right, this is in the captain's files.
Mr.Hubert. This is from the captain's flies and in the left-hand side it shows "WPG"?
Mrs.Robertson. That's Capt. W. P. Gannaway.
Mr.Hubert. And then over on the right-hand side it has "O-1" and you say that those are his initials on the left-hand side, and on the right-hand side is what, that is his indexing?
Mrs.Robertson. Correct—this is not in the outside file or anything, it's in the captain's office.
Mr.Hubert. Would that indicate that there is another copy other than the two that you have just testified to, being Commission Exhibits Nos. 838 and 709?
Mrs.Robertson. Well, sir, will you phrase that again, I don't understand it?
Mr.Hubert. Well, you will notice that in Commission Exhibits Nos. 838 and 709, both of which have been identified, respectively, as Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 for this deposition, do not have on the left-hand side the initials of Captain Gannaway. Now, it could be that this document you have just showed me is another copy or another photostat initialed?
Mrs.Robertson. Sir, I don't know. He called me in his office yesterday and handed me the letter and I read it. I said, "Yes, Captain Gannaway, this is the letter. I assume I typed it because this is the contents of the letter that I typed."
Mr.Hubert. And you remembered it?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; so he handed it to me and he said, "Well, take this along," and he said, "This, of course, Mary Jane, you well know——"
Mr.Hubert. You are talking about the "O-1"?
Mrs.Robertson. The O-1, I don't ask questions, but I mean, he has a file, of course, of the documents pertaining to this and so he said, "Would you return the letter to me when you return from taking your deposition?"
Mr.Hubert. He didn't authorize you to let me have this letter that you have just showed me?
Mrs.Robertson. No; he did not.
Mr.Hubert. Well, as I said before, I think you will agree with me that this letter seems to be exactly the same as the other two, with the exception that on the one that you have produced there are in the left-hand corner, the initials WPG, which you say you identify as being the initials of Captain Gannaway?
Mrs.Robertson. That's correct.
Mr.Hubert. Can you tell us anything about the other markings and symbols on the bottom of Commission Exhibit No. 838? I refer first to seemingly a rubber stamp in a square called "Indexed date 4-27-4" and the initial "S." Can you tell me what that means?
Mrs.Robertson. I have no idea in the world, sir. I have never seen a stamp like that.
Mr.Hubert. And then below that, the initials "Int," this being in writing, and then "2965-34," do you know what that means?
Mrs.Robertson. I have no idea. Now, there again is our O-1, which would be in our captain's files. Now, whether this is something pertaining—I do not know whether this is something pertaining to his files only, this subject matter.
Mr.Hubert. But in any case, from your own knowledge, except for the O-1, as to which you have already testified, the rubber stamp and the other figures in the lower right-hand corner in Exhibit No. 1 in this deposition, being Commission Exhibit No. 838, as to those you know nothing about?
Mrs.Robertson. I know nothing, sir. Once I handed the letter to Lieutenant Revill, then I never saw the letter again until I was called into the captain's office yesterday. I remember it in my mind, but as far as seeing the actual document, I had not seen the actual document, I mean a copy of it or anything.
Mr.Hubert. Do you think it would be possible for you to call Captain Gannaway and see if he would give you authority to let me have that copy that you have shown us or perhaps take a photostat of it; can you do that?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes; I will do that.
Mr.Hubert. Suppose we take a few minutes recess, then, and you call Captain Gannaway and ask him if we might have that copy.
Mrs.Robertson. All right; I will.
(At this point the proceedings of the deposition of Mrs. Robertson were recessed, during which time Mrs. Robertson made the call heretofore referred to, and the proceedings were continued as hereinafter shown.)
Mr.Hubert. Mrs. Robertson, you have attempted to reach Captain Gannaway to see if he could give you permission to either let me have a photocopy made of this letter which you showed me, or else have a copy of that made, but at the moment you have not been able to reach him.
Suppose we do this. I have already asked you all the questions that I would ask you about the document, and suppose we do it this way—that if you do secure permission to give it to me, then when it is delivered at a later time today or at the latest, tomorrow, I will mark it as Exhibit No. 3 of your deposition, do you understand?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes.
Mr.Hubert. By simply writing my name and the date and then all of the testimony which you have previously given as to that document heretofore, but which did not refer to a numbered exhibit will apply to Exhibit No. 3; is that all right? Do you understand what I mean?
Mrs.Robertson. Yes—I see—I understand what you mean.
Mr.Hubert. Now, I understand that Captain Gannaway, from what you told me, called you in yesterday and spoke to you about this. Has anyone else spoken to you about this recently, at any time?
Mrs.Robertson. No, captain—I assume it was from this letter that was addressed to the chief requiring my testimony on this—the captain just said I was needed and that I had a choice of Thursday or Friday and which would be more convenient?
Mr.Hubert. Yes; I understand, and then he asked you if you remembered it?
Mrs.Robertson. He asked me first if I remembered the letter, and I said, "Yes, very well," and I repeated the gist of the contents to him.
Mr.Hubert. That was the only time anyone had spoken to you about the letter?
Mrs.Robertson. Well, when Lieutenant Revill went to Washington, I believe, he went a matter of a week or 2 weeks ago and he said at that time when he came back, when he returned from Washington, he said, "Mary Jane, you know they may need your testimony on it," and I said, "Well, that's fine. I certainly remember the day, and I certainly remember the incident," and other than that there has been no discussion.
Mr.Hubert. And there is no doubt in your mind that it was written, as you say, on the afternoon of November 22, approximately between the hours of 4 and 4:30 p.m.?
Mrs.Robertson. I would say that it was written more between—yes—about then, because I was thinking from the—actually the time he started giving it to me and all that—actually the typing and waiting for him to proofread it and all like that—that I am sure—because I went directly home to my family and told my husband that I had typed the letter.
Mr.Hubert. And there can be no doubt about it being November 22, either?
Mrs.Robertson. No doubt in the world.
Mrs.Hubert. All right, Mrs. Robertson, thank you very much. As soon as you find out from Captain Gannaway, perhaps you can arrange some way to get the document delivered?
Mrs.Robertson. Shall I personally have to deliver that to you, or can it be sent by one of the officers? Is there a requirement about it?
Mr.Hubert. Just so that it is identified more particularly with your testimony, if you get permission to hand me that document, or deliver it in person, that's all that will be necessary.
Mrs.Robertson. Well, I'm quite sure the captain will not object.
Mr.Hubert. If you want to send it over, I would like you to place your name on it just so that we will know it is the document we are talking about, because after all, this is going to be read by people later, and we know what we are talking about, but we must make it clear that others will know from the whole record what it is.
Mrs.Robertson. I see, sir.
Mr.Hubert. Thank you, very much, and I appreciate your assistance.
Mrs.Robertson. All right.
The testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt was taken at 3:40 p.m., on June 12, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
(The oath was administered by the reporter.)
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I do.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you state your full name, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you have testified before the Commission in this proceeding before?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have.
Mr.Eisenberg. We will not rehearse your qualifications again, since you have already been accepted as an expert in the field in which you are going to be questioned today.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you a photograph marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, consisting of a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle, and I ask you whether you prepared that photograph?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is this a photograph of an existing Commission exhibit?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; this is a copy of the small photograph that is a part of Commission Exhibit No. 133.
Mr.Eisenberg. That would be 133-A?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I don't recall whether it is A or B.
Mr.Eisenberg. I hand you photographs of Commission Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B and ask if this serves to refresh your recollection as to whether Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph of 133-A or 133-B?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the cover of Life magazine, issue of February 21, 1964, which I have labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2, and I ask you if this is a photograph which you have previously examined in connection with earlier testimony given by you to the Commission?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. I hand you page 80 of the same issue of Life, which is labeled Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 3, and I ask you the same question, that is, whether this is the photograph you have previously discussed in connection with earlier testimony?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; it is.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, for the record, I am using duplicate originals rather than the actual exhibits, because the actual exhibits are now being printed up by the Government Printing Office.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you the front page of the Detroit Free Press, issue of February 17, 1964, containing a picture similar to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, and the other pictures thus far referred to—and I am labeling this Detroit Free Press page Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4—and ask you whether you have examined the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and a rifle appearing on that exhibit?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you compare this picture with 133-A or Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, your reproduction of 133-A?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. What was your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I found that the reproduction of the photograph of Oswald holding the gun on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 has insufficient detail to warrant positive identification as being the same photograph as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1.
However, I did find that the photograph in the newspaper, Exhibit No. 4, is consistent in all respects with the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1, except for variations in retouching that are a normal part of the process of making halftone reproductions from photographs for newspapers. I further found thatthere was nothing in these photographs to indicate that they are other than the same photograph.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, when you say that the only variations appear to be variations in retouching, that would be based on the conclusion that they were the same photograph, is that correct?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you describe those variations which are apparently due to retouching, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes. There is an area to the right of Oswald's head and shoulder, to my left as I look at the photograph, that has been airbrushed or otherwise altered, to intensify the outline of the shoulder, which would be Oswald's shoulder.
In addition there is retouching around the stock of the rifle, and along the other portions of the rifle where it crosses Oswald's body, that has been added to intensify the detail in that portion of the photograph.
Mr.Eisenberg. When you say "around the stock," could you specify as to whether you mean the top, bottom, end, or all three or any two of those boundaries?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 there is retouching on both the top and bottom and butt of the stock, and also a highlight running along the top of the gun from the bolt forward toward the muzzle.
There is an additional highlight along the bottom of the gun just forward of the trigger assembly between the trigger assembly and the hand.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, there is a highlight on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 running near the top of the barrel or receiver, is that correct—terminating at Oswald's left hand?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is the relation between the highlight at the top of the barrel or receiver in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 and the highlight just referred to in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. In Exhibit No. 1, that highlight along the bolt of the gun is in two parts, and the highlight in the photograph or the reproduction of the photograph, Exhibit No. 4, is a continuous highlight.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is it your opinion that the highlight in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4 is based upon the highlight in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. But it differs, at least, in that it makes a continuous highlight where none appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, is that your testimony?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, a telescopic sight is apparent on the rifle, and no such sight is apparent in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4. Do you have any opinion as to the reason for the lack of a sight appearing on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you give that opinion?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I believe that the sight does not appear in the reproduction of the photograph on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, because it was not retouched to intensify the detail of the sight, and, therefore was lost in the engraving process. I do not believe that there was any retouching over the sight in order to purposely obliterate it from the reproduction in Exhibit No. 4.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, is there generally a loss of detail in reproduction of illustrations appearing in newspapers, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; there is. This is apparent in other areas of this photograph when compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, in areas of Oswald's shirt, where wrinkling appears in Exhibit No. 1, and is lost in the reproduction. Also, the wrinkles in the dark areas of the trousers are not reproduced in the halftone process, but this detail is lost by the process.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is this halftone process which you mention?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. This is the halftone process by which a continuous tone photograph, such as Exhibit No. 1, is photographed through a screen so that it can be broken up into a dot pattern of black dots on a white background andwhite dots on a black background to give the appearance of a continuous tone in the printed newspaper reproduction. And this is the only means by which a continuous-tone photograph can be reproduced.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why is it called a halftone process?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I don't really know the answer but I would assume that it is because it gives you the tones in between black and white, or the halftones.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, a loss of detail is inherent in this process, is it?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is true, particularly in regard to newspaper reproductions, where a relatively coarse screen is used in making the halftone. In a magazine publication, where a higher quality of printing is used, and a better quality of paper is used, it is possible to use a finer screen and thereby retain a greater amount of the detail.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, referring once more to the highlight running along the top of the weapon, and terminating at Oswald's left hand in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4; when you compare this exhibit with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, does it appear that that highlight actually runs along the top of the weapon?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. In the reproduction of the photograph on Exhibit No. 4, the impression is given that the highlight is along the top of the rifle, because you see no additional detail above that highlight along the top of the gun.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, if you compare that with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, where a similar highlight appears, does that highlight actually denote the top of the weapon, or is any detail above the highlight apparent in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. On Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1, the highlight does not denote the top of the weapon. There is detail present that shows other areas of the gun, the breech, above the highlight.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, would you say then that detail of the weapon itself, that is, the upper part of the weapon, had been lost along with detail representing the telescopic sight?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Bringing your attention back to Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, which are the Life photographs, how did these photographs compare with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press photograph?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. The primary difference is in the retouching. In the area above and behind Oswald's right shoulder, the background has been retouched out on Exhibit No. 4, the Detroit Free Press. In the Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2, the background has been left in, and the retouching has been added to the shirt area around the right shoulder to enhance the detail along in that area.
The Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2, also has retouching around the scope of the rifle in order that it will not blend into the dark shirt that Oswald was wearing and thus be lost in the reproduction process; this has not been done in Exhibit No. 4. The retouching along the top of the rifle stock is generally similar, in that it is in a straight line from the butt of the stock to the bolt. However, Exhibit No. 4 has a different type of retouching along the end or butt of the stock and the bottom of the stock or the lower edge of the stock between the butt and the trigger guard. Highlights along the top and bottom of the breech area are different in Exhibit No. 4 than in Exhibit No. 2.
There is a dark shadow between the legs of Oswald that is about halfway between the knee and the crotch that has been left in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 4, but has been retouched out of the Life magazine reproduction, Exhibit No. 2. These are the primary variations in the retouching on the two exhibits.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does the highlight running at or near the top of the receiver or barrel in the bolt area show a continuous or an intermittent form in Commission Exhibit No. 2?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Commission Exhibit No. 2 shows a break in the highlight along the bolt, and is reproduced very close to the original photograph, which is Exhibit No. 1.
In fact, this area was probably not retouched, or this highlight was probably not retouched, for the Life magazine reproduction.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, you also mentioned that the retouching along the stockwas different when Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2 is compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4. Could you go into a little bit of detail on that difference?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I mentioned that the highlight along the top from the butt to the bolt is generally similar in that it is in a straight line. Although the rifle itself is actually curved along that area, they both have been retouched in a relatively straight line along the top edge of the stock. There has been a white or light line added along the butt of the stock where it crosses Oswald's leg in Exhibit No. 4 and this has not been done in Exhibit No. 2. In addition, a white outline has been drawn in along the bottom edge of the stock as it runs from the butt to the trigger guard in Exhibit No. 4. This has not been done in Exhibit No. 2.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, when retouching is effected, is it performed on a negative or on a print?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Retouching for newspaper reproduction is almost always done on the print.
Mr.Eisenberg. And what about magazine reproductions?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. This would also be true of magazine reproductions.
Mr.Eisenberg. And would that explain how Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 4 could differ from each other, even though they were apparently both taken from the same print, originally from the same print, of which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; that would explain the difference.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is—could you go into detail on that? Could you elaborate that answer? By what process would the result of a reproduction of the same print differ, as reproduced in two different media or two different magazines or newspapers?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Well, the primary variation would be in the retouching that has been added. Different publications and different retouch artists would handle a photograph differently, and add different retouching to them. Therefore, these would be the main variations which you would have between two different reproductions. In addition there can also be differences in the quality of the engraving, as there are differences in quality of many things. A newspaper reproduction is made with a coarser screen and gives less detail than a magazine reproduction that uses a finer screen and, therefore, reproduces more detail. These are some of the basic things that would affect these reproductions and make variations in the reproductions.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you page 80 of Newsweek magazine, issue of March 2, 1964, also containing a photograph like those we have been examining, and this is marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, and I ask you whether you have examined that photograph?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I have.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you give us your conclusions, please?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. I found that the photograph reproduced in the Newsweek magazine, issue of March 2, 1964, which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, is the same in all general characteristics as the photograph that has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and I found no differences to suggest that it is other than the samephotograph——
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Except for variations in retouching.
Mr.Eisenberg. I take it that your testimony concerning Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 is that due to some loss of detail it is impossible to say that these photographs are identical to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1—or rather Exhibit No. 133-A, on which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is based—in the same way you can say that a fingerprint is identical to a given fingerprint impression; is that correct?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct. I was not able to positively identify them, because of this loss of detail.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is your opinion as to the probability that they are identical, bearing in mind that it is impossible to make an absolute unqualified determination of identity?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. They may very well be identical since I found no significant differences other than the retouching.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is there much doubt in your mind?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Very little.
Mr.Eisenberg. Apart from the factors which have been mentioned so far as apparently due to retouching, and those factors which you have not yet discussed but will, was there any difference between the reproductions and the original, between the apparent reproductions and the original? That is, was lighting the same, position, and so forth?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; I found them to be the same in all of these general characteristics as to lighting and position of hands and position of body, their relation to the background. I found no differences whatsoever.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that for the photograph to be a different photograph, I take it, you would have had to have Oswald line up exactly in the same position, with his elbows and torso in precisely the same relative position, with the rifle at precisely the same relative height and in precisely the same relative position as it had been in previously, with the lighting casting the exact same shadows, insofar as shadows are visible, and so forth, is that correct?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you found no discrepancies in those items I have just mentioned?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. That is correct.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Back on the record.
To make the record complete, is there any other possibility, no matter how remote?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; even though it would be extremely remote, it is conceivable that a person could actually make a drawing or painting of a picture exactly like this, that when reproduced in a newspaper or publication with its loss of detail would resemble Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, in the same manner that this picture or this reproduction resembles Exhibit No. 133-A.
Mr.Eisenberg. "This reproduction" being which, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Either Exhibit No. 4, or Exhibit No. 5, Exhibit No. 2, any of the magazine or newspaper reproductions that we have discussed.
Mr.Eisenberg. You are not talking about Commission Exhibit No. 133-A itself, which you testified to earlier?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. No, no.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you see any evidence of this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. No; I do not, and I think it is in the realm of unreasonable doubt and it is highly improbable.
Mr.Eisenberg. Returning to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, could you describe the apparent retouching in that exhibit?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. Yes; there is airbrushing in the background area that shows beside the right shoulder of Oswald, where the tree that shows in Exhibit No. 1 has been airbrushed out to a darkened area. There have been highlights added to the rifle, a straight highlight along the top of the stock, running from the butt of the stock to the bolt, a bright highlight along the butt of the stock.
There has been rather elaborate retouching around the bolt area or breech area of the rifle. The highlight that appears in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 along the bolt of the gun, which appears as a broken line or two segments of a line or highlight, appears in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5 as a broken line very much like the actual highlight in the photograph which is Exhibit No. 1.
There has been a highlight added parallel to that, along the bottom of or just below that area in the reproduction on Exhibit No. 5, which does not appear in Exhibit No. 1.
The top of the rifle has been emphasized with a strong highlight, and the highlight in the reproduction of Exhibit No. 5 along the top of the rifle does not conform to the actual top of the rifle as it can be seen in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1.
There are some other highlights added above that, that are rather unexplainable but may be highlights relative to the lower portion of the scope.
Also a highlight has been added along the top of the barrel between Oswald's left hand and where the barrel extends past his left shoulder.
There has been some retouching added around the pistol on the right hip of Oswald, and around the holster. These are the primary points that have been retouched.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Shaneyfelt, does this photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, more closely resemble the Detroit Free Press photograph, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4, or the Life photographs, Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3?
Mr.Shaneyfelt. It corresponds to the reproduction in the Detroit Free Press, Exhibit No. 4, and not as well to the reproduction on Exhibit No. 2, which is the Life magazine. In fact, the reproductions on Exhibits Nos. 4 and No. 5 both have two white specks along the right leg between the knee and the right foot, centrally located in that area one above the other, that do not appear in the original photograph, which is Commission Exhibit 133-A, and do not appear in the Life magazine reproduction on either Exhibit No. 2 or 3. This would indicate to me that these two photographs may have originated from the same basic source or basic print.