Chapter XLIX: Appendix: X (3)

When received by Stombaugh, the blanket was folded into approximately the shape of a narrow right triangle.[A10-350] A safety pin was inserted in one end of the blanket, and also at this end, loosely wrapped around the blanket, was a string.[A10-351] On the basis of creases in the blanket in this area it appeared that the string had been tied around the blanket rather tightly at one time while something was inside the blanket.[A10-352] Other creases and folds were also present, as illustrated in Commission Exhibit No. 663.[A10-353] Among these was a crease or hump approximately 10 inches long.[A10-354] This crease must have been caused by a hard protruding object approximately 10 inches long which had been tightly wrapped in the blanket, causing the yarn to stretch so that the hump was present even when the object had been extracted.[A10-355] The hump was approximately the same length and shape as the telescopic sight on the C2766 rifle, and its position with respect to the ends of the blanket was such (based on the manner in which the blanket was folded when Stombaugh received it) that had the rifle been in the blanket the telescopic sight could have made the hump.[A10-356]

The string wrapped around the blanket was made of ordinary white cotton.[A10-357] It had been tied into a granny knot (a very common knot tied right over right, right over right) and the dangling ends had been further tied into a bow knot (the knot used on shoelaces).[A10-358]

After receiving the blanket, Stombaugh scraped it to remove the foreign textile fibers and hairs that were present.[A10-359] He found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, and a number of limb, pubic, and head hairs, all of which had originated from persons of the Caucasian race, and had fallen out naturally, as was shown by the shape of their roots.[A10-360] Several of the limb and pubic hairs matched samples of Oswald’s limb and pubic hairs obtained by the Dallas police in all observable characteristics, including certain relatively unusual characteristics.[A10-361] For example, in both Oswald’s pubic hairs and some of the blanket pubic hairs, the color was a medium brown, which remained constant to the tip, where it changed to a very light brown and then became transparent, due to lack of color pigments; the diameters were identical, and rather narrow for pubic hairs; the hairs were very smooth, lacking the knobbiness characteristic of pubic hairs, and the upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs; the tips of the hairs were sharp, which is unusual for pubic hairs; the cuticle was very thin for pubic hairs; the scales displayed only a very small protrusion; the pigmentation was very fine, equally dispersed, and occasionally chained together, and displayed only very slight gapping; cortical fusi were for the most part absent; the medulla was either fairly continuous or completely absent; and the root area was rather clear of pigment, and contained only a fair amount of cortical fusi, which was unusual.[A10-362] Similarly, in both Oswald’s limb hairs and some of the limb hairs from the blanket the color was light brown through its entire length; the diameter was very fine and did not noticeably fluctuate; the tips were very sharp, which is unusual; the scales were of medium size, with very slight protrusion; there was a very slight gapping of the pigmentation near the cuticle; there was an unusual amount of cortical fusi, equally distributed through the hair shaft; and the medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and very uneven.[A10-363]

Other limb, pubic, and head hairs on the blanket did not come from Oswald.[A10-364]

_The paper bag._--Stombaugh received the paper bag, Commission Exhibit No. 142, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.[A10-365] No foreign material was found on the outside of the bag except traces of fingerprint powder and several white cotton fibers, which were of no significance, since white cotton is the most common textile, and at any rate the fibers may have come from Stombaugh’s white cotton gloves.[A10-366] Inside the bag were a tiny wood fragment which was too minute for comparison purposes, and may have come from the woodpulp from which the paper was made; a particle of a waxy substance, like candle wax; and a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers.[A10-367]

The fibers found inside the bag were compared with brown viscose and green cotton fibers taken from the blanket. The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade, diameter, and size and distribution of delustering agent.[A10-368] The green cotton fibers found in the bag were, like those from the blanket, of varying shades, but of a uniform twist. Each green cotton fiber from the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and degree of twist. Like the blanket cotton fibers, the cotton fibers found in the bag were unmercerized.[A10-369]

_The shirt._--Stombaugh received the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.[A10-370] Examination showed that it was composed of gray-black, dark blue, and orange-yellow cotton fibers.[A10-371] The orange-yellow and gray-black cotton fibers were of a uniform shade, and the dark-blue fibers were of three different shades.[A10-372] All the fibers were mercerized and of substantially uniform degree of twist.[A10-373]

_The C2766 rifle._--The rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139, was received in the FBI Laboratory on the morning of November 23, 1963, and examined for foreign material at that time.[A10-374] Stombaugh noticed immediately that the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints, “and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time * * *.”[A10-375] In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either adhering to greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices, and were so dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine what type of fibers they were.[A10-376] However, Stombaugh found that a tiny tuft of fibers had caught on a jagged edge on the rifle’s metal butt plate where it met the end of the wooden stock, and had adhered to this edge, so that when the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints the brush had folded the tuft into a crevice between the butt plate and the stock, where it remained.[A10-377] Stombaugh described these fibers as “fresh,”[A10-378] by which he meant that “they were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented.”[A10-379] However, it was not possible to determine how long the fibers had been on the rifle, in the absence of information as to how frequently the rifle had been used.[A10-380] Examination showed that the tuft was composed of six or seven orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. These fibers were compared with fibers from the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, which was also composed of orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. The orange-yellow and gray-black tuft fibers matched the comparable shirt fibers in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and twist. The three dark-blue fibers matched two of the three shades of the dark-blue shirt fibers, and also matched the dark-blue shirt fibers in degree of twist.[A10-381] Based on these facts, Stombaugh concluded that the tuft of fibers found on the rifle “could easily” have come from the shirt, and that “there is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.”[A10-382]

PHOTOGRAPHS

Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald’s possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine’s garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.[A10-383] In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine’s garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker’s house.[A10-384] An Imperial reflex camera,[A10-385] which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother.[A10-386] Testimony concerning the photographs, the negative, and the camera was given by Lyndal D. Shaneyfelt of the FBI.[A10-387] Shaneyfelt has been connected with photographic work since 1937. He has made 100-300 photographic examinations, and has testified frequently on the subject in court.[A10-388]

_Photographs 133-A and 133-B._--The background and lighting in 133-A and 133-B are virtually identical; the only apparent difference between the two photographs is the pose. However, in 133-A the rifle is held in a position showing many more of its characteristics than are shown in 133-B.[A10-389] In order to bring out the details in the rifle pictured in 133-A, Shaneyfelt rephotographed 133-A and prepared prints of varying densities from the new negative.[A10-390] He also took two new photographs of the C2766 rifle itself: one shows the rifle in approximately the same position as the rifle pictured in 133-A. The other shows a man holding the rifle simulating the pose in 133-A.[A10-391] Shaneyfelt compared the actual rifle, the photograph 133-A, his rephotographs of 133-A, and the two new photographs to determine whether the rifle pictured in 133-A was the C2766 rifle. He found it to be the same in all appearances, noted no differences, and found a notch in the stock of the C2766 which also appeared very faintly in 133-A. However, he did not find enough peculiarities to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C2766 rifle, as distinguished from other rifles of the same configuration.[A10-392]

The rifle’s position in 133-B is such that less of its characteristics were visible than in 133-A; essentially, 133-B shows only the bottom of the rifle. However, the characteristics of the rifle visible in 133-B are also similar to the observable characteristics of the C2766 rifle, except that while the C2766 rifle was equipped with a homemade leather sling when it was found after the assassination, the rifle in 133-B seems to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.[A10-393] The portion of the sling visible in 133-A is too small to establish whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope, and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in 133-B.[A10-394]

_The negative._--Shaneyfelt’s examination of the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed that the photograph, 133-B, had been printed directly or indirectly from the negative. It was Shaneyfelt’s opinion that 133-B had been directly from the negative, but he could not absolutely eliminate the possibility of an internegative, that is, the possibility that a print had been produced from the negative 749, a photograph had been taken of that print, and 133-B had been produced from the new negative, rather than from the original negative.[A10-395] “I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to the added process.”[A10-396] In any event, any “intermediate” print would have been virtually indistinguishable from 133-B, so that Shaneyfelt’s testimony conclusively established that either 133-B or a virtually indistinguishable print had been produced from the negative 749.

Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera, with the back removed to show the camera’s film-plane aperture.]

_The camera._--The Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, was a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, one-shutter-speed, box-type camera, made in the United States.[A10-397] Shaneyfelt compared this camera with the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, to determine whether this negative had been taken with the camera.[A10-398] To make this determination, Shaneyfelt compared the margins of the image on Commission Exhibit No. 749 with the margins of the image on a negative he himself had taken with the camera. Microscopic examination shows that the margins of a negative’s image, although apparently straight, are actually irregular. The irregularities usually do not show on a finished print, because they are blocked out to give the print a neat border.[A10-399] The cause of these irregularities can be best understood by examination of Commission Exhibit No. 751 (p. 594), a photograph of the Imperial camera with the back removed to show the camera’s film-plane aperture. When the camera’s shutter is opened, light exposes that portion of the film which is not blocked off by this aperture. The edges of the aperture, therefore, define the edges of the image which will appear on the developed negative. In effect, the edge of the image is a shadowgraph of the edge of the aperture. As Shaneyfelt testified:

* * * the basis of the examination was a close microscopic
study of the negative made in the camera to study the
shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture.

As the film is placed across the aperture of the camera, and
the shutter is opened, light comes through and exposes the
film only in the opening within the edges. Where the film is
out over the edges of the aperture it is not exposed, and your
result is an exposed negative with a clear edge, and on the
negative then, the edges of that exposure of the photograph,
are actually shadowgraphs of the edges of the aperture.[A10-400]

The basis of the identification is that the microscopic characteristics of every film-plane aperture, like those of a rifle barrel, are distinctive, for much the same reason; that is, when the camera is manufactured, certain handwork is done which differs microscopically from camera to camera, and further differences accrue as the camera is used. As Shaneyfelt testified:

Q. Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is the basis of your statement, the
theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with
this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the
characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is because of the minute variations that
even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional
handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit
of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual
characteristics apart from those that would be general
characteristics on all of them from the same mold.

In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is
used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend
to accumulate a little--or if the aperture is painted, little
lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that
would make that then individually different from every other
camera.

Q. Is this similar then to toolmark identification?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Very similar; yes.[A10-401]

Based on his examination of the shadowgraph on the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, Shaneyfelt determined that it had been taken with the Imperial camera.[A10-402]

Three edges of the shadowgraph of the film-plane aperture were also visible on one of the photographs of General Walker’s house, not having been blocked out in the making of the print. On the basis of these three margins, Shaneyfelt determined that this photograph had also been taken with Oswald’s Imperial Reflex camera. Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found, and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area.[A10-403]

During his interrogations Oswald had been shown 133-A, and had claimed it was a composite--that the face in the picture was his, but the body was not.[A10-404] Shaneyfelt examined 133-A and 133-B to determine if they were composite pictures. He concluded that they were not:

* * * it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again
with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely
eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many
composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency,
either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the
configuration indicating a different lens used for the part
that was added to the original photograph, things many times
that you can’t point to and say this is a characteristic, or
that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations
that are not consistent throughout the picture.

I found no such characteristics in this picture.

In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a
print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste
the face in, and rephotograph it, and then retouch out the area
where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic
that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would
be printed.

Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in
the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of
the head had been added and it hadn’t been entirely retouched
out.

This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found
no such characteristics in these pictures.

Q. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?

A. Yes.[A10-405]

Furthermore, the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed absolutely no doctoring or composition.[A10-406] Since the negative was made in Oswald’s Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, a composite of 133-B could have been made only by putting two pictures together and rephotographing them in the Imperial camera--all without leaving a discernible trace. This, to Shaneyfelt, was “in the realm of the impossible”:

In addition, in this instance regarding 133-B which I have just
stated, I have identified as being photographed or exposed in
the camera which is Exhibit 750, for this to be a composite,
they would have had to make a picture of the background with
an individual standing there, and then substitute the face,
and retouch it and then possibly rephotograph it and retouch
that negative, and make a print, and then photograph it with
this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have
this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is
Commission Exhibit 749.

This to me is beyond reasonable doubt, it just doesn’t
seem that it would be at all possible, in this particular
photograph.[A10-407]

* * * * *

Q. You have the negative of this? [Referring to Exhibit 133B.]

A. We have the negative of 133B.

Q. You have the negative of 133B. That negative in itself shows
no doctoring or composition at all?

A. It shows absolutely no doctoring or composition.

Q. So that the only composition that could have been made would
have been in this process which you have described of picture
on picture and negative and then photographing?

A. And then finally rephotographing with this camera.

Q. Rephotographing with this camera, this very camera?

A. That is correct, and this then, to me, becomes in the realm
of the impossible.[A10-408]

Following the assassination, photographs similar to 133-A appeared in a number of newspapers and magazines.[A10-409] At least some of these photographs, as reproduced, differed both from 133-A and from each other in minor details.[A10-410] Shaneyfelt examined several of these reproductions and concluded that in each case the individual publisher had taken a reproduction of 133-A and retouched it in various ways, apparently for clarifying purposes, thus accounting for the differences between the reproductions and 133-A, and the differences between the reproductions themselves.[A10-411] Subsequently one of the publishers involved submitted the original photographs which it had retouched. Shaneyfelt’s examination of this photograph confirmed his original conclusion.[A10-412] The remaining publishers either confirmed that they had retouched the photographs they had used, or failed to contradict Shaneyfelt’s testimony after having been given an opportunity to do so.[A10-413]