Chapter LI: Front Matter (51)

Mr. Tasker, my name is Leon Hubert. I am a member of the advisory staff of the general counsel of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Under the provisions of Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress, No. 137, and the rules of procedure adopted by the Commission in conformance with that Executive order and that joint resolution, I have been authorized to take this sworn deposition from you.

I state to you that the general nature of the Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relative to the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In particular, as to you, Mr. Tasker, 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 and about Jack Ruby and his operations and movements and so forth.

We are also inquiring into the circumstances of the presence of Jack Ruby in the basement of the police department and his movements and so forth on November 24.

Now, Mr. Tasker, every witness is required by rules adopted by the Commission to have 3-days written notice to appear and give their deposition, but the rules also provide that if the witness is willing, he may waive that written notice and can go ahead and testify.

Mr. TASKER. I guess I can answer your questions or what you want to know--what’s the use of waiting 3 days?

Mr. HUBERT. You are willing to testify right now, as I understand?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, will you rise so I can administer the oath.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your name, please?

Mr. TASKER. Harry T. Tasker.

Mr. HUBERT. Where do you reside?

Mr. TASKER. Right now I’m living at 4396 Percy Street, Lancaster, Tex. I’ve bought me a home out there. It’s in Dallas, but my mailing address is Lancaster, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?

Mr. TASKER. I drive a taxicab.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so doing?

Mr. TASKER. Two years.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, did you have occasion to be near the Main Street entrance of the Dallas Police Department on the morning of Sunday, November 24, 1963?

Mr. TASKER. I was.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you tell us, please, how you came to be there?

Mr. TASKER. Well, I picked up a news reporter. I’ve forgot which one of the papers he was with. I don’t know whether it was United or--I believe it was United, but I’m not for sure now, which press he was with.

Mr. HUBERT. It was a national press system, was it?

Mr. TASKER. Well, it was one of these reporters with the United Press, I believe. I believe that was it or either the Associated Press?

Mr. HUBERT. You don’t know his name?

Mr. TASKER. No; and he hired me to stay with him and I drove around the block there and parked.

Mr. HUBERT. What time did he hire you?

Mr. TASKER. Well, now, that--I’ve forgotten, sir. It was up around between 9 and 10 o’clock in the morning, I believe now. Now, I might be wrong--now--I won’t say.

Mr. HUBERT. So, he hired you to be standing by?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And you weren’t to take any passengers, is that what your duties were?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, no---he paid me for my time and everything.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you where to be so he could reach you?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; he had me to park about at a 45° angle east and north of the entrance of the north entrance of the city hall basement.

Mr. HUBERT. That’s the so-called Main Street entrance?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. So, you were parked on Main Street?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you on the same side?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, no--I was on the opposite side.

Mr. HUBERT. And how far from Harwood Street were you?

Mr. TASKER. I was about--I’ll say--90 feet.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you say that you were just nearly opposite the Main Street entrance?

Mr. TASKER. No; I was on about a 45°--you know.

Mr. HUBERT. Were there other cars parked the same way there?

Mr. TASKER. Well, you see what it was down there ahead of me was no parking zones and things like that, you see, and there was no one there.

Mr. HUBERT. So you were the only car there?

Mr. TASKER. I was the only one there.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you seated in your car all the time?

Mr. TASKER. Sir?

Mr. HUBERT. Were you seated in your taxi all the time?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; I was seated in my taxi part of the time, and then I went over one time to look for my reporter, you see, because I didn’t want to lose him, and that’s about all I ever done, and then I go back to my cab.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, if you were sitting in your cab, the back of your head would be toward the city hall, would it not?

Mr. TASKER. No.

Mr. HUBERT. No?

Mr. TASKER. It would be--I was looking straight at the city hall.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, when you say you were parked at a 90° angle----

Mr. TASKER. About a 45° angle.

Mr. HUBERT. A 45° angle, you were parked with the back of your cab near the curb or the front of your cab near the curb?

Mr. TASKER. The back of my cab was to the east. The front of my cab was to the west.

Mr. HUBERT. The back of your cab was toward the curbing on Main Street opposite from the police department?

Mr. TASKER. That’s right.

Mr. HUBERT. So, in effect, you were on a 45° angle but looking at the Main Street entrance all the time?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Even when seated in the car, is that correct?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How long were you there before the shooting took place?

Mr. TASKER. I don’t know, sir; how long I was there. I can’t recall just how long.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, do you think it was as long as half an hour?

Mr. TASKER. Well, I imagine I was there longer than that--maybe an hour or so.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever leave at all?

Mr. TASKER. No; you see, when you’ve got a customer, you don’t leave your cab.

Mr. HUBERT. Where were you expecting your customer to come from?

Mr. TASKER. He was supposed to come back out the door.

Mr. HUBERT. The Main Street entrance?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, you were looking for him to come out of the Main Street entrance of the jail?

Mr. TASKER. That’s right, of the basement.

Mr. HUBERT. Of the basement--yes. Did you see a policeman standing in that entrance?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; there was a policeman.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know his name?

Mr. TASKER. No; I don’t.

Mr. HUBERT. Was he in uniform?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; I believe he was--yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Where was he standing?

Mr. TASKER. Well, he was standing about the middle of the opening of the door.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he stand back into the ramp or forward?

Mr. TASKER. Oh--no.

Mr. HUBERT. Just in the ramp?

Mr. TASKER. Just beyond the opening.

Mr. HUBERT. Just beyond the opening and was right in the middle of it?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he move around?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, yes; he moved around--yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Was there a crowd of people there?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Were there people on both sides of the ramp?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. On the Harwood Street ramp as well as the Pearl Expressway ramp?

Mr. TASKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. How many people do you think there were on either side?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, I’d say there was a hundred.

Mr. HUBERT. You mean a hundred on each side?

Mr. TASKER. No--no.

Mr. HUBERT. About 50--about equally divided?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How close were they standing to the Main Street entrance?

Mr. TASKER. As far as from here to that wall.

Mr. HUBERT. As far as from here to that wall--that’s about 7 or 8 feet?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Was this policeman having any difficulty with them?

Mr. TASKER. Well, yes, he had a little difficulty now and then. Somebody would try to slip by him and he would hail them and bring them back out.

Mr. HUBERT. Did that happen once or more than once?

Mr. TASKER. It happened a few times--I’ve just forgotten just how many.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he grab them?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, yes; he just went and got them and brought them back out. He didn’t mistreat them or anything like that.

Mr. HUBERT. How would they slip by?

Mr. TASKER. Well, he was probably looking at something on this side and somebody didn’t know he was on guard there and walked down there.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, just about a minute or so before the shooting, did you see a car come out of that ramp, come out of the Main Street ramp, out of that ramp, with policemen in it?

Mr. TASKER. There was a car went in, wasn’t it?

Mr. HUBERT. You saw a car go in?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How long before the shooting did that car go in?

Mr. TASKER. I really don’t know. It wasn’t too awful long.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, how long?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, probably 15 or 20 minutes, we’ll say.

Mr. HUBERT. Before the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. What kind of car was it?

Mr. TASKER. It was one of the police squad cars.

Mr. HUBERT. It had policemen in it?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How many, do you remember?

Mr. TASKER. Well, there was three people--three was two policemen and a gentleman in there in civilian clothes.

Mr. HUBERT. And they drove down into the basement?

Mr. TASKER. Down into the ramp--they drove down the ramp.

Mr. HUBERT. Which way did they come from, do you know?

Mr. TASKER. Well, they came from----

Mr. HUBERT. The Harwood Street direction?

Mr. TASKER. I believe they came off of Harwood and made a left turn there on Main Street and went on down in the ramp.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you see any other cars go down there?

Mr. TASKER. No.

Mr. HUBERT. Only one?

Mr. TASKER. That’s all I remember.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you see any car come out?

Mr. TASKER. Well, I seen some cars come out after the shooting.

Mr. HUBERT. No; I mean before the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. No--I don’t remember that.

Mr. HUBERT. You don’t remember any at all?

Mr. TASKER. I don’t remember whether any of them come out or not. It seemed to me like that the policeman was having a problem more so with people coming down on Sunday morning to get their friends and relatives and things like that out of jail after a Saturday night drunk.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, the people that wanted to get in there, you thought had a legitimate reason for going in there?

Mr. TASKER. Yes, but they couldn’t come in that door.

Mr. HUBERT. How were you able to tell that, could you hear conversations?

Mr. TASKER. No, but that’s the general thing down there on Sunday morning.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever go on the other side of Main Street from where your car was parked?

Mr. TASKER. No.

Mr. HUBERT. You always stayed on your own side?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know a man by the name of Nathaniel Daniels?

Mr. TASKER. I don’t believe I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you know Jack Ruby at all?

Mr. TASKER. No--no, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You’ve seen his pictures, of course, since?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, I’ve seen his pictures.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you see him around in that crowd that morning?

Mr. TASKER. No, sir; I never have remembered seeing that man coming up, walking, riding, or anything else.

Mr. HUBERT. You didn’t see him coming up Main Street from the Western Union office?

Mr. TASKER. No.

Mr. HUBERT. You didn’t see him walking along Main Street?

Mr. TASKER. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you see Vaughan come out in the street at anytime to control traffic so the police car could get by?

Mr. TASKER. I believe, sir; he did. I’m not for sure, but I believe one of them come out there to control traffic, and I suppose it was him.

Mr. HUBERT. When did he have occasion to do that?

Mr. TASKER. Well, it was--I think he came out to hold the traffic up so this car could get out.

Mr. HUBERT. Which car was that?

Mr. TASKER. The one coming out of the basement.

Mr. HUBERT. And how long before the shooting was that?

Mr. TASKER. Well, I don’t remember whether that was before that shooting or after.

Mr. HUBERT. You don’t remember whether it was before or after?

Mr. TASKER. I don’t remember that, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. But you do remember that on one occasion at least, that you saw him come out to direct traffic so that this automobile could come out?

Mr. TASKER. That’s right.

Mr. HUBERT. And you remember only one automobile?

Mr. TASKER. Well, it might have been more, but I don’t remember but one.

Mr. HUBERT. Your impression is that what you saw was after the shooting rather than before?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you have any reason for forming that opinion?

Mr. TASKER. No--I’ve been very--I’ve always thought the case--I’ve never talked about the case to anybody, you see, because in the first place, I would implicate myself in something I don’t want to be implicated in. I have no part of it and----

Mr. HUBERT. Were you ever interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. TASKER. Sir?

Mr. HUBERT. Were you ever interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. TASKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Let me ask you again--did any cars go down in there, say within 5 or 10 minutes before the shooting--go down in there? You said you saw one?

Mr. TASKER. Well, now, sir; it seemed like it probably would have been more than one and it might have been two, but just to remember back that far, I don’t remember too much about it no more.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, as I understand it, you would say that there was at least one and possibly two cars that went down in the basement?

Mr. TASKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, I’d like, if you could, to fix the time of at least the one and possibly the other?

Mr. TASKER. Well, let me think about it this way--what time in the morning was it he was shot down there? Wasn’t it between 10 and 11 o’clock?

Mr. HUBERT. Suppose you figure it was about 11:20?

Mr. TASKER. He got shot around 11:20?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. TASKER. Well----

Mr. HUBERT. I don’t know if you can do it by clock time, unless you were watching your watch. You’d have to do it by how much time passed between the time the car went down in and/or came out and the time of the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. Well, sir; it seemed to me like that those cars probably went down there around 20 to 30 minutes ahead of that shooting.

Mr. HUBERT. It’s your impression that there was none that went down in there 5 or 10 minutes before the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. No.

Mr. HUBERT. And with reference to the one that came out, you don’t know how to fix that at all?

Mr. TASKER. I believe that one came out after the shooting.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that the time that Vaughan stepped out in the street--you think that was after the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. Yeah.

Mr. HUBERT. How did the shooting come to your attention?

Mr. TASKER. I heard it--I heard the fire--I heard the shot.

Mr. HUBERT. And it was after you heard the shot that you saw Vaughan come out and that car come in there?

Mr. TASKER. There was cars come out of there--maybe several cars, but I know of two that come out of there at least.

Mr. HUBERT. After the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. After the shooting.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, put your mind to this--you remember the shooting because your memory still retains the sound of that shot?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; I heard the shot.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, about a minute or so before that, did a car come out of that place?

Mr. TASKER. I believe it did, sir; and I won’t swear it to be the truth, but I believe it did, because that policeman had gotten away from that opening for some reason, and he was sort of crouched down so he could see under the curvature of the basement, you know? You know what I’m trying to explain to you? He couldn’t stand up straight and see into the basement--you have to crouch down to see what those people were doing down there--he crouched down and pulled his pistol, when he heard that fire.

Mr. HUBERT. No; I was thinking about that automobile coming out of there just before?

Mr. TASKER. Well, I believe that’s where that automobile come up there because they got him away from that door, you see.

Mr. HUBERT. You mean--before the shot?

Mr. TASKER. Well, he got away from that door for some reason--just before that happened.

Mr. HUBERT. Just before the shot?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you see him get away from the door?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, he was just there keeping people back.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, isn’t it a fact that the car passed by and he had to get out of the way of the car so it could pass, isn’t that it, and that he stepped out and perhaps went at least to the curb and perhaps into the street to look for traffic?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; that’s possible.

Mr. HUBERT. But you have no recollection of it?

Mr. TASKER. No--I don’t know this, but I believe that at the time that that was all screwed up and the crowd was kind of leaving, they sent him some help out there--a plainclothes policeman.

Mr. HUBERT. That was after the shooting too, wasn’t it?

Mr. TASKER. Well, that was a few minutes before the shooting too.

Mr. HUBERT. Why did you think that the man they sent to help him, who was in plainclothes, was a policeman?

Mr. TASKER. Because I know him when I see him.

Mr. HUBERT. What’s his name?

Mr. TASKER. I don’t know what his name is, sir. I know he’s a policeman.

Mr. HUBERT. Was he a white man or Negro?

Mr. TASKER. Yes. When you drive a cab for 2 years and I’ve been in this town since 1923, you learn the policemen.

Mr. HUBERT. It was your impression that there was a policeman in plainclothes was sent or who came to stand with the man--the policeman in uniform?

Mr. TASKER. Well--and to assist him with that traffic and that crowd, and when the shooting happened, then they called in additional squad cars to come there and help too.

Mr. HUBERT. That plainclothes policeman was there with the uniformed policeman helping him for how long before the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. For probably 15 or 10 or 20 minutes--something like that.

Mr. HUBERT. You don’t know his name at all?

Mr. TASKER. No--I don’t even know the policeman’s name on that door that day. I’d know him if I seen him.

Mr. HUBERT. You think you would know the plainclothes policeman if you saw him?

Mr. TASKER. Well, that, I couldn’t say.

Mr. HUBERT. Could you describe him a little bit?

Mr. TASKER. Well, he was a man that weighed about 175 pounds.

Mr. HUBERT. A young man, middle-aged man?

Mr. TASKER. Well, he wasn’t particularly a young man. He was a man between 40 or 45 years old.

Mr. HUBERT. How was he dressed?

Mr. TASKER. Well, the best I can remember, I believe he was in a dark suit.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he have a hat on?

Mr. TASKER. I don’t believe he did.

Mr. HUBERT. What was he doing to assist the uniformed policeman?

Mr. TASKER. Just keeping the crowd back so that they could get the traffic in.

Mr. HUBERT. In any case, he came to your attention and you recognized him as a man you knew to be a policeman?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember where you met him or saw him?

Mr. TASKER. No--just around.

Mr. HUBERT. Was he a detective, you think?

Mr. TASKER. He was a detective.

Mr. HUBERT. You knew him as a detective?

Mr. TASKER. Oh--yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember what part of the department he was in--the vice squad?

Mr. TASKER. No; I don’t. You see, you meet them, sir, driving a cab. They try to pull stunts on cabdrivers, and that’s where you learn them.

Mr. HUBERT. Probably the vice squad then?

Mr. TASKER. You know--they try--I don’t want this in the words here----

Mr. HUBERT. Well, that’s all right. You actually work for the City Transportation Co., don’t you?

Mr. TASKER. That’s right.

Mr. HUBERT. And their offices are located at 610 South Akard Street?

Mr. TASKER. Yes, sir--South Akard.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you own your cab?

Mr. TASKER. No; they own it.

Mr. HUBERT. You had never met Ruby before?

Mr. TASKER. No--no, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You never brought any customers to his Carousel Club?

Mr. TASKER. No--in fact, I didn’t know he had a place down there. I might have took someone some time down there.

Mr. HUBERT. How long after the shooting did your reporter come back?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, it was probably 20 or 30 minutes and he come and told me he wouldn’t need me no more.

Mr. HUBERT. He paid you and you just went off?

Mr. TASKER. Well, he had already paid me. He had given me the money--he had already given me $10 and he give me a couple more dollars more.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you ever interviewed by the Dallas Police Department?

Mr. TASKER. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Just the FBI?

Mr. TASKER. Just the FBI and they got my name through this reporter.

Mr. HUBERT. The reporter told them about you?

Mr. TASKER. You know, that he had hired a cab.

Mr. HUBERT. He knew your name?

Mr. TASKER. He knew my number.

Mr. HUBERT. When were you interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. TASKER. Oh, I was interviewed, I think, two or three times--the best I can remember--probably--I know twice, it might have been three, but I believe it was just twice.

Mr. HUBERT. It was all right after the shooting?

Mr. TASKER. Once was right after and then there was a little time lapsed.

Mr. HUBERT. Where were you interviewed--in the FBI office?

Mr. TASKER. No; down at the office of the company.

Mr. HUBERT. There was no one else with you that day?

Mr. TASKER. Oh--no--you mean when they interviewed me?

Mr. HUBERT. No; I mean on Sunday the 24th, when you were waiting?

Mr. TASKER. No--no--you mean with me?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes?

Mr. TASKER. Oh--no.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know anybody else who was around then?

Mr. TASKER. No; I don’t.

Mr. HUBERT. You can’t recollect any person that you now know who was there?

Mr. TASKER. No; I don’t remember seeing anybody I knew--you know--personally.

Mr. HUBERT. Except the plainclothes policeman?

Mr. TASKER. I didn’t know them personally.

Mr. HUBERT. No; but you just knew he was a policeman?

Mr. TASKER. Yes; that’s right. I’ve never been arrested in my life, sir, or anything, or any kind of prosecution and so I don’t say I know any policeman because I don’t have no problems for them to solve.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir. I think that’s all. Let me ask you this final question--is it not a fact that there has been no conversation between you and me except that which has gone in the record?

Mr. TASKER. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you, Mr. Tasker. I appreciate your coming down, sir.

Mr. TASKER. Well, it was an awful thing for that to come to Dallas--I’ll tell you that, and I was glad they didn’t get me down there on that jury.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir. Thank you very much indeed. That’s all.

Mr. TASKER. All right. I’m glad I met you.

Mr. HUBERT. I’m glad I met you, sir.

Mr. TASKER. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT

The testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt was taken at 10:45 a.m., on September 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Norman Redlich, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. REDLICH. The purpose of today’s deposition is to take the testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, you have previously testified in connection with the Commission proceedings on April 23, 1964, and June 12, 1964, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. You still consider yourself under oath?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.

Mr. REDLICH. You also appeared on one other occasion; is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. And that was the date when you testified in connection with the reenactment that was conducted in Dallas?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. During your previous testimony, Mr. Shaneyfelt, you testified concerning the retouching which, according to your testimony, had been performed on the photograph which has heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were so marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. I hand you now an exchange of correspondence between the Commission and Life magazine, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, together with a photograph furnished to the Commission by Life magazine which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, and I asked you to review this correspondence.

For the record, Mr. Shaneyfelt, have you read this correspondence?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. REDLICH. This correspondence will show that the Commission advised Life magazine of your prior testimony, and requested of Life magazine the original photograph upon which the retouching was performed. Does Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13 purport to be that original photograph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.

Mr. REDLICH. And Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13 was forwarded to you by the Commission for examination; was it not?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. The Commission asked you to examine that photograph in order to describe in greater detail the actual retouching which was performed on that photograph preparatory to publication; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is right.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 was marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. I now hand you another exhibit which is designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, and ask you to describe how it was made, and what it purports to demonstrate?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 is a chart that I prepared to illustrate the retouching that I found in my examination of the Life magazine photograph which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13. This chart consists of three different photographs. Photograph A is a normal print of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A. Photographs B and C are photographs of the Life magazine picture, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, made using special lighting technique in order to portray the retouching that has been added to the Life magazine photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13.

Mr. REDLICH. On each of these three photographs there appear a series of numbers starting with No. 1, and running consecutively through No. 11; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. Can you describe the significance of these numbers?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The numbers with red arrows were placed on the photographs to point to specific areas of retouching, and relate them to these same areas of the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.

Mr. REDLICH. And as I understand it, using No. 1 as an example, the arrow next to No. 1 in photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, points to the stock of the rifle as it appeared in the picture which has heretofore been designated as Exhibit No. 133-A.

The arrow next to No. 1 in photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 points to the same spot on the stock of the rifle and points to a specific indication of retouching which you will subsequently describe?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. And the arrow next to No. 1 in photograph No. C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 points to the same spot on the rifle; namely, the stock, and is placed here in order to indicate in more specific detail the type and manner of retouching which was done at this particular location?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. Starting with No. 1 and going through No. 11, would you describe the points on the picture and the type of retouching which was performed?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Point No. 1 on all photographs, A, B, and C, points to the stock of the rifle, particularly the top area of the stock running from the butt of the rifle to the breech.

On photograph A this No. 1 area is rather indistinct but shows that the rifle stock runs in a straight line from the butt up about two-thirds of the way to the breech, where it curves down around a highlight that is clearly visible on photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14. It curves around that highlight and then recurves up to the breech.

In this same general area of No. 1 of photograph B, there is a dark area which is an area of retouching that is on the photograph which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, that runs from the butt of the rifle all the way to the breech without any curve or recurve around the highlight.

The highlight is still present on this photograph. However, the retouching line runs straight past and is a straight line of retouching and does not follow the actual configuration of the rifle stock in that area.

Mr. REDLICH. Just so the record is completely clear on this, Mr. Shaneyfelt, the retouching marks which appear in pictures B and C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, are the retouching marks which appear on the photograph furnished to the Commission by Life magazine and which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The retouching does not appear as prominent in the Life magazine photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 13, as it does in the photographs B and C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, because photographs B and C were made with special lighting to bring out this retouching, but they are nevertheless, the points of retouching are nevertheless, there on the Life magazine photograph.

Mr. REDLICH. And photographs B and C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 were actually made from the photograph which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. Will you continue?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Photograph C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 shows at point 1, which is the area of the upper edge of the stock of the rifle, this straight line retouching going directly from the butt to the breech without a recurve, and not in conformity with the actual contour of the stock of the rifle in that area.

Points No. 2 in all photographs A, B, and C, point to the telescopic sight of the rifle. In photograph B retouching is shown around this point No. 2 where retouching has been added to enhance the detail around the rifle scope. This is also shown clearly as retouching at point 2 in photograph C.

Point No. 3 in photographs A, B, and C, in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, refers to the area along the top of the rifle beyond the breech just above Oswald’s left hand. There is a retouching line that runs from Oswald’s hand to the point where the gun protrudes past his shoulder. This is clear in photographs B and C at point No. 3.

Photograph A at point 3 shows how the photograph appears in that area on Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.

Point No. 4 refers to the retouching along the lower edge of the right arm of Oswald, and that area No. 4 of photographs B and C clearly show this retouching along the edge of the elbow and a large spot just below the elbow where a shadow between two fence posts has been removed in order to show the contour of the elbow in better detail.

Point No. 5 refers to the shoulder area of the photographs A, B, and C in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14. The photograph A, point 5, shows the shoulder as it is in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and point 5 in photographs B and C shows the retouching along Oswald’s right shoulder.

Point No. 6 in photographs A, B, and C refers to the right side of Oswald’s neck and chin area, and point 6 in photographs B and C clearly shows the retouching along the right side of Oswald’s neck, and around his chin and some slight retouching into, slightly into, his cheeks.

Point No. 7 in photographs A, B, and C, shows the area of the left side of Oswald’s head where retouching has been added to the Life magazine photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13

Mr. REDLICH. May I interrupt you there? You said where retouching has been added to the Life photograph. Did you mean that or did you mean that the Life photograph as published contained this retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I mean that the Life photograph as published contains the retouching. That the retouching has been added prior to publication.

Point No. 7 refers to the retouching along the left side of Oswald’s head in the hair area, and is clearly visible as retouching in the photographs B and C at point No. 7.

Point No. 8 refers to an area of background to the right of Oswald’s head, to the left of his head as the viewer looks at the picture. This is an area, that has been airbrushed in order to lighten the background so that the detail of the photograph in that area will be better.

Point No. 9 in photographs A, B, and C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14, shows an area directly below the rifle butt to the side of Oswald’s right thigh where retouching has been added to decrease the darkness of the shadow between two fence posts in that area.

This is evident in area 9 of photographs B and C. It is more clearly shown in 9-C.

Point No. 10 in the three photographs on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 14 shows the retouching between the thighs of Oswald. Photograph A shows quite a dark area between the thighs, and this has been eliminated by retouching as shown in 10-B and 10-C, and the retouching clearly shows in 10-C.

Likewise, there is a dark shadow along the side of Oswald’s left knee that has been eliminated by retouching or softened by retouching, and this retouching shows in Exhibits B and C at point 11.

This represents the primary or outstanding areas of retouching that I found from an examination of the Life magazine photograph, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, when you discussed this photograph in your prior testimony, you expressed your opinion to the effect that the retouching which was done preparatory to the publication of the photograph on the cover of Life magazine was normal and customary. On the basis of your detailed examination of the retouching made from the photograph as submitted to the Commission by Life magazine, would you now care to state your opinion as to whether this is customary and normal retouching in connection with the publication of a photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. It is my opinion, based on my examination of the photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 13, that all of the retouching that I found on this photograph I would consider to be normal, routine retouching that is a normal part of the reproduction process.

Mr. REDLICH. In your prior testimony, you stated that on the basis of your examination of the photograph which had been published in Life magazine, it was your opinion that this photograph published in Life magazine was the same photograph which has heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, with the retouching that you have described.

Now, today, on the basis of your detailed examination of this retouching, is it still your opinion that the photograph which appeared on the cover of Life magazine is a retouched photograph of the photograph which has heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16 were marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an exchange of correspondence between the Commission and Newsweek, Inc., the publishers of Newsweek magazine, which is marked Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16, and ask you if you have had an opportunity to review this exchange of correspondence?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that in prior testimony appearing on page 414 of volume 7 of the hearings of the Commission, you testified concerning the retouching which had been performed on this photograph prior to its publication in Newsweek magazine.

I may add that during the course of that prior testimony the page from Newsweek containing a reproduction of that photograph was introduced into evidence as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5.

Having reviewed the correspondence between the Commission and Newsweek, Inc., I ask you whether you have anything to add to or any testimony which you would like to correct having compared the Newsweek correspondence and your prior testimony?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I have nothing to add or nothing to correct. I find the correspondence from Newsweek to be consistent with my prior testimony.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 17, 18, and 19 were marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you a letter from the New York Times addressed to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 17, and also hand you a photograph furnished by the New York Times which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 18, and some printed material designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 19, also furnished by the New York Times, which is a caption and other descriptive material concerning this photograph as used by the New York Times when the photograph was published.

I also wish to point out for the record that the reproduction of the New York Times photograph has previously been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 6 and was discussed by you on pages 416 and 417 of volume 7 of the hearings of this Commission.

Have you had an opportunity to review this letter from the New York Times to Mr. Rankin?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you find that the letter from the New York Times is consistent with the testimony you have previously given concerning the retouching which was performed by the New York Times preparatory to the publication of this photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.

Mr. REDLICH. Is there anything that you would like to add to or correct in your previous testimony in connection with this photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I have nothing to add or correct. I find the correspondence and photograph to be entirely consistent with my previous testimony.

Mr. REDLICH. And through all of your examination of the retouching that was performed on the photograph which has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, you are still of the opinion that all of the pictures which have been published and which you have identified, were copies of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, with the retouching performed as you have heretofore described?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, the record of the testimony before this Commission will show that in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A Lee Harvey Oswald appears to be holding two newspapers.

The Commission asked the FBI, did it not, to examine Commission Exhibit No. 133-A in order to determine the exact issues of the publications which appear in the right hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is right.

Mr. REDLICH. Did you perform the examination of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A in connection with this request of the Commission?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

(Exhibits 20, 21 and 22 were marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. At this time, I would like to introduce into the record a copy of the Militant, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20, and a copy of the Worker, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 21, a copy of a letter dated June 29, 1964 from J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, which is a discussion of the results of your investigation in connection with these two publications; and Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22.

I ask you to describe at this time by making reference to the exhibits which I have heretofore designated, the results of your investigation concerning the question of the specific issues of the two publications held by Lee Harvey Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22 is a chart that I made better to illustrate the results of my examination, and it consists of three photographs, lettered A, B, and C. The center photograph, being photograph A, is an enlargement of the newspapers being held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A. By an examination of this enlarged photograph, I find it is possible to see the headlines and certain portions of the two papers being held, one of them being the Militant, and one of them the Worker.

I obtained copies of both of these papers for an extended period of time, and went through them and found that the Militant for Monday, March 11, 1963, which is volume 27, No. 10, and has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20, conforms to the copy of the Militant being held by Oswald in picture A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22.

Picture C of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22 is a photograph of the headlines of that issue of that paper. In examining this material I found that the Militant portion, printed on the upper right hand portion of the page, is in the same location as in the photograph A of Oswald holding the papers, as it is in the copy of the Militant which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20.

In addition, the general configuration of the headlines in the center column which read “Miss.,” abbreviation for Mississippi, “Racists Shoot Down a Rights Worker,” those headlines are not readable in the photograph of the newspaper being held by Oswald, but the general configuration of the type is the same.

There is a photograph of Bertram Powers reproduced in the second column near the top of the Militant for Monday, March 11, 1963, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 20. The top of this photograph is visible in the same location and has the same characteristics in the newspaper being held by Oswald in photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22.

Mr. REDLICH. Before passing to the other publication, did you find that in your examination of the prior issues of the Militant, that there was considerable variation in the typography of the publication?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I found the name block for the Militant did not always appear in the upper right-hand corner. It was sometimes in the left. Sometimes the headlines ran across the top of the name block and there was great variety in the typography of the headlines of the papers.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you recall the period of time of the issues that you examined?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately 1 year.

Mr. REDLICH. One year prior to what date?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Prior to November.

Mr. REDLICH. Would you say it was a period----

Mr. SHANEYFELT. End of November.

Mr. REDLICH. Approximately November 1962 to November 1963?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; through November 1963.

Mr. REDLICH. And it is your opinion that based upon an examination of those issues and these photographs that the issue which appears in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A is the issue of March 11, 1963?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

In the examination of the other newspaper held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, I reviewed issues of the Worker for approximately 1 year from November issues of 1962 through all of the November issues for 1963, and found that the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker, which is volume 28, No. 124, matches the newspaper being held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A.

Again, the enlarged photograph of this newspaper in photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22, shows some of the type of the headlines and the block of the title “The Worker.”

B photograph of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22 shows this same area of the headline of the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker. The headline of that newspaper, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22, is “War Hogs Fight At TFX Plane Profit Trough.”

In the photograph A of Oswald holding the paper on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22, you can clearly see the Worker and you can clearly see the “At TFX” which is a part of the headline, and the bottom of the “W” of the word “War,” and based on these characteristics, it is my opinion that one of the newspapers being held by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 133-A is the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker which is the same issue as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 21.

Mr. REDLICH. Referring now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, to the letter which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22, this letter indicates the mailing dates and the approximate dates when these publications were received in Dallas.

As I understand it, you did not take part in the investigation which led to that aspect of the letter which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. That investigation was done by agents in our Dallas and other field offices.

Mr. REDLICH. I would like to read into the record at this time the following paragraph from the letter which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 22:

“It has been determined that the March 24, 1963 issue of ‘The Worker’ was mailed on March 21, 1963 by second class mail. It was also determined that the March 11, 1963 issue of ‘The Militant’ was mailed on March 7, 1963 by second class mail. Representatives of the U.S. Post Office in New York City have advised that the above newspapers transmitted by second class mail would take from six to seven days to arrive in Dallas, Texas, under ordinary delivery conditions.”

The record will show that during the course of her testimony, Mrs. Marina Oswald identified Commission Exhibit No. 2 as a photograph which she believed to have been taken by her husband in connection with his planning for the attack on Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, which occurred on April 10, 1963.

The record will also show that investigation has established that Commission Exhibit No. 2 is a photograph of an alley running behind the house of General Walker through which cars are able to drive into the parking lot of a church adjacent to General Walker’s house.

It has also been established in prior investigation that the driveway running off this alley to the left, as one looks at the photograph, is the driveway of General Walker’s house.

Investigation has also established the approximate date on which this photograph was taken by reference to the construction work being performed on the large building appearing in the background of this photograph.

Mr. Shaneyfelt, the Commission asked the FBI to examine this photograph for the additional purpose of determining, if possible, the camera which was used to take the photograph.

Did you perform this investigation for the FBI?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23 was marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. I introduce into the record at this time an exhibit designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, consisting of two photographs, and I ask you to describe the photographs and the results of your investigation undertaken pursuant to the Commission’s request.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23 consists of two photographs, A and B. Photograph A is an enlargement of Commission Exhibit No. 2 which is the photograph of the alley in back of the Walker residence.

Photograph B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23 is an enlargement of a negative which has previously been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 752 that I personally exposed in the Duo Flex camera obtained from Oswald’s possessions which has previously been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 750.

This examination was based on the shadowgraph of the picture area of the camera exposed on to the negative. This shadowgraph shows the imperfections and nicks, etc., along the edges of the picture area of the camera that are individual and distinctive to that particular camera, and would not be duplicated in any other camera.

Mr. REDLICH. Before you proceed to the specific points of reference, Mr. Shaneyfelt, in your prior testimony you advised the Commission, that Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, which is a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle, but in a slightly different pose from Commission Exhibit No. 133-A; that Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was taken by the camera which has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 750.

You made that identification based on an examination of the negative from which Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was produced. At that time you indicated that you could not make such an identification of the source of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A because the negative had not been recovered.

I would like to ask you two questions: First, to the best of your knowledge has there been any recovery made of the negative from which Commission Exhibit No. 133-A was made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. REDLICH. The second question is, why are you able to make an identification of the origin of Commission Exhibit No. 2 which is not a negative but a print, whereas you are unable to make an identification of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A which is also a print?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because the identification of the origin of the photograph or negative is based on the reproduction of the picture area of the camera or the opening in the back of the camera where the negative is exposed.

This appears as a shadowgraph on the negative, and is the basis for the identification. If a print is made from the negative that shows this shadowgraph, then the print can be used as a basis for the identification.

In the case of Commission Exhibit No. 2, which is a print of the alley in the back of the Walker residence, this shadowgraph appears around three of the edges of this photograph and, therefore, it has been used for such a comparison.

Commission Exhibit No. 133-A has been printed with a white border, and the shadowgraph portion of the negative has been blocked out and does not appear on Commission Exhibit No. 133-A. Therefore, it was not possible to associate it with any specific camera.

Mr. REDLICH. Will you proceed now to indicate the points of reference which enabled you to make the identification concerning Commission Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, in photograph B, point No. 1 is near the lower left-hand corner of the picture, and shows a depression in the black edge and a little point sticking out from the black edge into the white area of the picture.

This is caused by an irregularity in the camera area where the film lies across the back portion of the camera. This characteristic, which is No. 1 on photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, appears in that same area which has been labeled No. 1 on photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.

It appears as a shallow depression and a little black point coming into the white area. Farther along the right-hand side of the picture centrally located between the top and the bottom, are points 2 and 3 in photographs A and B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23. These refer to two small notches in the black area where the white of the picture runs into the black line causing the appearance of two notches, one, the lower one, about twice the width of the upper one. This same characteristic is present in both photographs A and B.

Point No. 4 is an irregularity or a curve in the line on the right edge of the photograph in both A and B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.

Point No. 5 is a long shallow depression in the black edge, of the photographs A and B.