Chapter LII: Front Matter (52)

This point is located centrally on the right-hand border, and has the same appearance in both of the photographs on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.

Point No. 6 is a little black point that comes out into the white area of the picture, and this, I found, in the lower right-hand corner of the photograph of the alley in back of the Walker house, which is photograph A on Exhibit No. 23, and is also present as point No. 6 in the photograph that I made from the camera which is photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.

Based on these characteristics, it is my opinion that the photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 2, is a print of a negative that was exposed in the Duo Flex camera which is Commission Exhibit No. 750.

Mr. REDLICH. Is the scientific method which you have used to make this identification sufficiently precise so that you are able to state that this negative was exposed in Commission Exhibit No. 750 to the exclusion of all other cameras?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, Commission Exhibit No. 150 is a shirt which has been described in testimony as the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of his arrest on November 22, 1963.

The Commission has forwarded to the FBI two photographs which have been heretofore designated as Gerald L. Hill, Exhibit A, and Gerald L. Hill, Exhibit B, which have been identified by the photographer as having been taken under the marquee of the Texas Theater as Oswald was being removed from the theater on November 22.

Gerald L. Hill Exhibit A has been heretofore identified as having been taken at a point of time very close to the time that Gerald L. Hill Exhibit B was taken.

The Commission also forwarded to the FBI a photograph which has heretofore been designated as Yarborough Exhibit A which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post issue of December 14, 1963, page 26.

For purposes of identification, the photograph appearing in Yarborough Exhibit A has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 1797, since Yarborough Exhibit A consists of the entire Saturday Evening Post article.

The Commission asked the Bureau to examine the three photographs, Commission Exhibit No. 1797, Gerald L. Hill Exhibit A, Gerald L. Hill Exhibit B, in order to determine whether the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald in these photographs was in fact the same shirt which has heretofore been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 150.

Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt? Did you perform the examination in connection with this request by the Commission?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

Mr. REDLICH. In connection with that examination, the FBI furnished to the Commission an additional photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. Would you please describe that photograph in relation to any of the other photographs that we have furnished to the Bureau?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. REDLICH. I would like to add that the photograph which the Bureau furnished to the Commission has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 1796.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 1796 was furnished to the FBI by the photographer who took the picture that has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 1797. The photographer stated that the photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 1796, was taken seconds before the photograph which is Commission Exhibit No. 1797.

Mr. REDLICH. On the basis of the photographs in your possession, which you examined, would you please describe the nature of your investigation and the conclusions which you reached?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I compared the shirt which is Commission Exhibit No. 150 with the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796, and Commission Exhibit No. 1797.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 was marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. And in connection with that comparison, you prepared a chart which you have here today and which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 contains four photographs lettered A, B, C, and D.

Photograph A on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 is an enlargement of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796.

Photograph B is a photograph of the actual shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, being worn by an employee of the FBI laboratory. The photograph was made with the shirt in the same approximate position as the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1796.

Photograph C is an enlargement of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1797.

And photograph D is a photograph made in the FBI laboratory of Commission Exhibit No. 150 being worn by a laboratory employee, and the photograph was made to show the shirt in the approximate position and contour of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibit No. 1797.

The comparison of the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission’s Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, were made with the shirt itself, and it was found that photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, shows at points that have been designated on this photograph A as 1, 2, 3, and 4, little bits of foreign deposits that are adhering to the shirt. These little specks of foreign material are present on the shirt now, and are shown in the photograph in the same relative positions or locations at points numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 in photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24.

In addition, it was found that in photograph A, points 5 and 6, that two of the buttons are missing. The second button down from the collar and the third button down from the collar are missing from the shirt in photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24. These buttons are also missing from the shirt and the torn condition of the area where the button has been pulled away or removed has the same configuration in both photographs A and B at points 5 and 6.

Point 7 indicates that the button on the shirt being worn by Oswald in the photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, is the same type and color and configuration as the button in the photograph B at point 7.

Points 8 and 9 refer to areas of the shirt in photographs A and B, 8 being at the tip of the collar on the right side of the wearer, and 9 being the corner of the left pocket nearest to the buttons. These two points indicate the similarity in pattern at those specific locations and show that the pattern of the fabric in both shirts at those points is identical. Two shirts cut from the same fabric would not logically have an exact duplication of the pattern at cut or sewn edges of this type.

On photographs C and D on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 points 10, 11, and 12 again refer to the similarity in pattern along the edges of the shirt and would relate to the manner in which the material was cut from the original fabric.

Point 11, for instance, is two white lines of the same length in both photographs, and in the same location from the edge of the shirt. All of these points are of the same general type to show that the fabric design in a specific area close to an edge is identical.

Points 13 and 14 in photographs C and D of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 refer again to the torn areas where the buttons have been pulled from the shirt and show that they are similar in all their visible characteristics. Based on these points it is my opinion that the shirt being worn by Oswald in Commission Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, is the same shirt as Commission Exhibit No. 150.

Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that Commission Exhibit No. 150 has a hole approximately 1 inch by 2 inches in the right elbow. Is this hole visible in any of these photographs, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it is not.

Mr. REDLICH. Referring to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24, photograph D, does the right elbow of the shirt in this photograph appear to show a mark which might be a portion of that hole?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.

Mr. REDLICH. In your opinion, is it a portion of that hole?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is, because this is a photograph that I made of this shirt and I know it to be the same shirt.

Mr. REDLICH. But why then does it not appear on photograph C which is the photograph of the shirt as it is being worn by Oswald?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It doesn’t show it in that photograph because the individual standing beside Oswald is blocking off that portion of the elbow and in fact has his thumb over Oswald’s arm, you can see the thumb on the right arm where the officer is holding Oswald’s arm.

Mr. REDLICH. The absence of the hole in the photographs designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 24 A and C and Commission Exhibits Nos. 1796 and 1797, does not in any way effect your identification of the shirt as being the same shirt which is Commission Exhibit No. 150?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.

Mr. REDLICH. During the course of its investigation, the Commission received a series of slides taken by a Mr. Willis. These slides show various pictures of the motorcade and have, in a deposition of Mr. Willis, been identified by him as having been taken on November 22, 1963. Have you examined these slides, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. REDLICH. And of these slides, does any one appear to be a slide taken at the time of the actual shooting?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in the vicinity of that period of time.

Mr. REDLICH. That slide has been processed by your laboratory and appears, does it not, in an exhibit which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

(Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 was marked and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to identify that slide in terms of the number which it has been given in the Willis sequence of slides?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. This is the slide that Mr. Willis designated as No. 5.

Mr. REDLICH. The Commission asked you to examine this slide with reference to its background and with reference to other photographs which you have examined of the motorcade at the time of the assassination, in order to determine the relationship of this slide to the shots which were fired at that time. Did you personally conduct this examination?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.

Mr. REDLICH. In connection with that you prepared the photograph and the diagram which have been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to describe for us now the results of your investigation?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 is an enlarged color print made from the No. 5 slide of the Willis slides.

The photograph B is a copy of the plat map of the assassination area which was prepared for the Commission and has previously been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 382.

Point No. 1 in photograph A shows Mr. Zapruder in his position----

Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that the reference to Mr. Zapruder is to Mr. Abraham Zapruder, who is an amateur photographer, who took the photographs which were used as the basis for the reenactment which was performed in Dallas by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Secret Service, and attorneys for this Commission; is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Point 1 of photograph A shows Mr. Zapruder in his position from which he took his 8-millimeter motion picture film of the assassination. Point 1 in the plat map shows again the point indicating Mr. Zapruder’s position as related to other portions of the area.

Point No. 2 is the President riding in the Presidential limousine, which is on photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.

Point No. 3 is the Stemmons Freeway sign that is on the north side of Elm Street in the general area of the assassination. This is also designated as point 3 on the map which is photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.

In order to relate the photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 to the specific frames in the Zapruder motion picture film, I first determined from correspondence, that Mr. Willis was standing along the south curb of Elm Street, approximately opposite the Texas School Book Depository Building.

By looking at the photograph A, I find that from the camera angle of Mr. Willis a line drawn from Mr. Willis to Mr. Zapruder would go just to the right of the Stemmons Freeway sign which is point 3 in photograph A.

I drew a line from Mr. Zapruder’s position with lavendar pencil just past the freeway sign which is position 3 on photograph B over to the general area of the side of Elm Street where Mr. Willis is reported to have taken his pictures.

Mr. REDLICH. And that line appears as the top line in Chart B of the Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25; does it not?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. I then noted in the photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25, that a line from the eye of the cameraman, to the President, would pass the Stemmons Freeway sign somewhat farther away from the sign than the line to Mr. Zapruder, approximately three to four times greater distance.

I drew a line from an area about that far from the sign to the area where Mr. Willis was reported to be standing and find that that line passes through a point designated on the map as frame 210 which relates to the frame No. 210 of the Zapruder assassination films.

I then drew a green line from Mr. Zapruder’s position to President Kennedy, at frame 210, and find that that green line passes directly through the Stemmons Freeway sign which is position 3 in photographs A and B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25.

Based on this, it is my opinion that photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25 was taken in the vicinity of the time that frame 210 of the Zapruder picture was taken. This is not an accurate determination because the exact location of Mr. Willis is unknown. This would allow for some variation, but the time of the photograph A, as related to the Zapruder picture, would be generally during the period that the President was behind the signboard in the Zapruder films, which covers a range from around frame 205 to frame 225.

Mr. REDLICH. The record will show that prior investigation has revealed that President Kennedy emerges from the sign at frame 225, and that he starts going behind the sign at approximately frame 205.

Prior investigation has also revealed that when viewed from the southeast corner window of the sixth floor, the President emerges from the oak tree at approximately frame 210.

Mr. Willis has stated, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that he took this photograph almost at the instant that the President was hit by a shot which sounded to Mr. Willis as if it was the first shot that he heard.

On the basis of your examination of the Zapruder films, and your examination of the Willis photograph, would it be a correct statement that this photograph, the one appearing in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 25, was taken at approximately the same time as the shot which struck President Kennedy at the rear of the base of the neck?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that would be a correct statement, to the best of our knowledge at this time.

Mr. REDLICH. Returning for just a moment to Mr. Willis’ location, would it not have been possible for you to fix his exact location by reference to two different fixed points in the background at different points in this picture?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it would be possible having Mr. Willis’ camera, to fix his location with some degree of accuracy by using it at the specific location in Dallas, and relating various objects in the photograph to their location as they appear in photograph A of Exhibit No. 25.

Mr. REDLICH. You are reasonably satisfied, however, that the technique that you have used to fix his location is a reasonably accurate one upon which you can base the conclusions which you have stated today?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes. I feel that the exact establishing of the position of Mr. Willis would not add a great deal of additional accuracy to my present conclusions.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, during the course of the Commission’s investigation we have had occasion to request the Bureau to investigate whether any bullets or fragments of bullets struck any of the street or curbing or other area around Dealey Plaza.

In connection with this investigation, the Commission asked the Bureau to investigate a photograph taken by Mr. James Underwood, a newsman for KRLD-TV in Dallas, and a photograph taken by Mr. Tom Dillard, a photographer for the Dallas Morning News. In connection with this request the Commission received a communication from the FBI dated July 17, 1964, which is now designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26.

(The document referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26 and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. Would you briefly summarize the results of that investigation as of that time, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. The Commission requested that we conduct an investigation relative to reports that there was a mark or a nick on the south curb of Main Street in the assassination area, and that we attempt to locate it and make whatever tests could be made to determine whether or not a bullet could have struck the curb at that point. The investigation was initiated by requesting our Dallas office to contact the photographers, James Underwood of KRLD-TV in Dallas, and Mr. Tom Dillard, a photographer for the Dallas Morning News, and to use the photographs previously made by these two photographers to attempt to locate this mark or nick on the curb on the south side of Main Street. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26 is a report of the results of that initial search which resulted in failure to find the exact location of this mark or nick on the curb along the south side of Main Street at the assassination site.

Mr. REDLICH. Following this letter, you yourself went down to Dallas in order to pursue this matter further, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

(The document referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27 and introduced.)

Mr. REDLICH. I introduce into the record at this time Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27, which is a letter from Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin summarizing the results of this investigation.

Mr. REDLICH. I also introduce into the record Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

With reference to these exhibits, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I ask you to summarize at this time the results of your investigation into the existence of a mark on the curb, and if such a mark was found to exist, its location with reference to other photographs of which you have knowledge.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Using photographs made by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Dillard in November 1963, either the 22d or 23d, of this mark on the curb, I went to Dallas and was successful in locating a mark. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 contains the photographs used to locate the mark on the curbing on the south side of Main Street at the assassination site.

Photograph No. 1 of this exhibit is the photograph of the mark made by Mr. Underwood, the red arrow indicating the mark on the curb.

Photograph No. 2 is the photograph made by Mr. Dillard of the mark on the curb, and the red arrow again designates the mark.

Photograph No. 3 of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 is a photograph that was made by Mr. Underwood by placing his camera on the mark and pointing it toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, and he stated he did this so that the resulting photograph could be used to relocate this mark on the curb should it ever be necessary.

Mr. REDLICH. I gather that without that photograph taken by Mr. Underwood it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have located this mark, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would have been more difficult. Mr. Dillard’s photograph actually contained some background that was of value, and we would have found it without this, but this made it much easier. Photograph No. 3, which was made by Mr. Underwood, allowed us to go immediately within a foot to a foot and a half of, the actual mark.

Mr. REDLICH. Continue.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The photograph which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 28, is the photograph that I made after having located the mark, this in effect duplicates the photograph made by Mr. Underwood, which is photograph 3 of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29 and, as can readily be seen in comparing these two photographs, the relationship of the lightpole to the buildings on either side of it on the right side of the photograph, the relationship of the sign to the concrete abutment in the back of it to the right edge of it, the relationship of the lightposts between the cameraman and the Texas School Book Depository building, and their relationship to the building in back of them, show that they are entirely consistent, and that the mark that was located is, in fact, the mark that was photographed by Mr. Underwood and Mr. Dillard.

Photograph No. 30, or Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 30, is a photograph approximately duplicating the photograph made by Mr. Dillard which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29, Photograph No. 2. I, with a pencil, made a circle around the mark on the curb, and this pencil mark shows in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 30.

Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 31 is a photograph taken from in front of the school book depository building looking down toward the Triple Underpass, showing in the center area of the picture two men in white shirts standing along the south curb of Main Street at the point where the mark on the curb was found.

Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 32 is a photograph made from under the Triple Underpass looking past the point where the mark on the curb was located towards the Texas School Book Depository Building, which relates this area to the rest of the assassination site.

There is a marker that has been set up on the curb with an arrow pointing down, that is directly over the area where the mark is located on the south curb of Main Street.

The photograph, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, is a photograph made from the location of Mr. Abraham Zapruder who made motion pictures of the assassination on November 22, and this photograph was made having a man who can be seen standing in the center of the picture, placed in the center of Elm Street, along a straight line between the mark on the curb and the assassination window in the Texas School Book Depository Building, the sixth floor.

The man is standing in that direct straight line between the assassination window and the mark on the curb, and the photograph then shows where the President in the Presidential limousine, would have been on Elm Street as related to the Zapruder films if a bullet going from the sixth floor window to the mark on the curb went directly over the President’s head.

Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to tell us the frame in Zapruder’s sequence which would correspond to the position of the man standing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; this would correspond to frame No. 410 in the Zapruder films. Of course, this, as stated, is based on the assumption that a bullet going from the window to the mark on the curbing went directly over the President’s head. It would have occurred at approximately frame 410.

In relating this to other previously determined facts regarding the Zapruder films, this would be 97 frames after the frame 313, which is the frame of the Zapruder films that shows the shot that struck the President in the head. At 18.3 frames per second, this 97 frames would represent a lapse of time of 5.3 seconds between the shot to the President’s head at frame 313, and any shot that would have occurred at frame 410, if such did occur.

Mr. REDLICH. Now, with further reference to the relationship of this location to the Zapruder films, the Commission previously requested that the Bureau, advise us as to when Special Agent Hill of the Secret Service reached the Presidential car. Can you tell us now the results of that investigation?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I examined the Zapruder film and determined that Agent Hill first places his hand on the Presidential car at frame 343. This is approximately 1.6 seconds after the President is hit in the head at frame 313.

Special Agent Hill placed one foot on the bumper of the car at frame 368, which is approximately 3 seconds after frame 313. Agent Hill had both feet on the car at frame 381, which is approximately 3.7 seconds after frame 313.

Mr. REDLICH. Going back now to frame 410 on the Zapruder film, which is the frame that would correspond to the location of a man appearing on Elm Street in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 33, can you tell us the location of Special Agent Hill and Mrs. Kennedy at frame 410?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. At frame 410 in the Zapruder films, Mrs. Kennedy has returned to the seat beside the President after having climbed out on the back deck or the trunk lid, and Secret Service Agent Hill is in the process of climbing from the bumper into the back seat of the car and is about midway from the back bumper to the President, crawling across the trunk lid.

Mr. REDLICH. Is it correct to say, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that at frame 410 the principal target on the back of the Presidential limousine would have been Special Agent Hill and not any of the other occupants of the rear seat of the car?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do not have an opinion on that, except my recollection of the frame, as I recall it, the Connallys are down in the car, and the President is down in the car to a point where he may not be visible from the sixth floor window. Mrs. Kennedy would still be visible, and Agent Hill; Mrs. Kennedy and Agent Hill, as I recall, are the only ones readily visible or that are visible.

Mr. REDLICH. Turning now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, to the curb mark itself; you have brought with you today the actual piece of curbing which contains the mark referred to in your testimony; is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. That piece of curbing has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.

(The article referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.)

Mr. REDLICH. Were you present at the time this curbing was removed?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was removed under my supervision.

Mr. REDLICH. Can you then describe the subsequent investigation that was conducted in connection with this curbing?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the section of curbing, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34, was cut out from the curbing along the south side of Main Street in the assassination area. The mark on the curb having been located 23 feet, 4 inches from the abutment of the triple underpass. It was cut out under my supervision, and I personally returned it to the FBI laboratory. In the FBI laboratory it was examined for the presence of any foreign material.

Mr. REDLICH. For the record, the results of this investigation have been summarized in a communication from Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin, dated August 12, 1964, and designated now as the Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27; is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing in the laboratory resulted in the finding of foreign metal smears adhering to the curbing section within the area of the mark. These metal smears were spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found.

The lead could have originated from the lead core of a mutilated metal-jacketed bullet such as the type of bullet loaded into the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher Carcano cartridges, or from some other source having the same composition.

The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.

The damage to the curbing would have been much more extensive if a rifle bullet had struck the curbing without first having struck some other object. Therefore, this mark could not have been made by the first impact of a high velocity rifle bullet.

Mr. REDLICH. Based on your examination of the mark on the curb, can you tell us whether the mark which we have been referring to is a nick on the curb, that is, has a piece of the curb been chipped away, or is it instead a simple marking of lead?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is not a chip. There is no indication of any of the curbing having been removed, but rather it is a deposit of lead on the surface of the curbing that has given the appearance of a mark.

It was also established from a microscopic study of the curbing that the lead object that struck the curbing that caused the mark, was moving in a general direction away from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Mr. REDLICH. In connection with this investigation into the microscopic characteristics of the mark, a photograph was prepared which is designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35. Will you describe that photograph?

(The photograph referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35.)

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 is a color photograph that I made of the mark on the curbing, which is Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. This is magnified about five times, and shows only the marked area. There is a red area in the lower left corner marked A which designates the point of initial impact, and the lead deposit is then sprayed out in a fanlike direction from that arrow.

Mr. REDLICH. Does point A in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 refer to or correspond to the portion of the marking which is visible in Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It refers to the lower right-hand portion of that mark on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. It is this area here, and this area here [indicating].

Mr. REDLICH. Was Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35 the photograph on the basis of which the direction of the bullet fragment was determined?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; the direction was determined from an actual examination of the curbing itself rather than from the photograph. Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 35, was made primarily to show this lead deposit more clearly than Exhibit 34 shows it.

Mr. REDLICH. I realize, Mr. Shaneyfelt, that the next question may be out of your area of specialization, and you may not be able to answer it. But are you able to tell us whether, if there had been copper deposits indicating a fully jacketed bullet, whether in the intervening period of time between the assassination and the time the curbstone was examined these copper deposits might have been removed by rain or erosion or any other natural causes?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my understanding that there is no more reason for the copper to be removed than the lead to be removed, and it is my observation of the mark itself, the lead deposits, that the effect of time on it was to add a layer of dirt and film over it which covered it--more an adding on of dirt and other matter which covered it rather than a wearing away.

So, based on this, although it is not possible to state whether or not copper was there initially and eroded away or washed away or wore away, it seems logical that copper would have no more reason to become worn away than lead.

Mr. REDLICH. Previous investigation, Mr. Shaneyfelt, as well as the results of the reenactment in Dallas, have led, as you know, to a tentative conclusion that if three shots were fired during the assassination sequence, that one of these three shots missed the occupants of the car.

Assuming that tentative conclusion to be a definite finding of fact for purposes of this question, are you able to tell us whether in your opinion, the location, the presence, of the lead marking on the curb, which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34, provides any basis for determining which of the three shots fired by the assassin missed the Presidential limousine?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Based on the assumptions as stated, it is my opinion that the examination of the mark on the curb has furnished only limited further information in this regard because it is not possible to establish whether or not this mark on the curb could have been made from a fragment of the shot that hit the President in the head or a fragment of another shot that missed. The very fact that it can be considered as one of the possibilities suggests a possibility of a third shot that missed.

Mr. REDLICH. How far from the President’s position at frame 313 was the mark on the curb?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don’t have that figure here at the present time. To the best of my recollection, it was approximately 260 feet from where the President would have been at frame 313 to the mark on the south side of Main Street which has been designated as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.

Mr. REDLICH. I would like to designate at this time a number, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 36, which we will apply to a communication which I asked you to furnish to the Commission giving us the exact distance between the President’s location at frame 313 and the mark on the curb, Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. All right.

(The article referred to was marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 36 for identification.)

Mr. REDLICH. Have you completed your answer to my question with regard to whether this information offers any basis upon which one can conclude which of the three shots missed?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I believe I have. I have very little opinion regarding that.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Shaneyfelt, prior to our deposition you and I discussed the matters concerning which you were going to testify, and during the course of this deposition there were a few conversations which were not transcribed, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. REDLICH. Is all of your testimony which has been transcribed completely consistent with any information which you have provided in the off-the-record conversations?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. REDLICH. Is there any relevant material which you provided in any off-the-record conversations which has not been covered in the course of our record deposition?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No.

Mr. REDLICH. Is there anything concerning the matters to which you testified that you would like to add at the present time?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I believe not.

Mr. REDLICH. A copy of this deposition will be available for your review.

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH

The following affidavit was executed by Paul Morgan Stombaugh on September 4, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, _ss_:

Paul Morgan Stombaugh, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. This affidavit is made at the request of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, for the purpose of supplementing the testimony I gave before the Commission concerning certain hairs and fibers I examined.

2. The principal characteristics of cotton fibers used for comparison purposes are color and shade; and degree of twist. Of these, color and shade are by far the most significant. The principal characteristics of viscose used for comparison purposes are color and shade, diameter, and size and distribution of delustering agent.

3. The orange-yellow and grey-black cotton fibers in the shirt, Commission Exhibit 150, were respectively of uniform shades; the dark blue cotton fibers in the shirt were of three different shades. All the fibers in the shirt were mercerized, and of a substantially uniform twist.

4. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, varied in shade, but were of a uniform twist. The brown viscose fibers in the blanket, Commission Exhibit 140, varied in diameter, shade, size, and distribution of delustering agent.

5. Stombaugh Exhibits 1–6 consist of the following items:

(a) Stombaugh Exhibit 1 consists of the hairs I found on the blanket, Commission Exhibit 140.

(b) Stombaugh Exhibit 2 consists of the known sample of Lee Harvey Oswald’s hairs sent to me by the Dallas Office of the FBI.

(c) Stombaugh Exhibit 3 consists of the fibers I found in the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142.

(d) Stombaugh Exhibit 4 consists of a sample of fibers from the blanket, Commission Exhibit 140.

(e) Stombaugh Exhibit 5 consists of the fibers I found on the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139.

(f) Stombaugh Exhibit 6 consists of a sample of fibers from the shirt, Commission Exhibit 150.

Signed this 4th day of September, 1964.

(S) Paul Morgan Stombaugh,
PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH.

AFFIDAVIT OF L. J. LEWIS

The following affidavit was executed by L. J. Lewis on August 26, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

I, L. J. Lewis, being duly sworn, depose as follows:

I do not at the present time have a permanent residence but can be contacted at my present place of employment, Kemp’s Garage, 634 West Davis, Dallas, Texas. On January 21, 1964, I was residing at 7616 Hume, Pleasant Grove, Texas, and was then self-employed as a wholesale car dealer.

On January 21, 1964, I was interviewed by Special Agents John T. Kesler and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning what I had seen on November 22, 1963, as it related to Lee Harvey Oswald, the shooting of Dallas Police Officer, J. D. Tippit, and the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I have been shown the written report[B] of the results of this interview of January 21, 1964, by Special Agents John T. Kesler and Vernon Mitchem of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While this report is substantially correct, I wish at this time to make the following clarifications in regard to the last sentence in paragraph one and the entirety of paragraph two.

“Upon hearing the shots and recognizing them as gunshot sounds, I immediately called the Dallas Police Department to report a shooting. There was so much confusion at the Police Department end of the telephone conversation, they were having trouble making out what I was telling them. A few minutes later, I observed a white male, approximately thirty years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying either an automatic pistol or a revolver in his hand, and while running was either attempting to reload same or attempting to conceal the weapon in his belt.

“Upon reaching the intersection of Patton Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard, the individual then proceeded west on Jefferson Boulevard.”

I have read this written report and with the exception of the aforementioned clarifications, it reveals a correct report of what I saw on November 22, 1963.

Signed this 26th day of August 1964.

(S) L. J. Lewis,
L. J. LEWIS.

[B] This report was labeled L. J. Lewis Exhibit A.

TESTIMONY OF ALWYN COLE

The testimony of Alwyn Cole was taken at 3:26 p.m., on September 4, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, you have given testimony to the Commission at a previous time, and this is a continuation of that testimony. So you will still be under oath from the previous session.

Mr. COLE. I understand.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state your full name and position once more?

Mr. COLE. Alwyn Cole, examiner of questioned documents, U.S. Treasury Department.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, I will hand you for your examination the following exhibits: Commission Exhibit No. 795, which is a Selective Service System notice of classification in the name of Alek James Hidell; Commission Exhibit No. 806, which is a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps, in the name of Alek James Hidell; Commission Exhibit No. 801, which is a Selective Service System notice of classification in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 802, which is a Selective Service System registration certificate in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald; Commission Exhibit No. 811, which is a retouched negative of a registration certificate; Commission Exhibit No. 812, which consists of two retouched negatives of a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps; Commission Exhibit No. 803, which consists of a retouched negative of the face of a Selective Service System notice of classification; Commission Exhibit No. 804, which consists of a retouched negative of the face of a Selective Service System notice of classification; Commission Exhibit No. 805, which consists of a retouched negative of a portion of the face of a Selective Service System notice of classification; and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, which I am labeling Cole Exhibit No. 1.

(Cole Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

I ask you whether these are the items you have considered in connection with your previous testimony?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, beginning with Exhibit No. 795, which is--at least as to its face--a Selective Service System notice of classification in the name of Alek James Hidell, can you tell us whether the face of this Exhibit was produced from the negatives 803, 804, and 805?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Exhibit No. 795 is in fact a photographic print from the negative, Exhibit No. 804, as to the face. Prior to that photographic negative, however, other negatives were made, the first one being the negative 803, and then another negative involved in the production of Exhibit No. 795 is 805, which gives that part of the text of the card beginning “The law requires” and ending “for advice see your Government appeal agent.”

In other words, the negatives just described finally culminated in the production of the photographic print, Exhibit No. 795.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you yourself made prints of these negatives, 803, 804, and 805?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is by transmitted light, the normal way of printing a negative?

Mr. COLE. I have made them in that manner; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I now hand you Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and I ask you whether those are the prints you have made from Commission Exhibits Nos. 803, 804, and 805?

(Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were marked for identification.)

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Cole Exhibit No. 2 is a photographic print from negative 805. Cole Exhibit No. 3 is a photographic print from negative 804. Cole Exhibit No. 4 is a photographic print from negative 803.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you also made photographs of these negatives by reflected light, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 and ask you whether the photographs on these Exhibits labeled 803, 804, and 805 are the photographs of the negatives which you made by reflected light.

(Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 were marked for identification.)

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. These prints are from photographic negatives made by reflected light, and I should point out that the prints are enlarged somewhat over the original size of the negatives, about 1.25 diameters.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what is the difference between Cole Exhibit No. 5 and Cole Exhibit No. 6?

Mr. COLE. Cole Exhibit No. 6 shows that side of the negatives to which the opaquing medium or retouching medium was applied, whereas Cole Exhibit No. 5 shows the opposite side of the negative.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, did you attempt to determine whether the negatives, 803, 804, and 805, had been made from the Selective Service notice in the name Oswald, which is Commission Exhibit No. 801--that is, from the face of that card?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the negatives 803, 804, and 805, were in fact made from Exhibit No. 801.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, how were you able to link up the negatives 803, 804, and 805, and the Oswald notice, Exhibit No. 801?

Mr. COLE. That was done chiefly by a close study of the typewritten material following the line--I am now referring to Exhibit No. 801--following the line “Selective Service Number,” in which there are four small rectangles showing the insertion of typewritten numbers, and by study of the signature of the member or clerk of local board where it intersects printed matter of the original form. The typewritten matter and the inked lines of the signature have been the subject of opaquing or retouching. With respect to the typewriting of the Selective Service number, the original typewriting fell exactly on the base line of the ruled rectangles of the original printed card. This created a rather difficult problem about opaquing out the typewritten matter. The opaquing material was brought very close to the ruled line, but some of that line was permitted to remain unretouched. Since this line had in effect been reinforced by the base of the typewritten material, the line appears somewhat heavier. This heaviness comes through on the final photographic print which is Exhibit No. 795.

Now, by this strange heaviness, I am referring to the lower border of the four rectangles which follow the wording “Selective Service Number.”

Now, with respect to intersections of the signature of member or clerk of local board, this also presented quite a problem of retouching; that is, in an effort to remove the signature or opaque it from the negative 803, it was necessary to retouch or deform certain parts of the original printing as represented by that negative, one word being the word “President” at about the center of the right side of the card. The letter “r” has been mutilated by the opaquing material and this mutilation comes through on the final print, which is Exhibit No. 795.

Also where an effort was made to opaque the lower extension of the two letters “f” of the signature previously referred to, which intersects the word “violation,” here also there was a mutilation of certain letters of that word, namely, the “v” and “i” and the “a.”

This mutilation also comes through on the final print, Exhibit No. 795. So that there is a clear record from the original card, Exhibit No. 801, through to the negatives, exhibits 803, 804, and 805, and then to the final print, Exhibit No. 795.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, did you attempt to determine whether the negative 811 was a negative of the reverse side of the registration certificate in the name of Oswald, Commission Exhibit No. 802?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. I did make such a determination.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. That the negative, Exhibit No. 811, is in fact a photographic reproduction made from the original card, Exhibit No. 802. That is referring to the reverse of this card.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you also make a print from that negative, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is that print Cole Exhibit No. 7, which I now hand you?

(Cole Exhibit No. 7 was marked for identification.)

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. And are the sections of Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 which are labeled 811, photographs taken of that negative by reflected light?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to determine, Mr. Cole, whether the negative 811 had been used to make the reverse side of the Notice of Classification in the name of Hidell?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did make such a determination.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the negative 811 was actually used to make the photographic reproduction, that is, a photographic print, which is the reverse of Exhibit No. 795.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you tell us how you were able to link up the Oswald registration certificate, the negative 811, and the reverse side of the Hidell notice of classification?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Returning to Commission Exhibit 802, the reverse side shows the original insertion of certain descriptive words, color of eyes, blue, complexion, medium, weight, 150, height, 5′11″. Now, with particular regard to the word “blue”--excuse me. I believe I didn’t mention the abbreviation, Brn, or color of hair. And referring to that abbreviation, and the insertion of the typewritten word “blue,” the insertion of the figure 150 for weight, it is observed that each of these intersect the dotted lines provided on the original printing of this card.

Now, here also an effort was made to opaque out the typewritten material just mentioned. Since the typewritten material intersects these ruled dotted lines, the opaquing material was brought very close to the lines and in some cases caused small imperfections of the dots. Now, these imperfections are present on the photographic print, Exhibit No. 795, that is referring to the reverse of that exhibit, in exactly the same position that they appear on the opaqued negative 811. And from that I concluded that this very negative was used to produce the photographic print which forms the reverse of Exhibit No. 795.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to determine, Mr. Cole, whether the two negatives, Commission Exhibit No. 812, have been produced from the certificate of service in the name of Oswald which is Cole Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the two negatives, Commission Exhibit No. 812, actually reproduce the card, Cole Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make prints of these negatives?

Mr. COLE. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And are those prints Cole Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9, which I now hand you?

(Cole Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 were marked for identification.)

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; they are.

Mr. EISENBERG. And do the sections of Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 labeled 812 represent photographs of the negatives in 812 taken by reflected light?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; they do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine, Mr. Cole, whether Commission Exhibit No. 806, the certificate of service in the name of Hidell, had been produced from the negatives in 812?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that Exhibit No. 806 was in fact prepared from or represents a photographic print made from the negatives, Commission Exhibit No. 812.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us how you were able to link up Cole Exhibit No. 1, the negatives in 812, and Commission Exhibit No. 806?

Mr. COLE. With respect to Cole Exhibit No. 1, as compared with the negative, Exhibit No. 812, that one representing the face of the document, it is observed that the opaquing medium which was used to block out the name Lee Harvey Oswald and the number 1653230 still makes it possible to read that name and number from the face of the negative, and it is observed that this typewritten material has precisely the same relationship on the negative as observed on the card, Cole Exhibit No. 1. Now there are no intersections of the opaquing with the original printed material of the card, Cole Exhibit No. 1. However, this negative gives an exact reproduction of all of the printed material on the card, including the form number which is DD Form 217 MC 1 January 1951. Now, this amount of connection, of course, is not as conclusive as one where an imperfection resulting in the application of an opaquing medium is observable, but yet as far as a comparison can be made, there is a perfect agreement and there are no differences.

Now, with respect to the reverse side of Cole Exhibit No. 1, it is observed that the original signature, Lee Harvey Oswald, intersected a part of the printing of the word “signature” just above that signature mentioned. The intersection affects chiefly the left side of the letter “u” of the word “signature.” In other words, a part of the opaquing medium affected that particular letter and this imperfection is also shown in the final photographic print which is the reverse of Commission’s Exhibit No. 806.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 810, Mr. Cole. Is this a side-light photograph you took of the reverse side of Hidell certificate of service, that is, Commission Exhibit No. 806.

Mr. COLE. Yes; it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any traces of a signature or letters in the box for signature of individual?

Mr. COLE. I did find some indentations in that area.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe to us what you believe those indentations might represent?