Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes. We have used this technique of camera identification with film on several occasions. It doesn't arise too often. As it normally arises, the majority of examinations that I have made in this connection are the identification of a camera that has been stolen and the serial number removed so that it can't be identified, the owner cannot identify it. We then take the owner's film and the camera that has been recovered and make this examination and determine that this is in fact the camera that the owner's film was exposed in, thereby showing ownership.
So, it is a recognized technique, we do it regularly.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And you have performed such examinations yourself, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg.

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

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold.
In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Is this similar then to toolmark identification?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Very similar, yes.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Have you prepared a chart on which you have illustrated some of the more prominent points which led you to your identification, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, this chart shows on the left a copy of your simulated picture number 748 and on the right a copy of the picture 133B, is that correct?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And you prepared this chart yourself?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg.

May I have this admitted as 753, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Mccloy.

It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 753 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

Before we get to this chart, I wonder whether you could take the negative itself, that is, Exhibit 749, and place it over the camera, Exhibit 750, so that the Commissioners can see how it runs across these across the sides of the aperture you have been discussing?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes. I might state that this film at the time it is put in the camera is in a long strip, and at the time of processing it is cut apart into separate negatives. There is an unexposed area between each exposure, and they are cut apart for printing and storage and returning. So that then this would be in a long strip of film--the camera being held in this position, which is the normal position for taking a photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And that is upright?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Upright--will give you an image which on the film is upside down because of the light reflecting from the face, going through the lens and going down here; so this negative, Commission Exhibit 749, would have been on the film plane in this manner at the time the exposure was made.
The blackened area that you see would be the area that was exposed, and because of the aperture frame, the clear area around the edge was not exposed.

Mr. Mccloy.

Yes.

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

And this edge between the dark and the light then becomes the shadowgraph of this aperture of the camera.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Your Commission Exhibit 753 illustrates that shadowgraph, or actually shows that shadowgraph, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

That is correct, the charts were printed to show the entire