(Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt)
Mr. Eisenberg.
was different when Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 2 is compared with Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 4. Could you go into a little bit of detail on that difference?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Yes; I mentioned that the highlight along the top from the butt to the bolt is generally similar in that it is in a straight line. Although the rifle itself is actually curved along that area, they both have been retouched in a relatively straight line along the top edge of the stock. There has been a white or light line added along the butt of the stock where it crosses Oswald's leg in Exhibit No. 4 and this has not been done in Exhibit No. 2. In addition, a white outline has been drawn in along the bottom edge of the stock as it runs from the butt to the trigger guard in Exhibit No. 4. This has not been done in Exhibit No. 2.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, when retouching is effected, is it performed on a negative or on a print?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Retouching for newspaper reproduction is almost always done on the print.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And what about magazine reproductions?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
This would also be true of magazine reproductions.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And would that explain how Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 2 and 4 could differ from each other, even though they were apparently both taken from the same print, originally from the same print, of which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Yes; that would explain the difference.
Mr. Eisenberg.
That is--could you go into detail on that? Could you elaborate that answer? By what process would the result of a reproduction, of the same print differ, as reproduced in two different media or two different magazines or newspapers?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Well, the primary variation would be in the retouching that has been added. Different publications and different retouch artists would handle a photograph differently, and add different retouching to them. Therefore, these would be the main variations which you would have between two different reproductions. In addition there can also be differences in the quality of the engraving, as there are differences in quality of many things. A newspaper reproduction is made with a coarser screen and gives less detail than a magazine reproduction that uses a finer screen and, therefore, reproduces more detail. These are some of the basic things that would affect these reproductions and make variations in the reproductions.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, I hand you page 80 of Newsweek magazine, issue of March 2, 1964, also containing a photograph like those we have been examining, and this is marked Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, and I ask you whether you have examined that photograph?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Yes; I have.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you give us your conclusions, please?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
I found that the photograph reproduced in the Newsweek magazine, issue of March 2, 1964, which has been marked as Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 5, is the same in all general characteristics as the photograph that has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, and I found no differences to suggest that it is other than the same photograph----
Mr. Eisenberg.
Yes?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
Except for variations in retouching.
Mr. Eisenberg.
I take it that your testimony concerning Shaneyfelt Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 is that due to some loss of detail it is impossible to say that these photographs are identical to Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 1---or rather Exhibit No. 133-A, on which Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. I is based--in the same way you can say that a fingerprint is identical to a given fingerprint impression; is that correct?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
That is correct. I was not able to positively identify them, because of this loss of detail.
Mr. Eisenberg.
What is your opinion as to the probability that they are identical, bearing in mind that it is impossible to make an absolute unqualified determination of identity?
Mr. Shaneyfelt.
They may very well be identical since I found no significant differences other than the retouching.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is there much doubt in your mind?
|
