root area was rather clear of pigment, and contained only a fair amount of cortical fusi, which was unusual. 362 Similarly, in both Oswald's limb hairs and some of the limb hairs from the blanket the color was light brown through its entire length; the diameter was very fine and did not noticeably fluctuate; the tips were very sharp, which is unusual; the scales were of medium size, with very slight protrusion; there was a very slight gapping of the pigmentation near the cuticle; there was an unusual amount of cortical fusi, equally distributed through the hair shaft; and the medulla was discontinuous, granular, very bulbous, and very uneven. 363 Other limb, pubic, and head hairs on the blanket did not come from Oswald.364 The paper bag.-Stombaugh received the paper bag, Commission Exhibit No. 142, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.365 No foreign material was found on the outside of the bag except traces of fingerprint powder and several white cotton fibers, which were of no significance, since white cotton is the most common textile, and at any rate the fibers may have come from Stombaugh's white cotton gloves.366 Inside the bag were a tiny wood fragment which was too minute for comparison purposes, and may have come from the woodpulp from which the paper was made; a particle of a waxy substance, like candle wax; and a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers.367 The fibers found inside the bag were compared with brown viscose and green cotton fibers taken from the blanket. The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade, diameter, and size and distribution of delustering agent.368 The green cotton fibers found in the bag were, like those from the blanket, of varying shades, but of a uniform twist. Each green cotton fiber from the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and degree of twist. Like the blanket cotton fibers, the cotton fibers found in the bag were unmercerized.369 The shirt. Stombaugh received the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, at 7:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.370 Examination showed that it was composed of gray-black, dark blue, and orange-yellow cotton fibers.371 The orange-yellow and gray-black cotton fibers were of a uniform shade, and the dark-blue fibers were of three different shades.372 All the fibers were mercerized and of substantially uniform degree of twist. 373 The C2766 rifle.-The rifle, Commission Exhibit No. 139, was received in the FBI Laboratory on the morning of November 23, 1963, and examined for foreign material at that time.374 Stombaugh noticed immediately that the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints, "and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun-I possibly might find some in a crevice some place-because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time ***"375 In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either adhering to greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices, and were so dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine what type of fibers they were.376 However, Stombaugh found that a tiny tuft of fibers had caught on a jagged edge on the rifle's metal butt plate where it met the end of the wooden stock, and had adhered to this edge, so that when the rifle had been dusted for fingerprints the brush had folded the tuft into a crevice between the butt plate and the stock, where it remained.377 Stombaugh described these fibers as "fresh," 378 by which he meant that "they were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented." 379 However, it was not possible to determine how long the fibers had been on the rifle, in the absence of information as to how frequently the rifle had been used.380 Examination showed that the tuft was composed of six or seven orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. These fibers were compared with fibers from the shirt, Commission Exhibit No. 150, which was also composed of orange-yellow, gray-black, and dark-blue cotton fibers. The orange-yellow and gray-black tuft fibers matched the comparable shirt fibers in all observable characteristics, i.e., shade and twist. The three dark-blue fibers matched two of the three shades of the dark-blue shirt fibers, and also matched the darkblue shirt fibers in degree of twist.381 Based on these facts, Stombaugh concluded that the tuft of fibers found on the rifle "could easily" have come from the shirt, and that "there is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt." 382 PHOTOGRAPHS Two photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found among Oswald's possessions in Mrs. Ruth Paine's garage at 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.383 In one, Commission Exhibit No. 133-A, Oswald is holding the rifle generally in front of his body; in the other, Commission Exhibit No. 133-B, he is holding the rifle to his right. Also found at Mrs. Paine's garage were a negative of 133-B and several photographs of the rear of General Walker's house.384 An Imperial reflex camera,385 which Marina Oswald testified she used to take 133-A and 133-B, was subsequently produced by Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald's brother.386 Testimony concerning the photographs, the negative, and the camera was given by Lyndal D. Shaneyfelt of the FBI.387 Shaney felt has been connected with photographic work since 1937. He has made 100-300 photographic examinations, and has testified frequently on the subject in court.3 388 Photographs 133–A and 133–B.-The background and lighting in 133-A and 133-B are virtually identical; the only apparent difference between the two photographs is the pose. However, in 133-A the rifle is held in a position showing many more of its characteristics than are shown in 133-B.389 In order to bring out the details in the rifle pictured in 133-A, Shaney felt rephotographed 133-A and prepared prints of varying densities from the new negative.390 He also took two new photographs of the C2766 rifle itself: one shows the rifle in approximately the same position as the rifle pictured in 133-A. The other shows a man holding the rifle simulating the pose in 133-A.391 Shaneyfelt compared the actual rifle, the photograph 133-A, his rephotographs of 133-A, and the two new photographs to determine whether the rifle pictured in 133-A was the C2766 rifle. He found it to be the same in all appearances, noted no differences, and found a notch in the stock of the C2766 which also appeared very faintly in 133-A. However, he did not find enough peculiarities to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C2766 rifle, as distinguished from other rifles of the same configuration.392 The rifle's position in 133-B is such that less of its characteristics were visible than in 133-A; essentially, 133-B shows only the bottom of the rifle. However, the characteristics of the rifle visible in 133-B are also similar to the observable characteristics of the C2766 rifle, except that while the C2766 rifle was equipped with a homemade leather sling when it was found after the assassination, the rifle in 133-B seems to be equipped with a homemade rope sling.393 The portion of the sling visible in 133-A is too small to establish whether it is rope or leather, but it has the appearance of rope, and its configuration is consistent with the rope sling pictured in 133–B.394 The negative.-Shaney felt's examination of the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, showed that the photograph, 133-B, had been printed directly or indirectly from the negative. It was Shaneyfelt's opinion that 133-B had been directly from the negative, but he could not absolutely eliminate the possibility of an internegative, that is, the possibility that a print had been produced from the negative 749, a photograph had been taken of that print, and 133-B had been produced from the new negative, rather than from the original negative.395 "I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to the added process." 396 In any event, any "intermediate" print would have been virtually indistinguishable from 133-B, so that Shaney felt's testimony conclusively established that either 133-B or a virtually indistinguishable print had been produced from the negative 749. The camera.-The Imperial camera, Commission Exhibit No. 750, was a relatively inexpensive, fixed-focus, one-shutter-speed, box-type camera, made in the United States.397 Shaney felt compared this camera with the negative, Commission Exhibit No. 749, to determine whether this negative had been taken with the camera.398 To make this determination, Shaney felt compared the margins of the image on Commission Exhibit No. 749 with the margins of the image on a negative he himself had taken with the camera. Microscopic examination shows that the margins of a negative's image, although apparently straight, are actually irregular. The irregularities usually do not show on a finished print, because they are blocked out to give the print a neat border.399 The cause of these irregularities can be best understood by examination of Commission Exhibit No. 751 (p. 594), a photograph of the Imperial camera with the back removed to show the camera's film-plane aperture. When the camera's shutter is opened, light exposes that portion of the film which is not blocked off by this aperture. The edges of the aperture, therefore, define the edges of the image which will appear on the developed negative. In effect, the edge of the image is a shadowgraph of the edge of the aperture. As Shaneyfelt testified: *** the basis of the examination was a close microscopic study of the negative made in the camera to study the shadowgraph that is made of the edge of the aperture. As the film is placed across the aperture of the camera, and the shutter is opened, light comes through and exposes the film only in the opening within the edges. Where the film is out over the edges of the aperture it is not exposed, and your result is an exposed negative with a clear edge, and on the negative then, the edges of that exposure of the photograph, are actually shadowgraphs of the edges of the aperture.400 The basis of the identification is that the microscopic characteristics of every film-plane aperture, like those of a rifle barrel, are distinctive, for much the same reason; that is, when the camera is manufactured, certain handwork is done which differs microscopically from camera to camera, and further differences accrue as the camera is used. As Shaney felt testified: Q. Mr. Shaney felt, what is the basis of your statement, the theoretical basis of your statement, that every camera with this type of back aperture arrangement is unique in the characteristics of the shadowgraph it makes on the negative? Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is because of the minute variations that even two cameras from the same mold will have. Additional handwork on cameras, or filing the edges where a little bit of plastic or a little bit of metal stays on, make individual characteristics apart from those that would be general characteristics on all of them from the same mold. In addition, as the film moves across the camera and it is used for a considerable length of time, dirt and debris tend to accumulate a little or if the aperture is painted, little lumps in the paint will make little bumps along that edge that would make that then individually different from every other camera. Q. Is this similar then to toolmark identification? |