Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 14, 2019 21:14:44 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
DPD Reenactment Photograph:
merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FBI-1964-reenactment.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963. One of the pieces of evidence they used to show this is what really happened were a pair of photographs allegedly showing LHO holding the alleged murder weapons—Commission Exhibit (CE) 139 and CE 143. Since these photographs show a man in the backyard of a house they became known as the “Backyard” photographs (BYPs).
We have looked at this issue a lot before, but this post will focus on how these photographs were claimed to be of LHO holding those weapons. You will see like almost all the areas of the WC’s case the evidence is very weak, and in all honesty shows the opposite is true.
*************************************
The day these photographs were supposedly taken was March 31, 1963, but you won’t see the WC mentioning that date in their Report (WCR) on the pages they covered this topic (pp. 125-128). Why? Well, there are several reasons they did NOT want to make it so clear as to when these were taken. Firstly, because Marina Oswald testified to a different time frame in her testimony.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.
I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
Marina Oswald said she thought she took the pictures at the END OF FEBRUARY or possibly the BEGINNING OF MARCH and NOT March 31st. After her inaccurate wild guess at when this was done the WC lawyer had the guts to ask her what DAY this was!
Mr. RANKIN. Was it on a day off that you took the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was on a Sunday.
How could she be so sure of the day of the week (notice no hesitation on her part) , but NOT the time of the month she took it? The other reason they did not rush to mention the date is because in the photographs you see a bright and sunny day. However, when researchers checked with the Dallas office of the U.S. Weather Bureau (USWB) they were told it said that March 31, 1963, was a CLOUDY day with traces of rain! The WC did NOT even bother to do this simple check themselves and that tells us a lot. Experts have said the day in the photographs had to be a bright or brilliantly sunny day due to the darkness of the shadows, but this is NOT possible according to the USWB. Why did the WC not check the shadows (light and angle) to determine the time of day and then see if it was sunny or cloudy then? What were they afraid of? Is this how you run an honest investigation?
The next issue comes from this comment in the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0075a.gif
Two pictures were taken. (WCR, p. 125)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0075a.htm
Quote off
The WC said two photographs were taken, but the witness they called for this was Marina Oswald and she said the following about taking the pictures.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. …At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
She says two very interesting things in this answer. Firstly, she said she thought that she had ONLY taken ONE photograph. So why was the WC so sure that she took two? Secondly, she said she only took ONE pose, but somehow we got two very different poses. Look at CE 133-A and CE 133-B here and tell me how she could think the pictures were identical.
CE 133 A & B: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0075b.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0075b.jpg
As you can see there was no way she could think these two photographs were the same one based on the pose, so why did she think she only took one? Conversely, outside of circular logic, how can we say two photographs were actually taken based on her testimony? In CE 133-A the rifle is in the left hand and in CE 133-B the rifle is in the right hand. How can you confuse the two?
If this wasn’t enough to create reasonable doubt we then have to consider Marguerite Oswald’s (LHO’s mother) testimony. She said this about the photographs of LHO allegedly holding a rifle and wearing the pistol.
Mrs. OSWALD. …My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, "Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English.
I said, "Oh, Marina, police." I didn't think anything of the picture. Now, you must understand that I don't know what is going on …what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, "To my daughter. June." anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination…I think my son is an agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence.
She raises a great point here when she says it would be foolish to pose with the rifle you would be using to kill the President of the United States (POTUS) with. We see how LHO was smart enough to allegedly cover his tracks in the Walker shooting and other areas (i.e. allegedly burning his blueprint for the shooting, creating an index card for A.J. Hidell, etc…), but according to the WC he was dumb enough to pose with the weapons he would use on November 22, 1963.
Marguerite made it clear she was shown a THIRD version of a BYP photographs as she said the rifle “was being held up” in the picture she saw.
Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.
Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.
Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.
And she denied the picture she saw was either CE 133-A or CE 133-B.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.
What photograph could this be? It couldn’t even be the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) recreation photograph that did NOT match either of the two BYPs in evidence as the officer is not holding the rifle over his head.
CE 712: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262a.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0262a.jpg
[Note: This DPD recreation photograph would match the one found among Roscoe Whites possessions by his wife Geneva after his death in 1971 however. How did the DPD know to recreate a pose they supposedly did NOT know about?]
So what photograph was Marguerite Oswald talking about? Why did the WC not find out for us? What kind of investigation was this?
I have asked for years for WC defenders to show me where these BYPs were developed since there is nothing in the reports and testimony of this case to tell us. The twenty-six volumes are silent on this issue. So far, all I have received from the WC defenders is he did it while “he worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall” despite LHO having no experience with or access to photographic development equipment. It would seem reporter Seth Kantor was told something about this as he noted this in notebook regarding the photographs' development.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0198b.jpg
Ask Fritz-
1-Who N.C. preacher who tipped them about the mail-order purchase?
2-501 Elm is place that processed photo. What are details of photo (showing gun & Daily Worker head: "Be Militant") (Kantor Exhibit 3, p. 376)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0198b.htm
Quote off
[Side Note: Who was the N.C. preacher who tipped the FBI off about the mail-order purchase of the rifle? Does anyone know this?]
What was at “501 Elm” and when did they process the BYP photographs? Again, the WC never investigated this for us to find out. Why NOT? We would have to assume the police told Seth Kantor this as how would he have gotten this partial address otherwise? So why did they not mention this in any report then? This address is less than a block from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) by the way so this is vitally important.
The idea of LHO using Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for the photographic development came from a coworker saying this in his WC testimony.
Mr. JENNER. About what period of time was this with respect to when he started working and when his employment was terminated?
Mr. OFSTEIN. I would just make a guess that it was about 1 month after he started, because he seemed interested in whether the company would allow him to reproduce his own pictures, and I told him that while they didn't sanction that sort of thing, that people do it now and then. They do it occasionally and end up reproducing a couple of pictures that wasn't anything out of the way.
The WC would use comments by Marina Oswald to support this scenario as she was quoted as saying this in one report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0113a.gif
Marina is of the opinion that Oswald developed and printed the photographs himself as he had available material for such work at his place of employment and because he did not trust anybody else to do the developing and printing. (CE 1156, p. 195)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0113a.htm
Quote off
She would also say this in a later interview with the FBI.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0276a.gif
Thereafter, Oswald assembled her name in English letter; photographed it at his place of employment, and put it over the bell at the Elsbeth Street address. (CE 1840, p. 519)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0276a.htm
Quote off
The WC never investigated this allegation either so we can’t say LHO ever used the facility at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall and he would be gone from there within a week of the alleged photography session in the backyard. The answer to whether or not LHO used the facility at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall may be found in the president of the company’s testimony.
Mr. JENNER. I take it you do a lot of camera work?
Mr. STOVALL. Considerable; yes.
Mr. JENNER. But it is commercial camera work?
Mr. STOVALL. Right; it isn't even photography. It is only the part of reducing and enlarging printed material that we set in our type shop. It has to be resized and we also make screen veloxes.
Mr. JENNER. Explain for the record what that is.
Mr. STOVALL. A velox is a photographic print that has been screened by a dot press to separate the tone values in order that a camera can shoot them in black and white or in any group of colors, but it breaks it down into minute units that a camera will recognize.
They handled NO photography per the president of the company, so how could LHO develop any photographs there? The term “microdots” was mentioned in LHO’s notebook and Stovall discussed this in his testimony as it seems Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall did not do this kind of work.
Mr. JENNER. Is the term "microdot printing" or lithographing familiar to you?
Mr. STOVALL. Lithography is--microdot printing is not.
Mr. JENNER. And you don't do any work of that nature and character?
Mr. STOVALL. No.
Mr. JENNER. You personally have no familiarity with microdot reduction of some image?
Mr. STOVALL. No; we have no equipment and I have no experience in that. I am familiar with the microfilm as to the advantages of it from the standpoint of storage and so forth, but as to participating in any microfilming operation, we don't.
Mr. JENNER. Or any microdot in printing?
Mr. STOVALL No, sir.
So if LHO did not learn of microdots at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where did he learn about it? When we add in the fact the FBI Expert used by the WC, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, couldn’t even say the rifle seen in the BYPs was the same one found in the TSBD we must realize the WC really put forth nothing to show these photographs were tied to LHO or the assassination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
Given all of this and the lack of investigation done on the things like the weather of March 31st, what was the third photograph Marguerite Oswald said she saw, and where LHO had his photographs developed (and what was at 501 Elm Street) we have to conclude the conclusion of the WC is not correct.
How they could claim to reach a conclusion at all given all the inconsistent evidence and total disregard for leads is beyond me, but they claimed to do so and their current day defenders say it is a correct conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
DPD Reenactment Photograph:
merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FBI-1964-reenactment.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963. One of the pieces of evidence they used to show this is what really happened were a pair of photographs allegedly showing LHO holding the alleged murder weapons—Commission Exhibit (CE) 139 and CE 143. Since these photographs show a man in the backyard of a house they became known as the “Backyard” photographs (BYPs).
We have looked at this issue a lot before, but this post will focus on how these photographs were claimed to be of LHO holding those weapons. You will see like almost all the areas of the WC’s case the evidence is very weak, and in all honesty shows the opposite is true.
*************************************
The day these photographs were supposedly taken was March 31, 1963, but you won’t see the WC mentioning that date in their Report (WCR) on the pages they covered this topic (pp. 125-128). Why? Well, there are several reasons they did NOT want to make it so clear as to when these were taken. Firstly, because Marina Oswald testified to a different time frame in her testimony.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.
I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
Marina Oswald said she thought she took the pictures at the END OF FEBRUARY or possibly the BEGINNING OF MARCH and NOT March 31st. After her inaccurate wild guess at when this was done the WC lawyer had the guts to ask her what DAY this was!
Mr. RANKIN. Was it on a day off that you took the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was on a Sunday.
How could she be so sure of the day of the week (notice no hesitation on her part) , but NOT the time of the month she took it? The other reason they did not rush to mention the date is because in the photographs you see a bright and sunny day. However, when researchers checked with the Dallas office of the U.S. Weather Bureau (USWB) they were told it said that March 31, 1963, was a CLOUDY day with traces of rain! The WC did NOT even bother to do this simple check themselves and that tells us a lot. Experts have said the day in the photographs had to be a bright or brilliantly sunny day due to the darkness of the shadows, but this is NOT possible according to the USWB. Why did the WC not check the shadows (light and angle) to determine the time of day and then see if it was sunny or cloudy then? What were they afraid of? Is this how you run an honest investigation?
The next issue comes from this comment in the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0075a.gif
Two pictures were taken. (WCR, p. 125)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0075a.htm
Quote off
The WC said two photographs were taken, but the witness they called for this was Marina Oswald and she said the following about taking the pictures.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. …At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
She says two very interesting things in this answer. Firstly, she said she thought that she had ONLY taken ONE photograph. So why was the WC so sure that she took two? Secondly, she said she only took ONE pose, but somehow we got two very different poses. Look at CE 133-A and CE 133-B here and tell me how she could think the pictures were identical.
CE 133 A & B: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0075b.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0075b.jpg
As you can see there was no way she could think these two photographs were the same one based on the pose, so why did she think she only took one? Conversely, outside of circular logic, how can we say two photographs were actually taken based on her testimony? In CE 133-A the rifle is in the left hand and in CE 133-B the rifle is in the right hand. How can you confuse the two?
If this wasn’t enough to create reasonable doubt we then have to consider Marguerite Oswald’s (LHO’s mother) testimony. She said this about the photographs of LHO allegedly holding a rifle and wearing the pistol.
Mrs. OSWALD. …My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, "Mamma." she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, "Mamma, I show you." She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, "To my daughter June"-written in English.
I said, "Oh, Marina, police." I didn't think anything of the picture. Now, you must understand that I don't know what is going on …what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, "To my daughter. June." anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination…I think my son is an agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence.
She raises a great point here when she says it would be foolish to pose with the rifle you would be using to kill the President of the United States (POTUS) with. We see how LHO was smart enough to allegedly cover his tracks in the Walker shooting and other areas (i.e. allegedly burning his blueprint for the shooting, creating an index card for A.J. Hidell, etc…), but according to the WC he was dumb enough to pose with the weapons he would use on November 22, 1963.
Marguerite made it clear she was shown a THIRD version of a BYP photographs as she said the rifle “was being held up” in the picture she saw.
Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.
Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up.
Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.
And she denied the picture she saw was either CE 133-A or CE 133-B.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.
What photograph could this be? It couldn’t even be the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) recreation photograph that did NOT match either of the two BYPs in evidence as the officer is not holding the rifle over his head.
CE 712: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262a.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0262a.jpg
[Note: This DPD recreation photograph would match the one found among Roscoe Whites possessions by his wife Geneva after his death in 1971 however. How did the DPD know to recreate a pose they supposedly did NOT know about?]
So what photograph was Marguerite Oswald talking about? Why did the WC not find out for us? What kind of investigation was this?
I have asked for years for WC defenders to show me where these BYPs were developed since there is nothing in the reports and testimony of this case to tell us. The twenty-six volumes are silent on this issue. So far, all I have received from the WC defenders is he did it while “he worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall” despite LHO having no experience with or access to photographic development equipment. It would seem reporter Seth Kantor was told something about this as he noted this in notebook regarding the photographs' development.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0198b.jpg
Ask Fritz-
1-Who N.C. preacher who tipped them about the mail-order purchase?
2-501 Elm is place that processed photo. What are details of photo (showing gun & Daily Worker head: "Be Militant") (Kantor Exhibit 3, p. 376)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0198b.htm
Quote off
[Side Note: Who was the N.C. preacher who tipped the FBI off about the mail-order purchase of the rifle? Does anyone know this?]
What was at “501 Elm” and when did they process the BYP photographs? Again, the WC never investigated this for us to find out. Why NOT? We would have to assume the police told Seth Kantor this as how would he have gotten this partial address otherwise? So why did they not mention this in any report then? This address is less than a block from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) by the way so this is vitally important.
The idea of LHO using Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for the photographic development came from a coworker saying this in his WC testimony.
Mr. JENNER. About what period of time was this with respect to when he started working and when his employment was terminated?
Mr. OFSTEIN. I would just make a guess that it was about 1 month after he started, because he seemed interested in whether the company would allow him to reproduce his own pictures, and I told him that while they didn't sanction that sort of thing, that people do it now and then. They do it occasionally and end up reproducing a couple of pictures that wasn't anything out of the way.
The WC would use comments by Marina Oswald to support this scenario as she was quoted as saying this in one report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0113a.gif
Marina is of the opinion that Oswald developed and printed the photographs himself as he had available material for such work at his place of employment and because he did not trust anybody else to do the developing and printing. (CE 1156, p. 195)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0113a.htm
Quote off
She would also say this in a later interview with the FBI.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0276a.gif
Thereafter, Oswald assembled her name in English letter; photographed it at his place of employment, and put it over the bell at the Elsbeth Street address. (CE 1840, p. 519)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0276a.htm
Quote off
The WC never investigated this allegation either so we can’t say LHO ever used the facility at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall and he would be gone from there within a week of the alleged photography session in the backyard. The answer to whether or not LHO used the facility at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall may be found in the president of the company’s testimony.
Mr. JENNER. I take it you do a lot of camera work?
Mr. STOVALL. Considerable; yes.
Mr. JENNER. But it is commercial camera work?
Mr. STOVALL. Right; it isn't even photography. It is only the part of reducing and enlarging printed material that we set in our type shop. It has to be resized and we also make screen veloxes.
Mr. JENNER. Explain for the record what that is.
Mr. STOVALL. A velox is a photographic print that has been screened by a dot press to separate the tone values in order that a camera can shoot them in black and white or in any group of colors, but it breaks it down into minute units that a camera will recognize.
They handled NO photography per the president of the company, so how could LHO develop any photographs there? The term “microdots” was mentioned in LHO’s notebook and Stovall discussed this in his testimony as it seems Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall did not do this kind of work.
Mr. JENNER. Is the term "microdot printing" or lithographing familiar to you?
Mr. STOVALL. Lithography is--microdot printing is not.
Mr. JENNER. And you don't do any work of that nature and character?
Mr. STOVALL. No.
Mr. JENNER. You personally have no familiarity with microdot reduction of some image?
Mr. STOVALL. No; we have no equipment and I have no experience in that. I am familiar with the microfilm as to the advantages of it from the standpoint of storage and so forth, but as to participating in any microfilming operation, we don't.
Mr. JENNER. Or any microdot in printing?
Mr. STOVALL No, sir.
So if LHO did not learn of microdots at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where did he learn about it? When we add in the fact the FBI Expert used by the WC, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, couldn’t even say the rifle seen in the BYPs was the same one found in the TSBD we must realize the WC really put forth nothing to show these photographs were tied to LHO or the assassination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
Given all of this and the lack of investigation done on the things like the weather of March 31st, what was the third photograph Marguerite Oswald said she saw, and where LHO had his photographs developed (and what was at 501 Elm Street) we have to conclude the conclusion of the WC is not correct.
How they could claim to reach a conclusion at all given all the inconsistent evidence and total disregard for leads is beyond me, but they claimed to do so and their current day defenders say it is a correct conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth.