Source:WCR
"Using a recognized technique of determining whether a picture was taken with a particular camera, Shaneyfelt compared this negative with a negative which he made by taking a new picture with Oswald's camera. He concluded that the negative of Exhibit No. 133-B was exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. He could not test Exhibit No. 133-A in the same way because the negative was never recovered."
They strengthened the report that the negative of CE 133-A was never recovered by Captain Fritz's description of how they made the 8 X 10 enlargement of CE 133-A.
Source: Appendix XI, Report of Capt. J. W. Fritz, Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald
"At 6:00 p. m. I instructed the officers to bring Oswald back into the office, and in the presence of Jim Bookhout, Homicide officers, and Inspector Kelly, of the Secret Service, I showed Oswald an enlarged picture of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. This picture had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Paine's home."
Suppose the Dallas Police photographed CE 133-A and produced an intermediate negative. This negative would have recorded the three-dimensional scratches and tears on the transparent protective coating of CE 133-A as two-dimensional images. Making an enlargement from this intermediate negative would have transferred these two-dimensional features to CE 134. Obviously an enlargement made from an original negative would lack the two-dimensional images of the scratches and tears acquired by CE 133-A.
Of course, a microscopic examination of CE 134 would have told professionals at the FBI lab how the Dallas Police made the enlargement of CE 133-A. Clearly, the FBI either withheld or acquiesced in suppression of the original negative of CE 133-A.
The photographic panel of the HSCA sharply disputed the reported origins of CE 134.
Source: Volume VI of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Photograph Authentication
"(350) In the early afternoon of November 23, 1963, Dallas detectives obtained a warrant to search the Paine residence in Irving, Tex., where Marina Oswald had been living. (125) The search concentrated primarily in the garage in which possessions of the Oswalds were stored. Among the belongings, Dallas Police officials found a brown cardboard box containing personal papers and photographs, including two snapshot negatives of Oswald holding a rifle. (126) (Only one negative was made available to the Warren Commission; the other has never been accounted for.) (127)"
Without equivocation the photographic panel contradicted Shaneyfelt and asserted the Dallas Police recovered the negative of CE 133A.
Then the photograph panel disputed the report by Captain Fritz that this picture, CE 134, "had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Paine's home." They explicitly called CE 134 a first generation print made from enlargement of the CE 133-A negative.
"(370) These items were selected because of the Panel's policy of working just with first generation prints and original negatives. (158) Only these types of materials contain the most reliable photographic information; subsequent generation materials tend to lose detail in highlight and shadow areas, suffer deterioration of tonal quality, and are prone to include new defects that may impair the accurate representation of the photographic image. CE 133-A, CE 133-B, 133A-de Mohrenschildt, 133C-Dees, 133C-Stovall and CE 134 were identified by the Panel as first generation prints. CE 749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative. (159)"
"(386) Finally, CE 134 is an 8- by 10-inch enlargement of the CE 133-A negative. (See fig. IV-23) It apparently was reproduced by the Dallas Police Department by enlargement from the original negative with an easel set that accommodated 8- by 10-inch enlarging paper. The back of the photograph contains an impression from a rubber stamp identifying the Dallas Police Department. (See fig. IV-24) The emulsion scratches and tears are again evidence that this is a first generation print."
Without doubt, the photographic panel discredited the Warren Commission explanation of the origins of CE 134.
Return to New Leads in JFK Assassination Research