Post by Herbert Blenner on Feb 14, 2019 21:33:44 GMT -5
Gradual Recognition of the Suppressed Photographic Evidence
by Herbert Blenner | Posted March 11, 2014
The First Missing Negative
Initially the Warren Commission misled us to believe that the Dallas Police found only one negative of the backyard photographs. They reported the negative of CE 133-A was never recovered.
Source: Warren Commission Report, page 127
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."
The commission strengthened the report that the negative of CE 133-A was never recovered by quoting Captain Fritz who described CE 134 as an enlargement of the picture of CE 133-A.
Source: Warren Commission Report, Appendix IX - 6H, 608
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 that 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.
During the late seventies, the photographic panel of the HSCA sharply disputed the reported origins of CE 134.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 139
(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)"
The photographic panel contradicted Shaneyfelt and asserted that the Dallas Police recovered the negative of CE 133A. Then they 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." The panel explicitly called CE 134 a first generation print made from enlargement of the CE 133-A negative.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 161
(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.
Stovall and Dees
The Photographic Panel of the HSCA obtained prints and enlargements of a third and a previously unacknowledged backyard photograph. This pose, designated as 133-C, lacks a CE prefix since the Warren Commission never saw this photograph.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 147
(362) The committee obtained an 8 X 10 print of an additional view of Oswald holding the rifle in a pose different from CE 133-A or B. This photograph, a generation print, was given to the committee on December 30, 1976 by Mrs. Geneva Dees of Paris, Tex. According to Mrs. Dees, it had been acquired by her former husband, Roscoe White, now deceased, while employed with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. (150) The panel designated this recently discovered photograph as 133-C (Dees).
(364) Two additional first generation prints, one of 133-A and one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153) Stovall was among the police officers who discovered the backyard photographs during the search of the Paine premises. (154)
In reality, the third backyard photograph recently designated as 133-C was not newly discovered. Instead the officers of the Dallas Police Department uncovered this photograph during their search of the Paine residence on November 22 or November 23, 1963.
The Photograph Panel determined that these prints of 133-C were made from the original and a second missing negative.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 148
(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)
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 159
(385) The 133C-Stovall and 133C-Dees prints (see fig. IV-15) also appear to have been cropped for aesthetic reasons in a manner similar to 133A-Stovall. Moreover, because these two prints had the same well-defined emulsion tears and scratches on them as the other first generation prints, they are likewise considered to be first generation. Both are enlargements from the original negative.
Since accidents cause emulsion tears and scratches on prints and enlargements, these defects would differ from one photo to another. In fact the size, shape and locations of emulsion marks should vary randomly from one photo another. Finding two enlargements and other first generation prints with the "same well-defined emulsion tears and scratches" is evidence that well-ordered processes, as opposed to random accidents, produced these defects.
Hicks Signed Receipt for Two Negatives
The WC contradicted Detective Rose on two controversial issues. Rose claimed that a Minox camera and two negatives showing Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found during the search of the Paine residence. On this latter issue the WC missed evidence which decisively supported Rose and indirectly boosted the credibility of his Minox report.
On November 23, 1963, Detective Rose submitted the two negatives to the Identification Bureau of the Dallas Police Department. J. B. Hicks signed a receipt for these properties and noted 12 photos printed and given to Det. Rose.
So how did this evidence escape detection for many decades? Probably someone misfiled the evidence and their fortunate accident accounts for the appearance of a carbon copy of this receipt in Box 1, Folder 3, Item 16 of the Dallas City Archives incorrectly indexed in Box 1 as "CSS Form (Crime Scene Section) by R. M. Sims. Form concerning photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle, (Carbon Copy), 11/23/63."
However, the reported photocopy of this receipt appears in Box 7, Folder 2, Item 24 lacks the 7992 CSS number assigned to the purportedly original receipt of Box 9, Folder 4, Item 12. The indexed titles in Box 7 and Box 9 distinguish the photocopy from the original and attribute the forms to G. F. Rose. Both titles describe the subject as "Form concerning photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle ... " The latter document described as the original has the phrase "negative also ret'd" written by a different hand after production of the carbon and the photocopies lack this comment.
The Second Missing Negative
The DPD recovered three negatives and an unknown number of photographs showing three distinct scenes of Oswald in the backyard with his weapons and newspapers.
Presently, Box 12, Folder 3, Item 1 of the Dallas Municipal Archives contains a 5 X 7-inch enlargement of 133-C. The reverse side of this enlargement is stamped, "This photograph made and developed by the Bureau of Identification Police Department Dallas Texas." The labeling of this photograph as "Evidence #46" identifies this picture as among the materials sent by the DPD to the FBI within days of the assassination.
An index of box 12 associates 133-C with a negative. In particular the title for item 1 of folder 3 is "Photograph of Oswald standing holding a rifle, negative number 91-001/082."
A search of the database produced one hit for this number. The index of Box 12A under item 1 of folder 37 reads as "Lee Harvey Oswald in back yard with rifle, negative number 91-001/082." Perhaps the author of this listing had a sense of humor. They noted that the scan of this missing negative is missing.
by Herbert Blenner | Posted March 11, 2014
Slowly but surely evidence emerges that proves the Dallas Police Department originally recovered three distinct negatives and three distinct photos showing Oswald posing in his backyard. During the late seventies the Photographic Panel of the HSCA proved that the DPD made an enlargement of CE 133-A from a suppressed negative. This panel also uncovered a previously unacknowledged backyard photograph, which they labeled as 133-C. Two decades later the release of the files of the Dallas City Municipal Archives revealed that the authorities had the now missing negative of 133-C.
The First Missing Negative
Initially the Warren Commission misled us to believe that the Dallas Police found only one negative of the backyard photographs. They reported the negative of CE 133-A was never recovered.
Source: Warren Commission Report, page 127
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."
The commission strengthened the report that the negative of CE 133-A was never recovered by quoting Captain Fritz who described CE 134 as an enlargement of the picture of CE 133-A.
Source: Warren Commission Report, Appendix IX - 6H, 608
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 that 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.
During the late seventies, the photographic panel of the HSCA sharply disputed the reported origins of CE 134.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 139
(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)"
The photographic panel contradicted Shaneyfelt and asserted that the Dallas Police recovered the negative of CE 133A. Then they 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." The panel explicitly called CE 134 a first generation print made from enlargement of the CE 133-A negative.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 161
(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.
Stovall and Dees
The Photographic Panel of the HSCA obtained prints and enlargements of a third and a previously unacknowledged backyard photograph. This pose, designated as 133-C, lacks a CE prefix since the Warren Commission never saw this photograph.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 147
(362) The committee obtained an 8 X 10 print of an additional view of Oswald holding the rifle in a pose different from CE 133-A or B. This photograph, a generation print, was given to the committee on December 30, 1976 by Mrs. Geneva Dees of Paris, Tex. According to Mrs. Dees, it had been acquired by her former husband, Roscoe White, now deceased, while employed with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. (150) The panel designated this recently discovered photograph as 133-C (Dees).
(364) Two additional first generation prints, one of 133-A and one of 133-C, where obtained from former Dallas Police Detective Richard S. Stovall on April 14, 1978. (153) Stovall was among the police officers who discovered the backyard photographs during the search of the Paine premises. (154)
In reality, the third backyard photograph recently designated as 133-C was not newly discovered. Instead the officers of the Dallas Police Department uncovered this photograph during their search of the Paine residence on November 22 or November 23, 1963.
The Photograph Panel determined that these prints of 133-C were made from the original and a second missing negative.
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 148
(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)
Source: Report of the Photographic Panel - 6HSCA, 159
(385) The 133C-Stovall and 133C-Dees prints (see fig. IV-15) also appear to have been cropped for aesthetic reasons in a manner similar to 133A-Stovall. Moreover, because these two prints had the same well-defined emulsion tears and scratches on them as the other first generation prints, they are likewise considered to be first generation. Both are enlargements from the original negative.
Since accidents cause emulsion tears and scratches on prints and enlargements, these defects would differ from one photo to another. In fact the size, shape and locations of emulsion marks should vary randomly from one photo another. Finding two enlargements and other first generation prints with the "same well-defined emulsion tears and scratches" is evidence that well-ordered processes, as opposed to random accidents, produced these defects.
Hicks Signed Receipt for Two Negatives
The WC contradicted Detective Rose on two controversial issues. Rose claimed that a Minox camera and two negatives showing Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were found during the search of the Paine residence. On this latter issue the WC missed evidence which decisively supported Rose and indirectly boosted the credibility of his Minox report.
On November 23, 1963, Detective Rose submitted the two negatives to the Identification Bureau of the Dallas Police Department. J. B. Hicks signed a receipt for these properties and noted 12 photos printed and given to Det. Rose.
So how did this evidence escape detection for many decades? Probably someone misfiled the evidence and their fortunate accident accounts for the appearance of a carbon copy of this receipt in Box 1, Folder 3, Item 16 of the Dallas City Archives incorrectly indexed in Box 1 as "CSS Form (Crime Scene Section) by R. M. Sims. Form concerning photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle, (Carbon Copy), 11/23/63."
However, the reported photocopy of this receipt appears in Box 7, Folder 2, Item 24 lacks the 7992 CSS number assigned to the purportedly original receipt of Box 9, Folder 4, Item 12. The indexed titles in Box 7 and Box 9 distinguish the photocopy from the original and attribute the forms to G. F. Rose. Both titles describe the subject as "Form concerning photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle ... " The latter document described as the original has the phrase "negative also ret'd" written by a different hand after production of the carbon and the photocopies lack this comment.
The Second Missing Negative
The DPD recovered three negatives and an unknown number of photographs showing three distinct scenes of Oswald in the backyard with his weapons and newspapers.
Presently, Box 12, Folder 3, Item 1 of the Dallas Municipal Archives contains a 5 X 7-inch enlargement of 133-C. The reverse side of this enlargement is stamped, "This photograph made and developed by the Bureau of Identification Police Department Dallas Texas." The labeling of this photograph as "Evidence #46" identifies this picture as among the materials sent by the DPD to the FBI within days of the assassination.
An index of box 12 associates 133-C with a negative. In particular the title for item 1 of folder 3 is "Photograph of Oswald standing holding a rifle, negative number 91-001/082."
A search of the database produced one hit for this number. The index of Box 12A under item 1 of folder 37 reads as "Lee Harvey Oswald in back yard with rifle, negative number 91-001/082." Perhaps the author of this listing had a sense of humor. They noted that the scan of this missing negative is missing.