“If Lee is going to assassinate the President, or anyone else, is he going to have photographs laying all around with the gun? No, sir.” ( Testimony of Marguerite Oswald, 1 H 190 )
The official story
Police had searched the Paine residence Friday afternoon without a warrant but with the consent of Ruth Paine, but when police started taking some of her personal items, she objected and rescinded her consent.
At that point, the search was over.
No photographs or negatives of Oswald with a rifle were found on Friday afternoon’s search.
A second search of the Paine residence was done on Saturday, the 23rd. The Dallas detectives who were involved in that search were Gus Rose, Richard Stovall, John Adamcik and Henry Moore. This next day search of the property was because, according to Detective Richard Stovall, “we didn’t actually have time to stay as long as we needed to, to check the whole house.” ( 7 H 193 )
This is nonsense. There’s no such thing as not having enough time to conduct a search. Searches are not limited by time. You search until the search is completed. You don’t leave and come back the next day, risking the possibility that evidence might have been destroyed overnight.
Even if Ruth Paine had ended Friday’s search, police should have immediately sought a search warrant and continued their search.
Getting rid of the witnesses
When police arrived Saturday, the Paines were getting ready to go food shopping and left the police alone on the property to conduct the search. ( 7 H 215 )
I would never allow occupants to leave a property I was preparing to search.
How do you know that your search isn’t going to turn up evidence implicating them in the crime?
What if you find something and have questions about it?
How do you know they’re not going to jump on a private plane at Redbird Airport and take off to Mexico?
Anytime you search a property, you limit the mobility of the occupants. This is for the safety of your officers and to prevent the destruction of any evidence. You search them for weapons then have them sit on a couch and place an officer with them to make sure they don’t move until the search is completed.
This denies them access to any weapons that might be in the house and prevents them from destroying evidence.
But allowing the Paines and Marina Oswald to leave the property wasn’t the only thing the Dallas Police did that allowed them time alone in the Paine garage.
They delayed requesting the assistance of an Irving detective.
Delaying the Irving Detective
Depending on whose testimony you believe, the Dallas detectives involved in the Saturday search testified that they arrived anywhere from 11:30 am to 2:00 pm. ( 7 H 193, 7 H 210 )
Because they were out of their jurisdiction, their search required the presence of a member of a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction. That member was Irving Police detective John A. McCabe.
Dallas Police testified that they arrived at the Paine residence, “accompanied by Det. McCabe of Irving PD”. ( Dallas Police Box 1, pg.16 )
But that’s a lie. McCabe was nowhere near the Paine residence when the Dallas Police arrived.
McCabe told the FBI that he was contacted by Detectives Rose and Stovall at “2:45 pm” to “accompany them to the Paine residence”.
This means that the Dallas Police were alone on the property, without any outside law officers present for at least 45 minutes ( and maybe longer ) before they even called McCabe.
And the homeowners, as well, would not be on the property when the photos were found. ( 7 H 209 )
Allowing the occupants of the residence to leave the property and delaying the request for an Irving Detective could have only one purpose: to make sure there’d be no witnesses when the Dallas police “discovered” the photographs and negatives.
A questionable discovery
According to the Warren Commission’s Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( WCR, pg. 592 )
But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 )
What happened to the second negative? No one knows.
This discrepancy was not the only one connected with the discovery of the photographs. Detective McCabe told the FBI that he found an envelope which contained photographs, one of which was, “Lee Harvey Oswald standing with a rifle in his hand and a pistol visible on Oswald’s right hip.” ( see above document )
The Commission failed to call McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos. It also failed to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes.
In other words, the Commission never firmly established that the photos currently in evidence were found in the Paine garage.
Not on the evidence list
And one would think it to be imperative for them to do so because the photos and negatives were never specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald’s possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday. ( Stovall Exhibit B )
Police claimed that they were listed under, “miscellaneous photographs and maps”. ( 7 H 194 )
So you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, and you list those photos in your evidence list under “miscellaneous”?
You give those photographs the same significance as Junie’s baby pictures ?
If those photographs were found in the garage on Saturday, one would think that they would be the first item noted on the list. After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they’re not listed separately and described in detail ?
More missing items
In fact, there are more items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, “which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name ‘A.Hidell’ in on it.”
And the, “cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon.”
Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list? Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search?
Was the Saturday search an opportunity for the police to, “do a more thorough search” as they claimed, or one to plant evidence in the garage?
Could the police have had these items in their possession BEFORE they arrived on Saturday?
The answer may come from witnesses who reported that at least one photo, CE 133-A, was in the hands of police BEFORE the Paine search on Saturday afternoon.
Evidence police had photo CE 133-A BEFORE it was “discovered”
According to official records, the photos were found at 3:20 pm on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23rd.
But there is corroborating evidence that the Dallas Police were in possession of the photos long before that, calling into question their very authenticity.
In 1970, Dallas news reporter Jim Marrs was looking into the backyard photographs when he interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester. The Hesters worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They said they were very busy processing photographic material for both the FBI and the Secret Service the night of the assassination.
Hester told Marrs that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the pictures and that one of the backyard photographs showed no figure in the picture.
Hester’s claim was corroborated by his wife, Patricia, who also helped process film on the day of the assassination. ( Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 431, 2013 edition )
This was the night before the photographs were supposed to have been found in the first place.
The Hesters’ allegation that the photos were in the hands of police before 3:20 pm Saturday, was corroborated by Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Evening Star, who told the FBI that he saw Commission Exhibit 133-A ( the “LIFE” photo ) in the hands of police either Friday evening or Saturday morning.
Further corroboration comes from Michael Paine, who testified that, “on the first night of the assassination” he was shown, “the picture on the cover of LIFE” ( CE 133-A ) and asked by Capt. Fritz to identify the location where the picture was taken.
Further corroboration
Paine’s account is corroborated by no less than Capt. J. Will Fritz himself, who reported that on Saturday, “at 12:35……..I talked to Oswald about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of him holding the rifle which looked to be the rifle we had recovered.”
How could Fritz question Oswald at 12:35 pm on Saturday about where the photos of him with the rifle were taken, when the pictures had not yet officially been found ?
Because the police had the photos as early as Friday evening.
This evidence, corroborated by multiple witnesses, destroys the official narrative that the photographs were found during a second search of the Paine residence on the afternoon of Saturday, November 23rd.
And it brings to mind a couple of questions:
1.) Where did these photographs come from?
2.) Were these photographs composites or a true representation of Oswald and the weapons he used?
A closer look at Commission Exhibit 133-A reveals evidence never addressed by the “experts” of either the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
The revelations of Commission Exhibit 133-A
Several details in the photograph known as Commission Exhibit 133-A, were never addressed by either of the federal investigations into the assassination.
The first detail has to do with the sling mounts on the rifle. One of the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the rifle is the obvious difference in the sling mounts between the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the rifle depicted in the famous “backyard photograph” CE 133-A.
As the reader can see, the Depository rifle, CE 139, had side mounts for the sling both front and rear.
While the rifle in the CE 133-A photo obviously has a bottom mount for the sling in front with a “D” shaped ring attached.
There is obviously a difference between the front sling mount which is on the bottom in the 133-A photo and the front sling mount on the Depository rifle which is on the side.
How did the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee deal with the difference in the sling mounts?
It was never addressed.
The photographic evidence indicates that the rifle depicted in the backyard photograph designated Commission Exhibit 133-A is not the same rifle allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Rifle in picture can’t be ID’d
The FBI’s photographic expert, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, testified that he compared the CE 139 rifle to the rifle in the CE 133-A photograph. In spite of a notch in the stock of the CE 139 rifle, it was “not sufficient to warrant a positive identification”. ( 4 H 281 )
In fact, Shaneyfelt testified that he could not identify the rifle in the photo as a Mannlicher-Carcano. He told the Commission that, “I could 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.” ( ibid. )
As a result, the Commission was forced to admit that Shaneyfelt, “Did not find enough peculiarities to positively identify the rifle in 133-A as the C-2766 rifle….” ( Report, pg. 593 )
The wrong holster ?
The difference in the sling mounts and the FBI’s inability to identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the C 2766 rifle was not the only evidence to indicate that CE 133-A was not a true depiction of Oswald and the weapons.
An examination of the holster depicted in CE 133-A reveals that it is a full sized western-style holster, not the snub-nosed holster allegedly found in Oswald’s room.
Evidence CE 133-A was NOT taken in March of 1963
Not only do the sling mounts and the holster in CE 133-A not match those in evidence, but a closer look at the foliage indicates that the CE 133-A picture was NOT taken in March of 1963.
On March 30, 1967, a man named John Cappel, who was the same height as Oswald, was photographed in the backyard at 214 Neely Street in Dallas.
The purpose of this photography session was to recreate the shadows seen in the “backyard photos”.
But it did more than that. Having been taken on the same date as the alleged “backyard” photos of Oswald, it revealed a great difference in the status of the bush in the background.
While the bush in the known March/1967 photo has not yet bloomed, the bush in the “backyard photograph” is in full bloom.
This evidence would seem to suggest that the famous “backyard photographs” were not taken in March of 1963. They may have been taken later in the year, possibly in the fall.
If that’s true, then a.) it’s not Oswald in the photograph because he was in New Orleans at the time and b. ) the timeline would be consistent with what occurred in the late summer / early fall of 1963:
The revelation of “A. Hidell” in New Orleans.
The sale of the 40″ rifle by Klein’s Sporting Goods.
The announcement of the President coming to Dallas.
And the subsequent hiring of Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository.
All of the above have a timeline of August to mid-October 1963.
The photographs could have been taken at any time during this period.
Commission Exhibit CE 133-A’s authenticity had another problem when examined by the Commission’s expert: it could not be matched to the Imperial Reflex camera that allegedly took the pictures.
CE 133-A could not be matched to the Imperial Reflex camera
The Warren Commission was forced to admit that its expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, could not match Exhibit 133-A to the Imperial Reflex camera it said took the pictures.
On page 596 the Report said that, “Shaneyfelt could not determine whether 133-A had been photographed with the Imperial camera, because the negative of 133-A had not been found and the print itself did not show a shadowgraph area.”
Three years later, another copy of CE 133-A was found.
The 133-A/ DeMohrenschildt photo
In 1967 after he returned from Haiti, George De Mohrenschildt found a third backyard photograph…On the back of this photograph was written: HUNTER OF FASCISTS, HA HA HA.
The inscription was first written in pencil and then gone over in ink. The HSCA’s handwriting expert, Joseph P. McNally, testified that the writing was not the handwriting of Oswald or Marina ( 2 HSCA 386 ).
In addition, McNally testified that,“it is Russian written by somebody who is not particularly conversant” in the language, “or someone who is below grade school level.” ( Ibid. )
Or someone studying the language.
It’s amazing that photographs of Oswald with a rifle were found in the garage of a woman who was learning the Russian language and here we have a note written on the back of one of those photos by someone not that familiar with Russian and they didn’t even compare her writing?
How did De Mohrenschildt get it? And who wrote “A hunter of Fascists, Ha, ha, ha!” on the back?
George would later be found with a shotgun shoved into his mouth a few hours before the HSCA’s intrepid investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, could question him about that photo — or anything else. His death was ruled a suicide and anything he knew about the “backyard photographs” died with him.
Another photo, another pose: the 133-C / Dees photo
In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee located another photograph of Oswald in the backyard with a pose that was slightly different. This never-seen-before photo was found among the belongings of Geneva Dees, the widow of Dallas police officer Roscoe White.
Roscoe White was not the only Dallas Police officer who possessed “backyard” photographs.
The 133-A & C / Stovall photos
The House Select Committee also recovered copies of the CE 133-A and CE 133-C /Dees photographs from retired Dallas Detective Richard Stovall.
What was he doing with copies of the photos ?
Back in the day, there was no such thing as making a copy of a picture from another picture. In order to make copies, you had to copy from the negative.
If you had gone into a photographic store in the 1960s with a picture, they could not have made copies for you without the negative.
I know. I’ve been there.
How did George De Mohrenschildt and Richard Stovall get a copies of CE 133-A when the negative was never found?
How did Roscoe White and Stovall get copies of CE 133/Dees when that photo and negative never ( officially ) existed?
In fact, by 11/23, copies of CE 133-A ( the photo that appeared on the cover of “Life” magazine ) were being made available by the Dallas Police.
They were passing out copies like candy. How could they do that without having the negative?
There is no way these officers could have come into possession of the photographs they had without the Dallas Police having had the negatives.
And that fact became obvious by what the House Select Committee on Assassinations found when they examined the photographs.
First generation photos
The House Select Committee on Assassinations’ Camera Panel examined six photographs and the CE 133-B negative to determine whether or not they were faked.
Those photographs were CE 133-A & B, found in the Paine garage, CE 133A/DeMohrenschildt, CE 133/Dees (also referred to as CE 133-C) and two photographs recovered from Dallas Police Detective Richard Stovall ( CE 133-A / Stovall and CE 133-C / Stovall ) ( 2 HSCA 350 )
The Panel found that the 133-B negative had been produced by the Imperial Reflex Camera. It also found that the six photographs were all first-generation prints. ( Ibid., pg. 351 )
A first generation print is a print that is made from the original negative. All six photographs were made from their original negatives.
Processing errors: proof of a single source
The HSCA’s Camera Panel also found the CE 133-B negative had been improperly processed causing emulsion tears. ( Ibid., Pg. 353 )
The panel also found the same emulsion tears on:
— The CE 134 enlargement made by police and shown to [ Lee Harvey ] Oswald ( 6 HSCA 155 )
— Both of the 133-C photos, 133-C/Dees and 133-C/Stovall ( 2 HSCA 354 )
— On 133-A DeMohrenschildt ( 6 HSCA 155 )
— And, on CE 133-A/Stovall. ( 2 HSCA 358 )
This indicates that whoever processed the photos which were found in later years in the possession of Dallas Police officers made the same processing error found in the 133-A and 133-B photographs.
A coincidence? I don’t believe so.
I believe that this indicates that the processing of ALL of the “backyard” photographs was done by one source.
If the photographs were made from the original negatives, why did the 133-A and 133-C negatives disappear? Why weren’t they part of the official record? The answer may lie in what those negatives would have revealed.
Negatives: proof of fakery
If there was any proof that the photographs were faked, that proof would have been revealed by the negatives.
So said the Warren Commission’s own photographic expert, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who testified that any composite photo would have required retouching traces of fakery on the negative. ( 4 H 288 )
The House Select Committee’s Photographic Panel could find “no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials.” ( 6 HSCA 146 )
But the Committee’s Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the “Oswald” in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
By avoiding these measurements, the Panel’s data is incomplete and as such, its conclusion is nullified.
HSCA finding challenged
Its conclusion that the 133-B negative showed no signs of fakery is also challenged by the testimony of Shaneyfelt, who told the Warren Commission that, “I cannot eliminate the possibility of an extremely elaborate composite.” ( 4 H 288 )
He went on to explain how it could be done: “…for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749.” ( Ibid. )
The cat was out of the bag. He had just testified how the photos could have been faked without leaving any trace.
( Final note: Researcher Michael Griffith wrote a good critique on the issue of the HSCA and the backyard photographs. It can be found here. )
Even if the photographs were not composites, the evidence is not clear that the figure in the picture is the same Oswald arrested by Dallas Police.
“That’s not even my face”
Over the years, much attention has been given to the possibility that Oswald’s face was pasted onto someone else’s body.
This attention has resulted from Oswald’s allegedly telling the Dallas Police exactly that during his interrogation. But according to Detective Gus Rose, who was present when Captain Fritz showed Oswald the blowup of CE 133-A, Oswald also said that, “I won’t even admit that. That is not even my face”. ( 7 H 231 )
I took a bunch of photographs purportedly of Oswald and put them all together. I was able to find that there were six versions of Oswald. The six versions are horizontal and the vertical columns are the photos that match those six versions.
As you can see, none of these six versions of Oswald match the Oswald in the backyard photographs. It may be that the “backyard Oswald” was a composite or just a look-alike.
Another reason to believe that the man in the “backyard photographs” is not Oswald, has to do with the clothing he wore in the photos.
The black shirt and black pants that are depicted in the photographs were never located. They do not appear on any evidence list of items taken from Oswald’s roominghouse or the Paine home.
What happened to them?