Chris Scally

Fantastic news, Pete. I always feared that the manuscript might fall into the wrong hands, but we can rest easy now that you are its custodian. Hope everything works out well with Lancer - I know it would be a fitting tribute to Ian if it could be published.

Tom, I'm not aware of any direct statements from attendees at a viewing of the Zapruder film in the Time-Life offices NY on Saturday / Sunday, November 23-24, 1963. However, In his Sixth Floor Museum Oral History interview in 2011, Richard Stolley says (at about 6:45 into the recording) that "either late Saturday night or sometime on Sunday" the film was shown to executives at Time Inc. in New York. David Wrone, in his book "The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination", says (p. 35) "sometime on Sunday in New York City, Life's publisher C.D. Jackson viewed with horror the images on the newly arrived film". In his book, "National Nightmare on six feet of film", Richard Trask says (p. 132) that "C.D. Jackson, upon seeing a projection of the film on Sunday, November 24 was shocked and repulsed at the possibility of its morbid and graphically bloody scenes being shown to the public". So, while there does not seem to be any related "statements from attendees" or direct "evidence concerning custody of the original film that weekend", the balance of probability would suggest to me that the film was sent from Chicago to Life HQ in New York either late on Saturday evening or very early on the Sunday morning (I would guess it was probably the former, but I have no direct evidence of that). This would be consistent with the frames from the film to be used in the November 29 issue of Life being available at RR Donnelley at around 8 pm on the Saturday evening, as I was told in early 2010.

Roger - I don't know why you put the word "researcher" in quotation marks in the above passage, because as I pointed out last Monday (page 33 of this topic), the "researcher" who was "sent ... off to try find Bill on a SS roster and was puzzled when he couldn't find him" was Doug Horne!

There was one good documented reason why the Secret Service sent their copy of the Zapruder film to NPIC on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963 - they couldn't create prints of individual frames from a movie film! FWIW, the following excerpt is from an interview by Michele Combs of the ARRB with Max Phillips, the Secret Service agent in Dallas who received the Zapruder film on the evening of the assassination, and sent it directly to Chief Rowley in Washington. The interview took place at Phillips' home in California on September 2, 1997 : Combs: Did the Secret Service have the capability in 1963 to develop still photographs from a motion picture? Phillips: No. Combs: Could they have developed the frames? Phillips: No. Combs: No? Phillips: No. You have to realize, we were extremely small. Our resources were just, ah, almost nothing. Combs: Where would the Secret Service have gone to have a motion picture developed? Phillips: Immediately? Combs: Uh-huh, or have still frames made? Phillips: CIA. Combs: CIA? Phillips: CIA, immediately. We would have gone to the CIA, or the FBI. But, I – If it had – If Robert I. Bouck [Phillips' immediate supervisor] was involved in it, he would have gone to the CIA. Combs: Why is that? Phillips: Because he had a lot of, ah, connections at the CIA. Combs: Do you know where he went within the CIA to have them developed? Phillips: Well, I – well all I know is that we worked with counterintelligence in the CIA, but I don’t know if he would have gone there. This is only, you know, this is off the top of my head. Combs: Sure. But PRS worked with counterintelligence in the CIA? Phillips: Oh, yeah. Combs: As a group? Phillips: Yes, yes. Combs: But Bouck had connections within other parts of the CIA as well? Phillips: Oh, I would say so, I would say so! Combs: Do you know if he would have taken them to the (unintelligible) photo, if that’s where he would go to have --- Phillips: I don’t even know if that existed, if they were the ones, -- we, we didn’t even have satellites back then. I don’t know, but knowing Bouck, I mean, he would have made a couple of phone calls and he would have gone right to the source and if that was the – I mean, he would have done the same thing I would have done. If I had something, I wanted it done immediately, I would have called my contacts at CIA and said, “We can’t do it but so and so can…” you know how Washington works –

Thanks, Pat. I see that, as I write this, Tom Gram has answered the question about the remaining first day copy - thanks Tom. That contract dated November 25 was signed at a meeting in the office of Sam Passman, Zapruder's attorney, on the afternoon of that day, so it is reasonable to assume that Stolley took the remaining copy with him when he left the meeting. That so-called "Life First Day copy" of the film is now in the Sixth Floor Museum, along with with the other 1,900-item collection of Zapruder material which the family donated to the Museum in January 2000.

Correct. Doug Horne subsequently checked a roster - provided to him by ARRB attorney Kim Herd - of all Secret Service agents attached to the White House Detail in 1963, and found that there was no agent named bill (or William) Smith on that list [Horne, "Inside the ARRB", Vol. 4., p. 1223; Richard Russell, "On the Trail of the JFK Assassins", p. 293]. In addition, a review of the original Zapruder film by Horne at the National Archives failed to reveal any edge-printing or other indications that might indicate that the film was processed at Rochester - indeed, all indications were that it was produced in Dallas, a fact confirmed independently by Rollie Zavada in his report for the ARRB. [Internal ARRB memo from Horne to David Marwell and Jeremy Gunn on July 16, 1977; Zavada Report, Study 1, p. 3-6]

Many thanks for your kind words, Jonathan.

I have followed the recent discussions here about what supposedly happened to the camera-original Zapruder film and the three first-days copies, and have been astonished at the amount of unfounded speculation which has been presented as fact by people who seem to have done no actual research of their own. So, for whatever it is worth, I set out the results of actual research which I carried out (mostly, some 10 or so years ago) in a file note to myself, and I have copied it below in the hope that it might prove to be of some use, and might help remove some of the idle speculation. I have split the file note into three "issues", which I hope will be helpful. Issue 1 – Did Stolley get original and a copy of film, or just the original? Richard Stolley left Zapruder’s office between 10 and 10:30 AM on November 23, 1963. As he told Esquire in November 1973 and 1992: “In less than half an hour, we had agreed on a price — $50,000 for all print rights — and I snuck out the back door of the factory with the original film and one copy, leaving poor Zapruder to face the angry journalists in the hall.” In an e-mail to me on May 26, 2010 Gary Mack said: “Stolley still thinks he left Zapruder Saturday morning with the original and one copy, but the editor in Chicago who received the shipment [Roy Rowan] recently told him he only got the original film, which he forwarded to LIFE in New York the next day.” In another e-mail on the same date, Gary wrote: “Stolley says the Chicago editor told him in the last few days he shipped the original to New York so the Life execs could see it......”However, following a subsequent exchange of e-mails with me and two other researchers in 2010, he changed his mind about getting the 16mm format original and a copy from Zapruder, (which also more accurately reflects the language in the Saturday morning agreement between Zapruder and Stolley, ) and he confirmed it again in the Life 2013 book: “Zapruder handed me the precious original film. I asked him if there was a back door to the building, and I left him to face the angry and disappointed crowd in the hall. (One of the reporters never spoke to me again.) Back at the (Adolphus) hotel, I gave the original to a courier who flew it to Chicago, where an emergency editorial staff was closing the magazine in a temporary office set up at the Donnelley printing plant. Once the editors in Chicago saw the Zapruder film, they decided to publish 31 frames from it, but not grisly Frame 313, the head shot, out of deference to the grieving Kennedy family. The pictures were also in black and white because color printing back then took time that we didn’t have. (While those 31 prints were being hastily made from the original film, the film was slightly damaged, and six frames had to be removed.)” Issue 2: How did the film get to Chicago? In a Nov 5, 2012, e-mail to me, Dick Stolley responded to a set of questions I had put to him: Q. Did you personally take the film to the airport in Dallas, or did you give it to someone to bring to the airport? A. I did not take the film myself to the airport Q. If you gave it to someone, can you remember who that was (Patsy Swank, perhaps?) A. It’s one of the things I have never been able to remember; I once thought long and hard about it, and decided that I would have considered Patsy too valuable in Dallas that tumultuous day to send her off to Chicago, so I suspect I asked her to find a trustworthy courier; I can not recall if I ever asked Roy Rowan about it, but since he’s still alive and in his 90s, I will do so Q. Did the film go to Chicago from Love Field, or some other local airport (I've just checked, and Dallas/Fort Worth International only opened in 1974, so I know it cannot have flown from there)? A. As best I can recall, it went on a commercial flight from Love Field to, I suppose, Midway in south Chicago Q. Did the person who took the film to the airport hand it over to a courier, or did they take the film to Chicago themselves? A. I don’t know if I ever knew that, but the courier was probably met at the airport, assuming the Life crew in Chicago had an extra body to go to Midway; very possibly someone from the Life bureau in Chicago Q. Was the courier a person representing you/Life, or was it a courier company? A. It was unlikely a courier company, but someone known to Patsy or another member of the Dallas bureau; or possibly another member of the Time-Life Dallas bureau Q. Finally, do you recall to whom you addressed the film (Roy Rowan, perhaps?) A. Surely it was Roy Rowan at the address of the Donnelly printing plant” Issue 3: What happened when the original film reached Chicago? At Chicago’s Ruben R. Donnelley printing plant, Life’s main printing plant, an editorial team from Life’s New York office, led by Assistant Managing Editor Roy Rowan and including writer John Dille, Associate Art Director David Stech and layout artist John Geist, had assembled to prepare the next scheduled issue, due on the newsstands the following Tuesday, November 26. According to Ray Rowan, the Life editor in Chicago who received the original film from Richard Stolley, only the original film was shipped to Chicago, and it was then sent to Life’s New York headquarters the next day. Joe Cook, a Chicago photographer and technical specialist who frequently worked on black-and-white film projects for Life, said he received a call at some unspecified time on Saturday informing him that Life were flying a film to a local photo lab at 53 West Jackson, which Cook described as a “drop-off point” because it was the only place a helicopter could land at that time. Cook and some of his work colleagues were invited by the lab to view the film. In December 2011, I sought the help of the Chicago Public Library in an effort to identify the names of any companies which operated out of the 53 West Jackson address in 1963-4. However, the CPL said they did not have a reverse lookup directory for the time in question, without which it was impossible to make any further progress. Cook said he had no involvement in processing the Zapruder film, work which he said was done at the 53 West Jackson ‘drop-off’ site, although I believe it may well have been done at the Allied Film Labs premises. Cook said that among those who were present when he saw the film were a few of his colleagues, some of the people who worked at 53 West Jackson, and a representative from Life magazine. In any event, Cook’s account seems to support the view that the camera-original film was copied in Chicago on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963. Shortly after the film arrived in Chicago, two excellent quality 16mm black-and-white copies and a “dirty dupe” were made. Roland Zavada has said (2010) that the absence of a ‘septum line’ on these films proves that they were made from the original film, and not one of the first-day copies. I can confirm from photos in my possession that marking on these black-and-white copies suggest they were used to create the photos in Life’s November 29 issue. One of the boxes containing the black-and-white copies was marked “Allied Film Laboratory, 306 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 6, Illinois”, and Roland Zavada has confirmed that such a lab did exist in 1963. It was also independently confirmed in January 2010 by at least two people who worked on the issue that the black-and-white frames from the Zapruder film to be used in the November 29 issue of Life were available in the RR Donnelley "Prepress" area at around 8 pm on the Saturday evening, implying that the black-and-white copies were made on November 23. The foregoing is what my research uncovered. If anyone can prove any aspect of it wrong, then so be it - I will be delighted to amend my records. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in extended speculative debate about the matter. Finally, as to the distribution of the three first day copies of the film, my understanding of what happened to each one is set out in my reply to David Josephs in a recent (June 21) post, on page 26 of this topic.

Denise, Orville Nix got his film back from the processors in the early hours of December 1, 1963, and gave his original film to the FBI later (around 8 AM) that morning. The FBI copied the film, sent the copy to FBI HQ, and returned the original to Mr. Nix on December 4. Mr. Nix then handed the camera-original film over to UPI in New York on December 6, and it was never seen again by any member of the NIx family. The official transcript of Mark Lane's interview of Orville Nix for "Rush to Judgment" clearly shows that, in reply to a question from Lane ("Are there some frames missing from the film which you now have?"), Nix replied, "Well I don't know that there's frames missing, but during the processing it could be that - uh - some of the frames were ruint (sic)" (Transcript, p. 2. My emphasis added) Later in the interview, Nix again suggested that there might have been frames lost in the processing of his film - he said that the copy of the film which he had at that time (March 1966) might not have the same number of frames as the original film which he gave to the authorities in December 1963 "because of losing maybe - uh - uh - a frame here and there- uh - not that they were cut out - but losing the - losing the - during the processing maybe." (Transcript, p. 8-9. My emphasis added) For whatever it's worth, this falls somewhat short of a definitive confirmation that some frames were actually “missing” from his original film, and/or some frames were actually “ruined”, in my opinion.

Chris Davidson: Sorry, but I have absolutely no intention of playing the math game that you have engaged in for a long time, involving the limo speed, FBI agent Shaneyfelt's calculations of limo location, etc. I answered your question about the supposed "missing" Itek frames in the Nix film, and believe that no further discussion is needed.

Totally agree regarding LIFE magazine, Paul, but we know what one of their lab technicians (who should certainly have known better) managed to do with the Zapruder film! And as for what (or who?) was so interesting in the doorway ... let me think about that one !!!

Chris, There are NO frames used by Itek which are missing from every Nix version in existence today. Prior to the Itek Study in 1967, there was no official frame count for the Nix film, and rather than counting the actual frames and assigning "proper" frame numbers to each one, Itek chose to use the alphanumeric system you cited. (Why Itek did not do a proper frame count is unknown - perhaps they were told not to do so, perhaps they simply didn't bother to do so - we just don't know!) Years later, Richard Trask ("Pictures of the Pain") calculated that Nix exposed 122 frames during the shooting sequence on Elm Street; Dale Myers "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination" also calculated that Nix shot 122 frames during the same sequence, while my own manual count of the frames in the film suggest that Nix shot 123 frames (Nix frames 189-311 inclusive) during the same period. The difference of 1 frame is immaterial. It was not until one of the HSCA contractors who examined the Nix film used the Itek 1967 numbering system again in 1978 that it was possible to establish what the Itek system actually meant. From a careful study of HSCA internal documents, I have been able to calculate that the Itek numbering system was as follows: Nix 191 = A; Nix 192 = A1; Nix 193 = A2 … Nix 199 = A8; Nix 200 = B1; Nix 201 = B2; Nix 202 = B3; Nix 203 = B4 … Nix 207 = B8; Nix 208 = B9; Nix 209 = C; Nix 210 = C1; Nix 211 = C2 (the head shot); Nix 212 = C3 … Nix 218 = C9; Nix 219 = D; Nix 220 = D1; Nix 221 = D2, and so on. So, while Trask, Myers and I differ in respect of what Nix frame equates to Z-291 (the Zapruder frame corresponding to the first Nix frame showing the limo on Elm Street), all three are in general agreement regarding the number of frames (122 or 123) shot on Elm Street, and it has now been possible to confirm that Itek's Nix frame C2 equates to Zapruder 313, then the suggestion that the Nix frames used by Itek are missing from all versions of the Nix film currently in existence is incorrect. The frames are not missing - it is simply a fact that Itek (and fortunately, as it happens, a HSCA contractor also) used a non-conventional system of numbering the frames.

Paul: There is undoubtedly a splice through the middle of the Towner film, just prior to the limo passing in front of the TSBD. According to Dale Myers, there are eight frames missing from this point in the film. As anyone who has used 8mm home movie film will know, it is easily damaged, and stopping the projector while viewing a film can very quickly result in the film being burnt, with the loss of frames - unfortunately, I know that to be true from costly past experience! So it is entirely possible that the eight missing frames were simply caused by the film being burnt when someone stopped the projector for too long while looking at the scene in the TSBD doorway just prior to the shooting, rather than being evidence of any sinister or conspiratorial "alteration". The Towner family themselves did not discover the splice in the film until March 1977. They were satisfied that the splice was put there either in November/December 1963, when the film was in the hands of The Dallas Morning News and the FBI for several weeks, or in October/November 1967, when Life magazine had possession of it. (See pages 11 and 49 of Tina Towner's book, "Tina Towner: My story as the Youngest photographer at the Kennedy assassination"). As for alteration in the Nix film, I am unaware of any damage (or alteration) to the Nix film during the 6.6 seconds (or 123 frames) segment of it which shows the limousine on Elm Street.

I had the very great pleasure of meeting with Sylvia Meagher in London in August 1977. One of the nicest people one could meet! My signed copy of her book, "Accessories After The Fact" is one of my prized possessions.