Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part IV

[Jean Ceulemans]

Now, in trying to figure out what was found and what was lost...

1) at one point in the DPD archives were 2 re-prints of "position" 133 C 

2) In the DPD archives were a number of re-enactment pictures in the style of 133-C, these had to be based on something, a negative or a pictures showing the same poistions of the rifle and the newspapers

So, DPD must have had - from early on - at least : 2 original (and o/c different) negatives and 3 original (and o/c different) pictures OR 3 negatives and 2 pictures (original = let's say found at the Paine’s), displaying LHO in three different positions.   Well, I haven't found them...

B.t.w. when Dees/White was introduced in 1976 it was often presented as the first of this "LHO-position"… while there already was a negative or at least al print in the DPD files.

Fun stuff...

Somewhere in my files are a number of pages of documentation on what was written/stamped on the back of each of these found (if there was a copy available of the backside), the photo-lab marked these.  A number of them probably were never marked, as I was told they were handing them out as souvenirs... you can't make this stuff up really... 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Here's DPD making copies of a picture that was not retrieved so said untill Dees/White or Stovall... yeah right...

They screwed things up, that's what happened, loosing stuff, using the original neg. X-times for stupid purposes (in doing so they likely ruined neg 133A and neg 133C in the process)

Keystone cops if you ask me

Edited September 23, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Jean Ceulemans]

As per the above, Studebaker admitted before the Hsca that in 1963 he made copies of the 3 different poses for his collegues. Why 133C never made it to the WC nobody knows... there were plenty of copies of it in Dallas..

 

[Gil Jesus]

15 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Shaneyfelt explains how it can be done (obviously it can be done or he would not have detailed the process) but yet it is beyond reasonable doubt that it can't be done with the backyard photos? Thats B.S. 

Exactly.

And I hope the readers of this thread recognize that the Lone Nutters have responded to this thread with comments and speculation only. And that they have declined to answer any of the questions I've raised.

Shaneyfelt never said anything about a "theoretical possibility" of faking the photos. That's Mr. Ulrik saying that.

Shaneyfelt said no such thing. This is what he said:

"I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert 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. )

Nothing "theoretical" about it. The photographs certainly could be faked, but he doubted that the photos could be faked without his being able to recognize it.

I find it interesting that the same Dallas detectives that were involved in the Friday search conducted the Saturday search as well.

And I find it interesting that the same detective, Studebaker, who claimed to have "found" the gunsack on the sixth floor, ( you know, the one that wasn't there when he took the picture ) was the one "making copies" of the backyard photographs for his fellow officers.

Where are the negatives he made the copies from ?

In fact, the Dallas Police were handing out copies on the 23rd like they were candy. And Hoover was pissed because he knew that such a move would not allow Oswald to receive a fair trial in Dallas County.

How do you empanel an impartial Grand Jury when pictures of Oswald with the murder weapons are being plastered all over the TV and newspapers ?

Police claimed that they found blank Selective Service cards that Oswald had "printed himself".

 

But those are not listed on the evidence list. Neither is the "magazine ad from Klein's Department Store" that they allegedly found in the "same box as the photographs". 

Not only were these items not listed on the evidence list ( Stovall Exhibit B ), like the "backyard photographs", they do not appear in pictures taken of the evidence recovered from the Paine garage on November 23rd.

It's amazing how a police department who made "error" after "error" when it came to handling the evidence in this case, was able to capture the right perpetrator on their very first try.

The Dallas criminal justice system in the 40s, 50s and 60s was so corrupt, that they weren't interested in convicting the RIGHT party, they were interested in convicting the ARRESTED party, because in their minds, the party they arrested was the guilty party.

The evidence of that surfaced many years later, when an investgation into Henry Wade's convictions showed that multiple "patsies" were convicted of crimes they did not commit and their convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

In fact, Wade convinced a jury to send an innocent man to the electric chair in 1954.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

So framing Oswald for the JFK assassination was nothing new for these people. It was S.O.P. and the evidence shows that they had experience doing exactly that.
 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Charles Blackmon]

Excellent post Gil. I did not know the DPD had been so bad for so long.

[Mark Ulrik]

In Shayneyfelt's expert opinion, the backyard images were not composites. In the case of the 133B negative, specifically, he explained the steps that would have been required and concluded that it didn't seem at all possible. In fact, he felt certain "beyond reasonable doubt" that it couldn't have been done.

It's an interesting tactic to attempt to build a positive case (using Shaneyfelt of all people) for the images being composites when you don't even believe that it's Oswald's face in the images.

[Jean Ceulemans]

Just some more info on who marked the original pictures and the inventory, a stack of 47 pictures were taken seperately, when the items were send to FBI (and back...) they were referred to as such.  There's a lot more (Aff. from the officers etc), but this is just to say why there are not on the list of bulky items

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Gil Jesus]

17 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Excellent post Gil. I did not know the DPD had been so bad for so long.

Charles, they were so bad that Capt. Fritz was demoted by then Dallas police chief Carl Hansson. Fritz formerly was in charge of the entire detective division but was demoted to head of homicide and robbery. This FBI memo from 1949 shows that, "Captain Fritz does not cooperate with other divisions of the Department or with this Bureau".

If you read the bottom paragraph, you'll see that there was a case where a woman allegedly tried to rob a bank and was apprehended by police. As evidence of her guilt, Fritz allegedly had a note she passed the bank teller, but would not release it to the FBI.

Shutting out divisions of your own department or the FBI and refusing to release evidence are examples of tactics one uses in the act of framing people for crimes they did not commit. It seems that Fritz had a history of doing these things.

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Jean Ceulemans]

Here you can see probably why 133C never made it to the WC

"133C" was also numbered 46... auch....

That number was already assigned with the other 2 (133 A and 133B ) :  46 and 47 

 

My guess is that "133C" was taken out very early thinking it was the same as one of the other 2, a double ?

Adamcik marked them, but it was Rose and Stovall that "found" them, it's possible he didn't know there was a third (at that moment early on).

This is also the reason why the Adamcik-affidavit  -  I did not find them but I did number them - was copied many many times...

And the reason why the total number of pics has been changed....

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points. 

1. I was interested in this aspect of the case and bought Studebaker's HSCA testimony from the Archives. I considered it quite important and gave it to Rex Bradford, who eventually put it online on the Mary Ferrell site.

2. I considered it important for a number of reasons. One was that Studebaker claimed he made his copies not from negatives but by taking photos of the photos with a large format camera--what he called a copy camera. This was important because the HSCA photo panel had claimed all the copies of 133 C and the blow-up of 133 - A had been made from the original negatives, and that the DPD must have lost two of the three negatives. IF Studebaker was telling the truth--and there was in fact no record of the DPD ever having more than two negatives--then it follows that the photo panel was full of crappola, and these photos could have been fakes. There is only one negative for the three photos--and the authenticity of that negative would be called into question as well. I mean, if the FBI and photo panel were blowing smoke about the blow-up of 133-A, well, then, all their testimony about these photos could be smoke. 

3. Studebaker admitted as well that he'd tried to sell a set of crime scene photos in partnership with a local mob figure. I don't think anyone in the research community knew about this prior to my receiving his testimony from the archives. As far as I know, no one has followed up on this. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Gil Jesus]

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

A couple of points. 

1. I was interested in this aspect of the case and bought Studebaker's HSCA testimony from the Archives. I considered it quite important and gave it to Rex Bradford, who eventually put it online on the Mary Ferrell site.

2. I considered it important for a number of reasons. One was that Studebaker claimed he made his copies not from negatives but by taking photos of the photos with a large format camera--what he called a copy camera. This was important because the HSCA photo panel had claimed all the copies of 133 C and the blow-up of 133 - A had been made from the original negatives, and that the DPD must have lost two of the three negatives. IF Studebaker ws telling the truth--and there was in fact no record of the DPD ever having more than two negatives--then it follows that the photo panel was full of crappola, and these photos could have been fakes. There is only one negative for the three photos--and the authenticity of that negative would be called into question as well. I mean, if the FBI and photo panel were blowing smoke about the blow-up of 133-A, well, then, all their testimony about these photos could be smoke. 

3. Studebaker admitted as well that he'd tried to sell a set of crime scene photos in partnership with a local mob figure. I don't think anyone in the research community knew about this prior to my receiving his testimony from the archives. As far as I know, no one has followed up on this. 

Thanks Pat. Can you imagine police making copies of photographs that are evidence in a murder case and selling them for a profit ? Talk about police corruption !!!!

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 9/25/2023 at 1:10 PM, Pat Speer said:

A couple of points. 

1. I was interested in this aspect of the case and bought Studebaker's HSCA testimony from the Archives. I considered it quite important and gave it to Rex Bradford, who eventually put it online on the Mary Ferrell site.

2. I considered it important for a number of reasons. One was that Studebaker claimed he made his copies not from negatives but by taking photos of the photos with a large format camera--what he called a copy camera. This was important because the HSCA photo panel had claimed all the copies of 133 C and the blow-up of 133 - A had been made from the original negatives, and that the DPD must have lost two of the three negatives. IF Studebaker ws telling the truth--and there was in fact no record of the DPD ever having more than two negatives--then it follows that the photo panel was full of crappola, and these photos could have been fakes. There is only one negative for the three photos--and the authenticity of that negative would be called into question as well. I mean, if the FBI and photo panel were blowing smoke about the blow-up of 133-A, well, then, all their testimony about these photos could be smoke. 

3. Studebaker admitted as well that he'd tried to sell a set of crime scene photos in partnership with a local mob figure. I don't think anyone in the research community knew about this prior to my receiving his testimony from the archives. As far as I know, no one has followed up on this. 

1) there is indeed very little information on the negatives PS : when returned, "2 negatives" became "negative" (error in writing or did 1 negative just disappear... ?)

2) some said the pics were "found" on the 22nd... 

3) next, an envelope probably for the re-enactment negatives, but impossible to say for sure... but 4 different positions making it interesting (wouldn't it be nice if D was LHO holding the riffle above his head... Marguerite would be right... again... nope.. not happening

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Jean Ceulemans]

By 12/1963 Fritz was very confused (again....), see how he describes picture numbers 46 and 47... 

And 2 Klein's magazine ad's (one of those had it's own story apparently)

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Gil Jesus]

7 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

By 12/1963 Fritz was very confused (again....), see how he describes picture numbers 46 and 47... 

And 2 Klein's magazine ad's (one of those had it's own story apparently)

 

Funny that you mention John Adamcik's initials on the backyard photographs because he told the FBI after his Warren Commission testimony that, "he does not personally recall any photographs that were obtained from this residence."

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Funny that you mention John Adamcik's initials on the backyard photographs because he told the FBI after his Warren Commission testimony that, "he does not personally recall any of the photographs that were obtained from this residence."

Another way of saying that he wouldn't be able to describe to you what they depicted. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.