The Clay Shaw trial testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt
February 14, 1969



MR. OSER: Two of the Assistant United States Attorneys requested permission to sit in the court room while Mr. Shaneyfelt testifies from the FBI.

MR. DYMOND: No objection.

LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT, having been first duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified as follows:

Q: Would you state your full name for the record, please.

A: My name is Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, L-y-n-d-a-l, middle initial L, S-h-a-n-e-y-f-e-l-t.

Q: Where do you reside, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

A: I reside at 6125 Vernon Terrace, Alexandria, Virginia.

Q: By whom are you employed?

A: As a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Q: How long have you been a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

A: I have been employed by them since 1940, December of 1940, I have been a Special Agent since 1951.

Q: What are your present duties as a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation at this time?

A: I am assigned as a Document Examiner and Photographic Specialist in the FBI Laboratory.

Q: During the year 1963, what were your duties with the FBI?

A: The same, as a Document Examiner and Photographic Specialist.

MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State is going to attempt to qualify Agent Shaneyfelt as an expert in the field of Photography and a Photographic Specialist with the FBI. THE COURT: Proceed.

Q: Can you describe for the Jury and for the Court what your duties consist of as a Photographic Specialist for the Bureau?

A: Yes, I assist in the training of our agents in photographic matters, I have worked in photographic work in the FBI almost entirely since I have been there, in early years as a photographer and as a Special Agent Document Examiner, and I handled photographic assignments. I was a newspaper photographer before entering the FBI in 1940 for approximately three years. My present duties in the laboratory for the past several years have been the examination of photographic evidence submitted by local law enforcement agencies as well as our own officers and an example would be the comparison of film recovered from a victim of a theft of his camera with the camera recovered perhaps in a pawn shop or from a suspect, to identify that film as having been exposed in that camera, that is a photograph to determine whether or not they are composites or fraudulent or fake photographs, things of that type.

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, during a one-year period approximately how many photographic examinations would you make, approximately?

A: Oh, I would have to guess, I would guess in the neighborhood of seventy-five to one hundred.

Q: And you have been in the photographic field for some thirty-odd years, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Have you ever been called upon to testify and be qualified as an expert in the field of photography before any Commission or Board, such as maybe the Federal Trade Commission, or things of this type?

A: Yes, I have testified before the Federal Trade Commission, the Immigration and Naturalization Service hearings, as well as Federal and District Courts, local courts.

MR. OSER: I tender him on the point.

MR. DYMOND: No questions.

THE COURT: Is it permitted?

MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now the Court will rule that the witness has qualified as an expert in the field of photography and can give his opinion with respect thereto.

Q: In the course of your employment as a Special Agent with the FBI, did you have occasion to assist in the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Are you familiar, sir, with the location commonly known as Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, I direct your attention to "State Exhibit No. 34," and ask if you can identify what is depicted in this photograph, sir. You may step down, if you wish.

A: yes, I would recognize that as Dealey Plaza, an aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza.

Q: I direct your attention to "State Exhibit No. 36," a model mock-up, and ask if you are familiar with what is depicted in this exhibit. You may step down.

A: Yes, I recognize it as a generally, generally a mock-up or model of Dealey Plaza. There are some areas of it that I don't feel represent it exactly, but it is generally a mock-up.

Q: It is not to scale, sir?

A: No.

Q: I now direct your attention to "State Exhibit No. 35," a large plaque over here, and I ask if you can identify what is depicted on this particular plaque. You may step down, sir.

THE COURT: I notice that you haven't blotted out that hearsay that Mr. Dymond objected to.

MR. OSER: I think we will handle that matter with this particular witness. I spoke to Mr. Dymond.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I recognize the plaque.

Q: Would that plaque purport to be a certain portion of Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, during your investigation, did you have occasion to examine various photographic matter that was taken allegedly at the time of the assassination in Dealey Plaza?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: I am going to show you and ask you to review this film and tell the Court and the gentlemen of the Jury whether or not you are familiar with the contents of this particular film, as to whether or not you have seen it before and as to whether or not you used any portion or contents thereof in your investigation.

MR. DYMOND: At this point, if the Court please, we have an objection which we feel should properly be made out of the presence of the Jury.

THE COURT: Out of the presence of the Jury?


THE COURT: Take the Jury upstairs, please.

(Whereupon, the Jury was removed.)

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we object to a re-showing of the Zapruder film in the presence of the Jury. They have seen it three times already, once in regular motion, once in slow motion, and once frame by frame. I feel there is no reasonable, there is no reason for re-showing this bit of State's Evidence. We feel that this expert witness is undoubtedly familiar with the Zapruder film, has worked with the Zapruder film, and if asked whether he has worked with it, will know what is meant by the Zapruder film. I think he can testify to that but we object in the presence of the Jury to the showing of the film because it is repetitious.

MR. OSER: This is State's Exhibit which has been introduced into evidence. I think the State has a right to show this film as it sees fit in the proof of its case and certainly in connection with the testimony of Mr. Shaneyfelt. It will be tied up as to how important it is in Mr. Shaneyfelt's work at the time of his investigation.

THE COURT: The Court cannot direct the State to not prove its case, if he needs the exhibit in connection with his case, I don't see how the State cannot show the exhibit because it may or may not be necessary. Perhaps Mr. Shaneyfelt will have to see it to know whether it is the film he is familiar with.

MR. DYMOND: I think the witness does know what is on the Zapruder film.

THE COURT: How does he know?

MR. DYMOND: It has been identified as such, you can show it to him out of the presence of the Jury and let him see whether it is.

THE COURT: I can't control the way that the State will try to prove its case.

MR. DYMOND: You can control what may be accentuated to the Jury, if the Court please, that every time you show the Jury the film, that is accentuating a particular piece of evidence and that is what we are objecting to. You have shown it three times already.

THE COURT: I can't tell the State how to prove its case and you know I can't. I overrule your objection. If he thinks it's necessary to show it to the witness, I will permit him to show it to the witness and apparently he does, as his statement indicates, he feels it is necessary. I will overrule your motion.

MR. DYMOND: I think it is up to Your Honor to determine if that is necessary to do that before the Jury or out of the presence of the Jury.

THE COURT: Is it your purpose first to Mr. Shaneyfelt the film to see if he recognizes it and then after the Jury comes back, to show it again like we did with Mr. Zapruder?

MR. OSER: That is correct, Your Honor, and to use certain portions of the particular film. Mr. Shaneyfelt is the one that did the reconstruction, he can testify as to the hearsay matter that was on here before.

THE COURT: Let's work it first like we did yesterday with Mr. Zapruder, show the film to the witness so he can first identify that is the film and when the Jury comes back, you can show it again and let him testify. We have a Sheriff on the lights.

MR. DYMOND: We would also like to make an objection on the grounds of relevancy as we did yesterday.

THE COURT: I ruled on that yesterday.

(Whereupon, the film was run.)

THE COURT: Do you wish to question the witness out of the presence of the Jury?

MR. OSER: Yes, a couple of questions, Your Honor.

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, after having reviewed this film, can you tell us whether or not you had occasion to view a film containing the same scenes as you saw this morning during our investigation?

A: Yes, this appears to be the same sequence of events.

Q: Can you tell us whether or not any particular things are missing out of this particular film from your --

A: I cannot tell that from viewing it on the screen. I would have to count the frames and study the film more thoroughly.

MR. OSER: That's all.

THE COURT: Bring the Jury back in.

(Whereupon, the Jury was brought in.)

MR. DYMOND: What is the exhibit number on that film?

MR. OSER: Thirty-seven.

MR. DYMOND: At this time we object to the repetitious showing of the "State Exhibit 37," known as the Zapruder film, on the grounds, first, it is irrelevant to the proceedings, secondly on the grounds that the Court has repeatedly ruled during the last approximately two years of these proceedings that the incidents in Dallas had no connection between this case and those incidents, and thirdly that on the voir dire in this case, Your Honor ruled that we could not question prospective jurors as to any fixed opinions, as to incidents in Dallas.

THE COURT: I overrule the objection.

MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making all showings of "State Exhibit S-37," the testimony of this witness, the Defense objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record up until this time, parts of the bill, also including "Exhibit "S-37."

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, we ask you to review this particular film and tell us whether or not you had occasion to use what is depicted in this film during your investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, if you would.

(Whereupon, the film was shown.)

Q: From having viewed the particular film, can you tell the Court and the Gentlemen of the Jury whether or not you had occasion to view a film depicting the same scenes in your investigation?

A: Yes, this appears to be the same sequence of events as the film that I worked with in my investigation.

Q: Can you tell us whether or not the Bureau also had a ballistics expert working along with you in your investigation?

A: Yes, they did.

Q: Who is that, sir?

A: Mr. Robert Frazier.

Q: Was anyone particularly in charge of the investigation or were the duties split up between you and Mr. Frazier on the photographs and the ballistics work?

A: The members of the Warren Commission were in charge of the re-enactment investigation. Mr. Frazier and I had specific duties relative to what we did for the Commission.

Q: In other words, am I correct in stating you did the basic -- you did basically the photographic work and Mr. Frazier did the ballistics work?

A: Yes.

Q: In conjunction with each other?

A: That's right.

Q: Can you tell us what type of film this is, Mr. Shaneyfelt, what millimeter?

A: Eight millimeter.

Q: Will you define for us what is meant by frames in an eight millimeter film in the field of photography?

A: Yes. Motion picture films are made up of a series of still pictures taken in rela- tively rapid sequence. In each one, each picture on the film is a separate still picture and is considered as a frame or one frame of the motion picture is one still picture, and these are recorded by the camera in rapid sequence in such a way as when they are projected at their proper speed, you get the sensation of a constant picture, the eye does not see each individual picture being flashed on the screen but sees instead photographs of a moving subject.

Q: I show you what the State has marked for purposes of identification "S-33," and I ask you to view this photograph, tell me whether or not you had an occasion to use what is represented in this photograph during your investigation, sir.

A: Yes, I recognize this as a photograph that I examined.

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, during your investigation did you have occasion to make any reprints or prints from the film that you viewed and that you recognized this morning in court, any black and white photographs or color photographs?

A: Yes, I made a set of black and white prints of a number of selected frames of the Zapruder film that I examined.

Q: In using this particular film that you have identified this morning as having seen before, did you have any occasion to number the frames in that film which you used, sir?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: How did you go about that, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

A: In order to be able to relate the various frames to each other and to keep track of specific frames, I numbered them beginning with No. 1 at the first frame on the motion picture film that I examined that shows any part of the Presidential parade, or the first time he comes into view, well, the first part of the film were personal pictures, pictures of a personal nature, and I disregarded those and went down the film, the motorcycles first came into view on the motion picture film, the first frame of that I numbered it No. 1 and I numbered the frames consecutively through to the end of where you last see the Presidential limousine go out of sight.

Q: How many frames did this film contain, sir? You may refer to your notes.

A: I doubt that I have that figure in my notes. I would have to estimate that it went into the late three hundreds or early four hundred frames, I don't believe it is in my notes.

Q: So somewhere around four hundred frames that -- would that be a safe estimate?

A: That would be a safe estimate.

Q: Now, pursuant to your investigation, did you have occasion to go to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, and conduct any type of examination of this area?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: When did you go there, sir?

A: On May 24, 1964.

Q: Did Mr. Robert A. Frazier, a ballistics man from the FBI, accompany you?

A: Yes.

Q: Basically, can you first tell us what you did in Dealey Plaza that particular time, sir, what was your purpose in going there?

A: The purpose in going to Dealey Plaza was to re-enact, using a car, and individuals of the approximate size of the President and Governor Connally, to reposition the car as it is shown in the Zapruder film and other photographs, in order to establish if possible the direction of the shots, the sequence of the shots, the timing between shots, if possible, the location of the car at the time a particular shot was fired, in an effort to obtain any information that would assist the Warren Commission in reaching a conclusion in their investigation. That was in general what the purpose was.

Q: From your examination of the Zapruder film and the work you did at Dealey Plaza were you able to ascertain the average speed of the Presidential limousine, the President's limousine, while it was on Elm Street?

A: Yes. The average speed was ascertained in one specific --

MR. DYMOND: We object unless this witness ascertained the speed of it.

Q: Did you examine the Zapruder film and ascertain the average speed of the President's limousine on Elm Street yourself, sir?

A: Yes, I did, yes.

Q: How did you go about this, sir, what was the result of your examination?

A: This complete finding was based on a determination first of the average speed of the Zapruder camera, and a determination of the speed with which the sequence of events took place based on the speed of the camera, then during the re-enactment, measurements were made on Elm Street from the specific frame numbers, once they were ascertained, and I took the frame, the frames from Frame 161 to Frame 313 and determined -- it took the distance, computed this base don the number of frames involved, the speed at which the Zapruder camera operated, found that the average speed over that period as between 161, Frame 161 and Frame 313 was 11.2 miles per hour.

Q: What was the speed of the Zapruder camera as you found, sir, when you examined it?

A: The average speed of the camera was 18.3 frames per second.

Q: How did you ascertain this, sir?

A: Using Mr. Zapruder's camera, I loaded it with film and photographed a clock that had a sweep second hand. I then, by examining the film after it was processed, under the microscope I could see when the second had was on right up at 12:00 o'clock and counted the frames until the hand got down and made a full circle, giving the number of frames per minute and breaking that down to the number of frames per second. This was done on successive rolls of film and averaged throughout the film, and motion picture cameras almost all slow down toward the end of the run when the spring, this was a spring-wind camera, and when the spring runs down, there is a tailing off. I average the speed without taking the tailing off into account because of the fact that the film was taken with the film full -- with the camera fully wound. This averaged out to be 18.3.

Q: Now, at the time that you were in Dealey Plaza in may of 1964, -- do you want me to put the -- may I put the screen down?

THE COURT: Yes. Do you wish that aerial photograph to be put up there?

Q: During the construction that you testified that you conducted, was Mr. Robert West present, the surveyor from Dallas County?

A: Yes, he was.

Q: Did he assist you all in this capacity as Surveyor?

A: Yes.

Q: During the reconstruction, Mr. Shaneyfelt, in relation to the Zapruder film where did you all start, at what frame, sir?

A: We started the re-enactment at a point earlier than is shown on the Zapruder film the first frame that we designated in which the Presidential limousine appears was Frame 161, to the best of my recollection.

Q: During your reconstruction, did you have occasion to use Frame 168?

A: Yes, we did.

Q: What did you do in regard to Frame 168, what type of examination and reconstruction did you all do?

A: Could I step down and look at the plaque?

Q: Yes.

A: That is marked Frame 168.

Q: How did you all mark that frame, sir, how did you arrive at that position?

A: We knew the position of Mr. Zapruder, we knew the position of the Presidential limousine from the photograph as being in between the white lines of Elm Street, and with Mr. Frazier in the window, with the Presidential limousine positioned in the street on the route that was established from the film, and with Mr. Frazier, Robert A. Frazier of the Laboratory in the sixth floor window of the Book Depository building, with the rifle that was recovered from that building, he viewed through the rifle and watched through the telescopic sight of the rifle as the car moved down Elm Street, when the car reached a point where the President was about to go out of sight under an elm tree that covered the street, or a tree that covered Elm Street, I am sorry, the car was stopped, asked that the car be stopped and we positioned it exactly at the point just before the President would go under the tree from where the rifle, where he was viewing with the rifle, and once the positioning of the car in that place, I then with still photographs made from Mr. Zapruder's film took a position on the abutment where Mr. Zapruder took his motion pictures, and by going through the photographs and aligning objects in the background with individuals in the car, particularly the President, determining where a part of the building was directly above his head or a tree was just to the side of his head, I established through the photographs that this was representative of the spot that the car was in at the time Frame 168 was in focus.

Q: Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, where 168 appears on that plaque, am I correct in stating that the dot next to 168 represents the position of the location of President Kennedy within the limousine at that time. Is that correct?

A: That is correct, the limousine that we were using for the re-enactment was not the limousine that the President was riding in, and we had to make an adjustment because the stand-in was sitting ten inches higher than the President was sitting, ten inches higher from the street, so after positioning Frame 161, we moved the car forward until we could just barely see the spot on the back of the -- the approximate spot where the President was hit on the back, this appeared based on a ten-inch adjustment, so that we take into account the last clear place that the President could have been shot just before going under the tree.

Q: No --

A: That was the established -- we established Frame No. 171.

Q: Which car was used for the reconstruction?

A: The car that we referred to as the car which was a Lincoln, yes, a Lincoln.

Q: I show you again that which is marked as "S-33," and ask you whether or not the car that you used during the reconstruction appears in that photograph.

A: Yes, the car that the men are standing on the running board of.

Q: Mr. Shaneyfelt, during the re-enactment, did you have occasion to deal with and compare around Frame 207 and 208 and 210?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: And what did you all do in regard to those particular frames?

A: The Frames 207 and 208 specifically were used as the points where the Presidential limousine emerged from under the tree and the agent Frazier in the window first would get a clear shot of the stand-in for the President to see him through the rifle scope, and that position was ascertained by Mr. Frazier from the window and then using the Zapruder film, I established that as being Frame 207 and Frame 208 on the Zapruder film.

Q: What other frames did you deal with that are related on that plaque?

A: Well, we dealt with Frame 185 and 186, and Frames 185 and 186 represent the position of the President in the limousine where Mr. Frazier in the window could see him through the rifle scope as it passed under an opening in the tree. There was an area in the tree that there were no leaves, and looking through the scope, he got a momentary look at the stand-in for the President in the limousine, indicating a clear shot could have been fired from there. And Frame 185 and 186 are the frames that I have determined them to be standing at the Zapruder spot and checking them with the photographs, 185 being the frame and adjusted frame based on the ten-inch difference in the two cars.

Q: Now, which frames did you all deal with after the 210 series?

A: 208 was the last one?

Q: Yes.

A: Frame 222 was the next frame that -- that was, I might say, Frame 208 is the last frame that we established by having Mr. Frazier view through the rifle, all of the rest of the frames were established, beyond that point were established by other landmarks, by me when I was standing here with Zapruder was standing. The next frame was Frame 222 which represents the first frame where Governor Connally's face comes into view after the Presidential limousine had gone past the signboard, so they were out of view from Mr. Zapruder's camera at the frames 205 and 206 they disappeared behind the signboard, and that signboard and that signboard until Frame 222, and of course the Governor Connally, Governor Connally's face, the next frame that we have established was 225 or 223, 223 is the next frame that is on here, 225 is the actual frame, the next frame we established as being the first frame of where President Kennedy emerged, we first see his face, it is listed as 225 in the chart, and the next frame we have located was Frame 231, which was a frame that the Commission wanted established based on the evidence indicating --

Q: Nothing hearsay.

A: Well, Frame 231, 235, 240, 249, 255 were all established based on the request of the Commission. The last frame to be established was Frame 313, which is the frame of the Zapruder film where the shot hit the President, President Kennedy, in the head and it is quite obvious on the film.

Q: Frame 313 is the one where we see the red halo, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, from your examination of the Zapruder film in this area and dealing with frames around 207 and 208, in this the area in which the President disappeared behind the sign in the Zapruder film?

A: Yes.

Q: Is this the last time you can see him?

A: The last time? It is not the last time you can see him because you can still see the top of his head, but it is the last time you see, well, at Frame 205 or Frame 206 are the frames where you last, as I recall, the frames where you last see the face, his face, and then he disappears behind the sign, you can still see the top of his head for several frames, as I recall.

Q: At Frame 205 and 206, can you describe for us what President Kennedy is doing as depicted in the Zapruder film?

A: I am not sure I could do that based on my recollection without having those photographs, specific frame photographs in front of me. My recollection is that as he disappeared behind the signboard, he is turned slightly to his right, his arm is up and he is waving and smiling. Now, that is still in progress, my recollection is that is the last we see of the President as he goes behind the signboard, he is still waving and smiling to the crowd and turned slightly to his right.

Q: What is the first frame that you saw the President come from behind the sign?

A: That is Frame 225, when we first see the President's face.

Q: And what are the President's reactions or actions or motions at that particular time that you saw the Zapruder film?

A: It would be frames -- I would have to relate it to Frames 225 or 226 and 227, because the first frame is a rather indefinite frame because you don't get the movements and you have to see the motions of those first frames to get the feeling of it, but I get the impression of a reaction as he is coming out from behind, he is no longer smiling and he is -- his face appears to be more tense and seems to be reacting to something.

Q: In Frame 225, Frame 226, did you see him still waving?

A: No.

Q: What was he doing in regards to his hands, as you recall?

A: Of course, Frame 225, only the face is visible, just emerged from the signboard, the shoulder is not visible, and in Frames 226 and 227 his hands are more in a position as -- he was going to -- his left hand before he went behind the signboard was on his left lapel with this hand raised, and as he comes out this other hand was more over towards the right lapel or this position and in the succeeding frames, 226, 227, 228, he is going into -- his arms are coming up and he is going into a position with his arms raised and his hand raised towards his coat lapel or towards the center of his body.

Q: Now, in using Frame 208, you say the last frame you could see the President before he goes behind the sign, Frame 225 and Frame 226 as he comes out from behind the sign, how many frames is that, Mr. Shaneyfelt, 208 to 225?

A: Your question was that I said he went behind the sign at 208, I said he went behind the sign at 205 and 206, I believe.

Q: All right.

A: To 225?

Q: Right.

A: That is twenty frames.

Q: Now, using the Zapruder camera, the pictures at an average of 18.3 frames per second, how much time elapsed during that period between 205 and 225?

A: That would be slightly more than one second, since you have 18.3 frames per second, twenty frames would be just two frames past or about one-ninth of a second, approximately.

Q: At Frames 225, 226 and 227, can you tell us what the reactions are, what Governor Connally was doing?

A: Governor Connally was, when we first see Governor Connally in Frame 222, in the film, he is turned slightly to his right, as I recall, and then in succeeding frames his body is turned more straight and slightly to the left, as I recall, I can't be too sure of that because --

Q: After Governor Connally, as you have testified, seemed more straight, what was Governor Connally doing in succeeding frames after this?

A: He falls over into his wife's lap.

Q: Can you tell us at what frame this is?

A: No, I can't, without reference to the exhibits or some photographs.

Q: From having viewed this photographic evidence, Mr. Shaneyfelt, what is your expert opinion, sir, as to when President Kennedy was hit for the first time, between what frames?

A: Well, I am not sure that my expertise is in that field, but he is waving before he goes being the sign at 205 and 206, and that Frames 225, 226 and 227 he appears to be reacting, and it is my impression the shot would have occurred then somewhere between Frame 205, and 206, 210, up to Frame 222 or even as far as 230, I could not pinpoint it any closer than that because I haven't experience in that field.

Q: At which time the car, the Presidential limousine was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Is that correct?

A: The majority of that time it is behind the sign.

Q: And further having examined the Zapruder film, can you give us your expert opinion as to when Governor Connally was hit, and approximately what frame does it reflect?

A: In my examination of the photographs, I found no particular frame where there is any specific reaction, and my opinion would have to be based more on his position and obviously it is before he feel into his wife's lap, but I fee that it is my opinion that he was hit about Frame 2-- well, I feel that he had been hit by Frame 231 to 232, by that time he had been hit, somewhere prior to that I feel -- my opinion is that he was hit about the same time as President Kennedy was, there is not such a marked reaction so there is nothing in the film that can tell me at what frames he was hit, not knowing enough about human reactions, I really have difficulty answering that.

Q: In relation to Governor Connally's reaction, did you have occasion in your examination of the Zapruder film to measure the area of Governor Connally's shoulders as to whether or not there was an quick movement or downward movement in Governor Connally's shoulders as it appears in the Zapruder film?

A: I found nothing of that nature during my examination of the film.

Q: Did you measure this to ascertain it?

A: I did not measure it.

Q: Did you have occasion in your examination of the Zapruder frames in relation to Governor Connally to examine the facial area of Governor Connally as he appears in the Zapruder film to ascertain as to whether or not there is a sudden puffing of his cheek area?

A: I did not measure that.

Q: Between Frames 205 and Frame 232 of the Zapruder film, approximately how much time elapsed using the Zapruder film, the Zapruder camera on the clock, 205 and 232?

A: That would be twenty-seven frames, approximately 1.4 seconds, between Frames 205 and Frame 232.

Q: Now, in doing these frames, I think you had marked on there 207 and 208 on the plaque, is that correct?

A: I believe that is right, 207 and 208.

Q: Between Frames 207 and 208 of the Zapruder film and Frame 223 and 225 on the plaque, were you able, were you all able to calculate what the vertical angle was from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?

A: Yes. The angle measured at Frame 207 and 208 and then 222 -- you said 227 and 228?

Q: 225.

A: 225, yes, all right, that vertical angle to the window of the sixth floor of the Depository building was determined.

Q: And what was that angle?

A: I can get it from the plaque. You asked for the average --

Q: The average --

THE COURT: This might be a good time for us to take a break, Sheriff. Take the Jury upstairs. We have not coffee for them. We will take a five-minute recess.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)


Back to the top




Back to Shaw trial testimony

Search trial database chronologically

Additional resources on the trial of Clay Shaw


Search this site
    powered by FreeFind

Back to JFK menu

Dave Reitzes home page


CLICK HERE for your free counter from people have visited this site!