Mr. Redlich.

Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was taken by the camera which has been designated as Commission Exhibit No. 750.
You made that identification based on an examination of the negative from which Commission Exhibit No. 133-B was produced. At that time you indicated that you could not make such an identification of the source of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A because the negative had not been recovered.
I would like to ask you two questions: First, -to the best of your knowledge has there been any recovery made of the negative from which Commission Exhibit No. 133-A was made?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Redlich.

The second question is, why are you able to make an identification of the origin of Commission Exhibit No. 2 which is not a negative but a print, whereas you are unable to make an identification of Commission Exhibit No. 133-A which is 'also a print?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Because the identification of the origin of. the photograph or negative is based on the reproduction of the picture area of the camera or the opening in the back of the camera where the negative is exposed.
This appears as a shadowgraph on the negative, and is the basis for the identification. If a print is made from the negative that shows this shadow-graph, then ,the print can be used as a basis for the identification.
In the case of Commission Exhibit No. 2, which is a print of the alley in the back of the Walker residence, this shadowgraph appears around three of the edges of this photograph and, therefore, it has been used for such a comparison Commission Exhibit No. 133-A has been printed with a white border, and the shadowgraph portion of the negative has been blocked. out and does not appear on Commission Exhibit No. 133-A. Therefore, it was not possible to associate it with any. specific camera.

Mr. Redlich.

Will you proceed now to indicate the points of reference which enabled you to make the identification concerning Commission Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
In Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, in photograph B, point No. 1 is near the lower left-hand corner of the picture, and shows a depression in the black edge and a little point sticking out from the black edge into the white area of the picture.
This is caused by an irregularity in the camera area where the film lies across the back portion of the camera. This characteristic, which is No. 1 on photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23, appears in that same area which has been labeled No. 1 on photograph A of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
It appears as a shallow depression and a little black point coming into the white area. Farther along the right-hand side of the picture centrally located between the top and the bottom, are points 2 and 3 in photographs A and B on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23. These refer to two small notches in the black area where the white of the picture runs into the black line causing the appearance of two notches., one, the lower one, about twice the width of the upper one. This same characteristic is present in both photographs A and B.
Point No. 4 is an irregularity or a curve in the line on the right edge of the photograph in both A and B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Point No. 5 is a long shallow depression in the black edge, of the photographs A and B.
This point is located centrally on the right-hand border, and has the same appearance in both of the photographs on Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Point No. 6 is a little black point that comes out into the white area of the picture, and this, I found, in the lower right-hand corner of the photograph of the alley in back of the Walker house, which is photograph A on Exhibit No. 23, and is also present as point No. 6 in the photograph that I made from the camera which is photograph B of Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 23.
Based on these characteristics, it is my opinion that the photograph, which is Commission Exhibit No. 2, is a print of a negative that was exposed in the Duo Flex camera which is Commission Exhibit No. 750.

Mr. Redlich.

Is the. scientific method which you have used to make this identification sufficiently precise so that you are able to state that this negative was exposed in Commission Exhibit No, 750 to the exclusion of all other cameras?

Mr. Shaneyfelt.

Yes.