« AnteriorContinuar »
this point, in view of the questioning, that perhaps I would have to have counsel, because I have no experts at my disposal.
Mr. MACDONALD. I think, if the counsel will pardon me I think it is pretty clear that the gentleman from the FBI identified these checks, and when I asked you directly was his testimony incorrect, you said "No."
Mr. GARSON. That is right. No, his testimony-
Mr. MANELLI. Just to complete the record, Mr. Chairman, at this point; I didn't ask Mr. Shaney felt when he was on the stand to give the committee a full account of his credentials. We could ask him now, not to take the stand necessarily, but to submit in writing a statement of his background and credentials, and we could insert it in the record.
I would ask that it be inserted here.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., August 3, 1970.
and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Re H. Neil Garson, Secretary, ICC; Request for Laboratory Examination.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter dated July 24, 1970, requesting the testimony of Special Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt at a Subcommittee hearing in this matter. Pursuant to your request Mr. Shaneyfelt appeared before your Subcommittee on July 29, 1970.
As requested at the conclusion of Shaneyfelt's testimony, there is attached a statement of his qualifications. Sincerely yours,
Johx EDGAR HOOVER, Director.
AUGUST 3, 1970.
QUALIFICATIONS OF FBI LABORATORY DOCUMENT EXAMINER LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT
Special Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt is employed as a document examiner in the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He holds a BC's degree from Southeastern l'niversity in Washington, D.C., and began his employment with the FBI in 1940. He was assigned as a photographer from 1940 until 1951. at which time he was appointed as a Special Agent. Following his Agents' training he was assigned to the FBI office in Detroit, Michigan, as an investigator from 1951 until 1952.
He was assigned to the FBI Laboratory in 1952 and was given a course of study to equip him to be a document examiner. He attended lectures, read recommended books on the subject, and conducted experiments. In addition, he worked with experienced document examiners during his training period. After approximately three years of such training he began making examinations on his own. For the past fifteen years, since completing his training, he has examined many thousand documents involving the comparisons of handwriting, typewriting, inks, papers, and related matters. He has testified in local, military, and Federal courts as a document examiner on numerous occasions and has been accepted by these courts as an expert in this field.
Mr. MacDONALD. I would like to ask a further question. Do you dispute the testimony of the gentleman from the FBI!
Mr. Garson. Frankly, I don't know how to dispute it. Mr. MACDONALD. You could say "No," you didn't write the check. That is the simplest way.
Mr. Garson. I did write the check and either my wife or I wrote the check or the checkbook-or check stub.
Mr. MACDONALD. Then what do you dispute?
Mr. GARSON. I dispute the contention that there was different-the contention is being made that I had prepared a different set of check stubs, and that is not so.
Mr. MACDONALD. The gentleman from the FBI testified at great length, and the only reason that I cut-not cut him off—but I asked you did you have any dispute about this, and you said "No."
So now how can you dispute it after you agreed what he said is correct?
Mr. Garson. I don't recall agreeing with him.
Mr. MACDONALD. Well, you didn't disagree, which amounts to the same thing.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Rogers. And you deny making any change in the stubs at all if none were redone. This is your sworn statement?
Mr. GARSON. That is right, sir.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, the witness earlier testified that he made a practice of carrying loose checks in his billfold, and when he utilized checks from his billfold, he made later entries in his checkstub book. I would presume on these occasions there might not be a match, but perhaps the witness would care to tell how often this practice was followed, how many of his checks were written thus, loosely, from his billfold, rather than torn at the point of writing from the checkbook at the time that the stub entry was made.
Mr. GARSON. This would have occurred on a number of occasions, but frankly I don't know how many times, because even today with respect to the $32 that was in question regarding my Houston trip, I gave Mr. Foley a check out of my-which was written from the one I carried in my billfold, and I don't know how long I have been carrying that particular stub, but-check-but
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. But this would not be more than one check in eight or 10 or 12, I assume, that would be so written?
Mr. Garson. It could be half a dozen, nine, or 10 or 11.
Mr. Moss. I said at the beginning of my questions to the document expert from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that I wanted to ask him for the purposes of clarifying, and the testimony was that the checkstub books K-1 through 4 had a consistent pattern, and that the Q series of checkstub books had a consistent pattern, the difference being that in the K series there was a matching of inks, of handwritings, of stubs. In the Q series, there was not a matching of check to stub, ink to ink, or pen to pen, although there was a matching of the person who had written it, and it is quite obvious from the photographs that they don't match and an examination, particularly of the one, this famous 2-4, it doesn't even begin to match.
It is obvious to the naked eye that it does not match.
Mr. Garsox. Well, I indicated that No. 2-A came out of my billfold, sir.
Mr. Moss. Well, that doesn't explain the others, and it doesn't explain the degree of consistency. You just said to Mr. Van Deerlin that it could be six or eight or 10 or more out of each group of 20, there has been a consistent pattern attested to here by a man who has appeared as a witness on behalf of the Government in many, many instances, has qualifications, I think, unexcelled, unmatched, and you are saying that this is some strange phenomenon.
If it only occurred, you couldn't print the checks, you couldn't perforate them on a machine and come up with the results you are asking this committee to buy.
I think you ought to have more respect for our intelligence than to try to throw this kind of stuff at us.
Mr. Rogers. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rogers. I find it strange, too, that you evidently didn't issue any checks out of your pocket in K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, K-5, K-6, and K-7, but you issued all the checks out of your pocket, evidently you would have them believe, out of Q-2, Q-3, Q-4
Mr. Van DEERLIN. No, he said out of, or up to a dozen out of 20.
Mr. Rogers. But the FBI agent says they don't match, even though they do in other series.
So in this one little time, you issued as many as nine or 10, and yet none of the other books you issued during quite a spread of time. Would this be consistent with your practice?
Mr. Garson. I don't quite understand the question, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. What I am saying is, your K-1 checkbook stub covered from the 2d to the 18th, September 2d to the 18th of October. Now, every one of those checks and stubs matched. This was true in your stub book K-2, in K-3, K-4. But then we come to Q-1, from the 7th of October up to the 5th of December, Q-2 from the 11th of November to the 30th of November, Q-3 from the 1st to the 17th of December, and Q-4 from the 17th to the 1st of January.
The FBI says none of those match.
Then, again, we pick up from the 10th of December to the 10th of January, from the 12th of January to the 15th of February, from the 12th of January to the 1st of February in other K series, and they all match.
Mr. Garson. Mr. Rogers, we used a number of different checkbooks at the time, and I can't explain the reason for the discrepancy, frankly, because, as I am sure the staff has found, there have been a number of different checkbooks used within the same month, and there would be different numbers.
Simply, that is the way I do my bookkeeping. Mr. Rogers. But they all matched in those numbers, except — Mr. GARSON. I can't explain the others. Mr. MACDONALD. I think that is a complete answer. You can't explain.
Mr. MANELLI. Mr. Chairman, in the curtailed explanation the witness gave, he was prepared to touch on two points that have come up with respect to the questions that have just been asked, so I would suggest that he be recalled to the table perhaps for two brief questions, or I can make a statement as to what I understand his tests showed.
Mr. MACDONALD. How long do you think it would take?
Mr. MACDONALD. Because we have a call in the House now. I would recommend that we do it now, if the committee's questioning can be held to a limit.
We will go off the record while the reporter changes the paper.
TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT—Resumed
Mr. MANELLI. Mr. Shaneyfelt, in the previous questioning by the members of the subcommittee a question was raised as to whether or not the results you noted in the Q series might have been the result of a person detaching a check out of a check stub book and carrying it in his pocket and then filling it out and then coming back and then perhaps filling out the wrong stub that did not match up with that particular check.
Now, is it my understanding from your testimony that the Q series is not a simple rearrangement of checks but that no check in the Q series matches up with any stub?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. MANELLI. So it is not a question of rearranging the checks. Did you make
any tests to determine, to demonstrate that the can. celed checks were written in order and came from the same book.
If you did, would you just explain it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, I did. I took the canceled checks for the Q series in the four different groups and as checkbooks are made and printed, they are cut out on power trimmers, that trim them down to the proper size.
This power trimmer quite often has nicks or imperfections in the blade that show up as little tears along the edge.
When I took the Q-1 checks and stacked them in order, they are numbered by the dates on them as they normally would have come from the check book and then fanned them out, and I found they had the tear mark from the cutter along there, and these cutters cut always in a diagonal.
They don't cut straight down.
Mr. MACDONALD. Could I interrupt, please, and to understand counsel, too. You know, this has been a fairly confusing thing, because of so much data, and K, P, R and S stuff.
What are we trying to prove now!
As I understand it, the witness has indicated that these checks are everything then that the gentleman from the FBI says they are.
Mr. MANELLI. I think there was a suggestion in the record, and I am not attributing it to the witness, that the discrepancy that the witness is here showing might have been a simple rearrangement of checks—what he is showing is that each check was written out in order, and that there was no rearrangement of the checks, and my previous question
Mr. MACDONALD. Will you too agree to that?
Mr. MACDONALD. Counsel, will you explain the question to the gentleman
Mr. MANELLI. Subject to correction from the staff, my understanding is that this test was made on all the Q series checks.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. MANELLI. Does that explain that the Q series checks were written in order-does what you are explaining now establish that the Q series canceled checks—and that is what you have the picture of, the checks themselves—actually came out of the same book?
You can answer the questions one at a time. Just give me a yes or a no now, and then explain.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. They came out of the same book in order and-
Mr. ROGERS. In other words, you are telling us in the Q series that these checks all came out of one book, and in order—and in the order in which they came?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
The Q-1's, all of those came out of one book. The Q-2's, all of those came out of another book in the order in which they are numbered.
Mr. ROGERS. In other words, contrary to what the witness said, that he took some out of his pocket
Mr. MACDONALD. My point is, if the gentleman will yield-
Mr. MACDONALD (continuing). My point is that the witness never said it was true.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think he did deny it.
Mr. MACDONALD. There is no question. The point has been made that everything in the series came out directly, everything in the Q book came out of Q book in order, and et cetera, and are you saying that this did not?
Mr. GARSON. I did not say that. I said I can't explain the differences between the check and the check stub, but I submit that each check and each stub match up as to the amount and as to
Mr. MACDONALD. That has got nothing to do with what the gentleman has been testifying about. He has been testifying that they came out of the same books, that they came out in order, and that there was no interruption of that, and I am saying to you, I am asking you, is that true, or not true?
Mr. GARSON. Frankly, I am not certain.
I think if you look at the picture there closely, you are looking at the checks sort of fanned out, so that you can get the view of each of them, the edge view of each of them, and the effect of a cutting blade in trimming those checks creates a pattern, and when you reassemble them in the order in which they were written, the pattern is consistent for each of the checks attributed to a book.