Back Yard Photography

First topic message reminder :



The Most Incriminated Man In the World. 


All fun aside the new CTKA article was pointed out by Bart.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP4.html

One point made was, 
30) If the backyard photos were faked, it means that all items within the photo were deliberately chosen by the forgers. The odd inclusion on the Oswald figure is then the pistol. It invokes the Tippit slaying, but how could the Tippit slaying be anticipated months ahead? Perhaps a shootout with the pistol-carrying assassin was the anticipated event.


Was slaying of Tippit with an automatic pistol changed to match the picture of a revolver. More likely they knew LHO had purchased a pistol in Fort Worth.  

Or were the photos composited onto an empty backyard photo after Tippits murder thus the need for a pistol wearing murderer.





When you examine the photos the shadows under the stairs do not change yet the shadow of LHO does, denoting time between images.
This would lend credence to Oswald's being composited onto a single image. See images below.



Again the stairs shadow is the same, note its appearance on the blanket etc. yet the "oswald" shadow has changed implying time between photos.

In fact the shadow of the rifle is at a different angle than the holder of rifle in second pose.

Of note is the bag or sack, or "blanket" possibly used to carry the rifle to the location, under the stairs by the post. Possibly a connection to the baby blanket later claimed to hold a disassembled rifle. 



In this image is a black 'thing' sticking out of the fence known as the black dog nose. It is likely light leak from the compositing process.


No black sports shirt with two white buttons was not on clothing inventory of LHO.

Do the black pants look like dress pants or more like work pants?


Do you think these are black dress pants?  


Please respond to the questions raised first, then we can expand the post to other areas of the BYPs.

Cheers, Ed

Jake Sykes wrote:

Mick Purdy wrote:

Jake Sykes wrote:

Mick Purdy wrote:We also have to note, that if we subscribe to the idea that that the figure in the BYP (Minus the face/head) was actually photographed standing in the backyard with the items in the figures hands then what do we make of the supposed claim of manipulated body shadows falling on the ground.

Why would the body's shadows on the ground need alteration if that person really did stand in the backyard at Neely St?

It's true that if he had Marina take them, then the shadows needn't be altered. I threw it out here on the principle that until we know for sure, we should consider alternatives to our own theories. I do agree the evidence does suggest alteration of the shadows.

I think that's what does your head in Jake. For the life of me the figure (minus the face from the chin up) looks like it actually stood in the back yard at Neely Street. I've read all the arguments for shadow alteration/manipulation and I keep asking why if thats actually the figure standing in the backyard in the BYP.

I fail to see the cut out of any of the body or the weapons and the newspaper. It's got me stumped. Could it be they were that good at the post work we cannot detect the insertion of the Oswald figure into the Neely Street backyard on an empty frame of same.

The black clothes are what make me think it is possible Mick. No expert I but intuition says black clothing would be easier than white for dropping it in. I'm agnostic though. More interested in truth than being right.

Same here Jake, just want to know the truth, whichever way it falls. I have worked with still photos in the darkroom albeit many moons ago. I have worked on basic masking composite work. It's was quite complex. I'm no expert either with regards to stills though, moving pictures are my thing. 

But I absolutely believe the pics have been faked. Power line shadows, (ROKC), impossible neck shadow, and even the nose shadow (I know). If I didn't know any better I'd say somebody was taking the piss with regards to the body shadows, especially from the 133a and the straight edge line which looks almost drawn in. And the same in 133b with the rifle shadow. And yet the masking composite work in places looks staggeringly well done. I know the chatter on most of the other sites has the photos pegged as quite simple darkroom work and executed by non pro's - IMHO I'm not so sure. But this is the point, the problem left for us I guess. 

I don't believe Lee Oswald stood at Neely St with the rifle and newspapers in his hands with the gun in the holster on his right hip - not there or anywhere else for that matter.
I'm left to contemplate the following that the figure in the BYP we see in 133a, 133b, 133c, CE134 (8x10), Stovall133a Stovall133c, Dees133c and Dem's 133a was,:

1. snapped without the items standing at Neely St.
2. Snapped with the items standing at Neely St.
3. snapped without the items at a different location.
4. snapped with the items at a different location.
In all scenarios I believe they placed a photo of Oswalds face onto the torso of the figure at around the chin area.

Looking at the weapons only - the masking work done here if the weapons were placed onto the figure after the shot had been taken is extraordinary. The fine detail especially around the rifle barrel would have required expertise beyond my comprehension. So I lean toward the figure holding the items when the photo was taken.
But then we look at 133b and the left arm of the figure where it meets the hand holding the newspapers, it seems almost like somebody has stuck another hand on the wrist. 

For me it comes back to how easy did they want to make this procedure. Snapping a figure in the actual location actually holding the incriminating items would have been the easiest course to take. There is so much to like about this route. I think it would have been the obvious way to go. But then I have to ask myself why the shadow anomalies. That's a valid point.
I have to ask myself why if you'd taken the shot at the actual location would anyone want to mess with the "real" body shadows.

for me 133a is the best of the set as far as the feel and look of authenticity goes, we know the cops made 133c vanish, did they stuff it up and not vanish 133B as well?

So that they were left with one pic. Don't know.
On so many levels some of the composite work in the set of pics is so well done it's undetectable, and yet it seems on other levels it's bordering on amateurish. Like two different people had worked on them.

Ok gents, between Mick breaking it down into the different possibilities for the various parts being assembled in different ways/times (in combo with the apparent photographic integrity of remaining parts of the figure) and Greg's validation and enhancement of what I was trying to formulate regarding Marina and Gary having a relationship and taking photos together, comments have combined to stimulate a thought: 

Assuming Gary had the right body type, what if it was originally a photo of Gary holding June in his arms? Most of the body would be correct except for the arms and except for the shadows. The arms look processed and so do the shadows. The fidelity of the shadows to the weapons is remarkable, but that shadow could have been accurately simulated and then adapted to the photo. The part about this that I really like is that it could explain the cattywonkis center of gravity thing. Is the torso position (and the weirdness of it) actually reflecting the the counter-weighting effect of June's weight in Gary's arms? Was that the photo for June "to remember him by"?

[size=16]On November 3, 1962 Gary Taylor would help rent a trailer for Oswald, then assist in the relocation of Marina and June, with belongings, from Fort Worth to a new home at Apartment 2 – 604 Elsbeth, which Lee had arranged the week before. [size=12]11Three days later, Marina moved out, allegedly the result of a bad argument sparked by her conversation with the wife of the Elsbeth apartment’s building supervisor. Marina and June shuttled between three White Russian homes for two weeks before another reconciliation with Lee was achieved on November 18. On November 22 the Oswalds attended a Thanksgiving dinner hosted by his brother Robert in Fort Worth. Several snapshots of the Oswald family were taken at the Fort Worth bus depot’s Photo-mat booth, the only specific instance of “family-type snapshots” from the period that Marina could later recall.[/size]


[/size]

Gary Taylor: “Some of the baby's toys – a ball and something or other – were out there on this porch.”

_________________

Greg posted:


One of the astute observations of Jeff Carter:


Taylor was able to recall a specific image: “this apartment in question had a small balcony on the front of it and I remember the door was open and I thought what a nice place for the baby to play and some of the baby's toys – a ball and something or other – were out there on this porch.”





Did Taylor take those balcony photos? 

There is also this very strange comment from Marina's testimony in regard to why the backyard shots were being taken:

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't attach any significance to what he said at the time, but he added, "That maybe some day June will remember me." He must have had something in his mind – some grandiose plans.  

I guess Oswald might have said this if he did not expect to live much longer - and that is hinted at in the so-called Walker letter - though there is much doubt about that letter as well.

Also, he already had a similar photo inscribed to Junie on the back... while none of these were inscribed to her. The one inscribed would be sufficient for June to remember her father by, should he die young.

But what if it wasn't Lee who Marina is quoting here? What if she was having an affair with the newly single Taylor? Might he have said it, realizing that the affair had no chance of becoming a long-term thing? Was it Taylor in those BYP... taking the Micky out of Lee. giving one to DeM inscribed on the back in Russian to "Hunter of Fascists"... which in itself may be an inside joke referring back to the original photo taken in Minsk of Oswald holding his HUNTING club shotgun?

FROM MARINA'S HSCA
Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say? 
Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha." 
Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"? 
Mrs. PORTER. Yes. 
Mr. McDONALD. "Ha, ha, ha." 
Now if you will look closely, there is a possibility that if you look you will see the handwriting, the dark handwriting, it appears that someone might have wrote over the original handwriting. You can see underneath. 
Mrs. PORTER. I can see something, right here that looks like have been erased and copied over. 
Mr. McDONALD. Or possibly someone wrote over it just to bring out a light handwriting underneath. But nevertheless, does any of that look like your handwriting? 
Mrs. PORTER. Like mine? 
Mr. McDONALD. Yes. 
Mrs. PORTER. No. 
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall ever writing such a phrase on that photograph? 
Mrs. PORTER. No, but it would sound like me. 
Mr. McDONALD. It sounds like you? 
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, and at first, you know, I thought it look like my handwriting, but when I examine I do not, like letter "f," I do not print it that way, and "t." I am talking about Russian description, not English. 
Mr. McDONALD. You are saying you don't print it that way now. How about in 196---- 
Mrs. PORTER. No, it wasn't habit. 
Mr. McDONALD. So it sounds like something you would have written but you can't identify your handwriting. 
Mrs. PORTER. When one letter is scratched underneath, I mean marked underneath, it is a sound in English like "s" and "h," "sha" sound. That is not necessary to put this marking on it, but it is typical of some Russians do. 
Mr. McDONALD. Is it typical of the way you would have written then in 1963? 
Mrs. PORTER. Pardon me? 
Mr. McDONALD. Is that peculiarity--- 
Mrs. PORTER. Well, that would be typical for Russian to write it, but at the same time another letter--- 
Mr. McDONALD. Excuse me, just so everyone understands what letters we are talking about. 
At this point I was referring to Ms. Jackie Hess who was pointing out the Russian letters. [Jackie, who is a staff member, speaks Russian.] 
Mrs. PORTER. It is the third letter in the second word. "F A," and then another one that looks like--Yes? 
Mr. McDONALD. She speaks Russian? 
Mrs. PORTER. She does? 
And "t," it is not necessary to put this mark underneath as well, but it is kind of habitual, not habitual. It is a habit of some Russians to do that. But this letter "ha," in the first word after "0," this is something like maybe foreigner would try to write it, you know, to copy Russian language. 

Taylor testified to not knowing Russian. Marina disavowed it being in her hand based on the formation of specific letters, but she did suggest the writing was similar to hers. Was this written by Ruth Paine with someone going over it in an attempt to copy Marina's handwriting?

We know Oswald never had those black clothes after the assassination. If he was not living at Neely, Lee would not have known about this photo shoot. Did Taylor and/or his photographer associate then place Oswald's head over his own?  Marina would not have kept those photos. 

Maybe the BYP (except for the DeM version) ended up with the Paines?

In the context of taking the piss out of Lee with an inside joke, I can see them using both newspapers, either not knowing the two parties were opposed to each - or that being the very reason both were used... as part of the inside joke.  

Just more thinking out loud. A photo of Taylor would help enormously.

And whilst I'm not buying into the whole Lee and Marina constantly quarreling evidence - an alleged Taylor / Marina affair would explain any bickering between Oswald and her should he have suspected that was happening.

Near the beginning of October 1962, George de Mohrenschildt’s daughter Alexandra and her husband Gary Taylor were invited to a modest gathering held at Oswald’s Mercedes Street apartment in Fort Worth. For the Taylors, this was their first meeting with the Oswalds, and as they were not Russian speakers, the interaction with their hosts was limited. Even so, as the occasion concluded a few hours later, Marina Oswald gathered clothes and her infant daughter, and joined the Taylors for the drive back to their apartment in Dallas, where she would then stay for almost a week. 



On November 3, 1962 Gary Taylor would help rent a trailer for Oswald, then assist in the relocation of Marina and June, with belongings, from Fort Worth to a new home at Apartment 2 – 604 Elsbeth, which Lee had arranged the week before. 11Three days later, Marina moved out, allegedly the result of a bad argument sparked by her conversation with the wife of the Elsbeth apartment’s building supervisor.



The Oswald’s domestic situation is notable for its instability throughout the autumn of 1962, coinciding with George de Mohrenschildt’s efforts as their benefactor.



The Oswalds moved again soon after the Magnolia Oil party, on March 3, 1963 to 214 West Neely Street, a short distance away. 





Known visitors to this address included a few members of the White Russian community, the de Mohrenschildt’s once or twice, Michael Paine once and Ruth Paine several times, and also Gary Taylor, George de Mohrenschildt’s now estranged son-in-law. He came by the apartment one afternoon, when Lee Oswald was at work.

Gary Taylor: “Some of the baby's toys – a ball and something or other – were out there on this porch.”

I've always leaned toward the BYP's having been taken on a large format camera or at least an expensive model camera and then rephotographed the finished results with the Imperial Reflex. I'm not sure if that works with what we know about the films numbering and or other photo's allegedly taken with it but that's my thoughts.

CE 133b. JFK Archives.






Note the arm holding the newspaper and the hand gripping the paper along with the way the arm appears twisted.
Note also the impossibly sharp accessories on the gun in the holster. (may have been drawn in by persons unknown in later years)
Note the rifle shadow in relation to the actual position of the rifle being held.
Note Oswald's hair in the middle and to the front of the head.
Note the neck shadow from the right ear down to the collar line. 

Obviously this is an internet copy and may have been manipulated by somebody before posting online.
I have looked at all the copies of CE133b online  from the most reputable sites and  all copies seem to have the same anomalies.

Mick Purdy wrote:I've always leaned toward the BYP's having been taken on a large format camera or at least an expensive model camera and then rephotographed the finished results with the Imperial Reflex. I'm not sure if that works with what we know about the films numbering and or other photo's allegedly taken with it but that's my thoughts.

Jake's idea that Taylor was holding Junie works for me.

But you've preempted my next concern: the Imperial Reflex.

To me, Marina's disavowing any memory of the IR plus having no idea  it was not held up to the eye, were credible. If they owned that camera and she admitted taking the photos (or one photo, as she initially said), why not admit owning the camera?

The IR was cheap and nasty... not the sort of camera someone like Taylor would own. And given his work and love of photography, it makes sense he would have his own camera in his car most of the time.

From September 1963, he worked for the Sellers Co which made radio and TV ads. Prior to that, he said he had been self-employed in the motion picture business in Dallas... though he later clarified that this too, was primarily making ads for TV.  

I am assuming that these places had facilities for still photography as well, for inclusion in ads and that they had a good deal of expertise in photo manipulation for the making of the ads. Moreover, if Taylor was self-employed in this industry during the time he knew the Oswald's, he would have flexible working hours. 

Let's look at the problems identified in Jeff C's piece.
------------------------------
A counterfeiter creating such forgeries would require: 

access to the Neely Street backyard;

If Taylor was self-employed, he could have visited any time he wanted.

assistance from at least one other person; 


Take your pick of any number of candidates.


access to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and a pistol; 

As indicated in other threads, there is reasonable suspicion that Ruth ordered and collected those items.

access to the specific issues of The Worker and The Militant;

Not difficult if they were posted to Oswald at the PO box or to Ruth's home.

access to the Imperial-Reflex camera; for superimposition

The critical issue is "who owned it"? Taylor I believe had access to the type of technology required to make very good fakes.

and access to a photo featuring Oswald’s face (or two or three similar photos of Oswald ) 

Might some photos have  been taken that never surfaced?

Dallas Police recreations staged at the location on November 29,1963 show mature flowered plants behind the subject and therefore date the backyard photos themselves, or at least a photo of the backyard used for a later composite, as generated some months ahead of the assassination.

That appears to be plausible.

The counterfeiter would likely possess knowledge of a plot involving Oswald. 

Or was having a joke at his expense. In March, the only plausible plot involving Lee was the Walker incident, but there is no reason to believe it was anything but a publicity stunt. Framing him for JFK becomes plausible if the fakes were made from Sept on.

Alternatively, it cannot be ruled out that photos were taken in the Neely St backyard featuring an unknown male subject for a reason unrelated to the future assassination, possibly with Oswald’s assistance, and then later appropriated for another purpose by superimposing Oswald’s face.

Also plausible.

Jessica Shore has tracked down a partial description of Taylor for me from 1978.

6ft, gray eyes, brown hair, white male.

She is still looking for a pic.

I'll let those with actual skills in and knowledge of photography to decide if the height alone rules him out.

The height would preclude him (Taylor) as a candidate (Subject) IMO Greg. But that does not preclude him from taking the photos. Who was Taylor's photographer mate?

Ruth took Marina out for  the day while Gary and the photographer did their work...just a thought.

Mick Purdy wrote:The height would preclude him (Taylor) as a candidate (Subject) IMO Greg. But that does not preclude him from taking the photos. Who was Taylor's photographer mate?

Ruth took Marina out for  the day while Gary and the photographer did their work...just a thought.

I thought that may be the case.

HSCA talked to him
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32256841.pdf?fbclid=IwAR05wy1_5hNiaB1ZHA5qRkEgmNhamwWNEWCcJIweLSZ5dJ7S9LX7vtoaSG8

(link courtesy, Jessica Shore)

Interesting that by '78, he was working as a cab driver - also note 3 arrests pre-assassination for loitering!

She also found this person and I have to wonder if he might be the friend referred to. If not, it's likely he would know who it was.
https://sandlander.blogspot.com/2017/10/2724.html?fbclid=IwAR0YIH7htGnldWcdoiQvcW8BI3h4-sSJ12C_lVaP3WnnjGsGknXNDJVA9kw

In the HSCA intrview, Taylor names his photographic buddy as R (Ralph) K Johnson. He added that Johnson died in 1967...

The plot thickens.

In August 1964, a guy named Joseph Graham advised the FBI that a friend of his, Larry Buchanan, had told him that a Ralph Johnson, a free-lance motion picture cameraman, had claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club while filming for a motion picture.

Johnson was interviewed and denied it.

It turns out that Larry Buchanan was the maker of the 1964 film, The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11867&relPageId=124&search="larry_buchanan"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11867&search="larry_buchanan"#relPageId=125&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133&relPageId=311&search="larry_buchanan"

greg parker wrote:The plot thickens.

In August 1964, a guy named Joseph Graham advised the FBI that a friend of his, Larry Buchanan, had told him that a Ralph Johnson, a free-lance motion picture cameraman, had claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club while filming for a motion picture.

Johnson was interviewed and denied it.

It turns out that Larry Buchanan was the maker of the 1964 film, The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11867&relPageId=124&search="larry_buchanan"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11867&search="larry_buchanan"#relPageId=125&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133&relPageId=311&search="larry_buchanan"

In 1963, the only film Buchanan and Johnson worked on was "Free White and 21"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free,_White_and_21

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95630&relPageId=133&search="larry_buchanan"%20and%20hollywood

Jake Sykes wrote:Ok gents, between Mick breaking it down into the different possibilities for the various parts being assembled in different ways/times (in combo with the apparent photographic integrity of remaining parts of the figure) and Greg's validation and enhancement of what I was trying to formulate regarding Marina and Gary having a relationship and taking photos together, comments have combined to stimulate a thought: 

Assuming Gary had the right body type, what if it was originally a photo of Gary holding June in his arms? Most of the body would be correct except for the arms and except for the shadows. The arms look processed and so do the shadows. The fidelity of the shadows to the weapons is remarkable, but that shadow could have been accurately simulated and then adapted to the photo. The part about this that I really like is that it could explain the cattywonkis center of gravity thing. Is the torso position (and the weirdness of it) actually reflecting the the counter-weighting effect of June's weight in Gary's arms? Was that the photo for June "to remember him by"?

After further consideration, it does not seem likely as far as Junie explaining the odd pose. Thanks for your kind support Greg, but having second thoughts. Unless it was just the legs and lower torso up to the belt line that was used, and then the upper torso added, and then the head added, it doesn't really wash plus I have no idea how on earth that could have been done.

greg parker wrote:

Mick Purdy wrote:I've always leaned toward the BYP's having been taken on a large format camera or at least an expensive model camera and then rephotographed the finished results with the Imperial Reflex. I'm not sure if that works with what we know about the films numbering and or other photo's allegedly taken with it but that's my thoughts.

Jake's idea that Taylor was holding Junie works for me.

But you've preempted my next concern: the Imperial Reflex.

To me, Marina's disavowing any memory of the IR plus having no idea  it was not held up to the eye, were credible. If they owned that camera and she admitted taking the photos (or one photo, as she initially said), why not admit owning the camera?

The IR was cheap and nasty... not the sort of camera someone like Taylor would own. And given his work and love of photography, it makes sense he would have his own camera in his car most of the time.

From September 1963, he worked for the Sellers Co which made radio and TV ads. Prior to that, he said he had been self-employed in the motion picture business in Dallas... though he later clarified that this too, was primarily making ads for TV.  

I am assuming that these places had facilities for still photography as well, for inclusion in ads and that they had a good deal of expertise in photo manipulation for the making of the ads. Moreover, if Taylor was self-employed in this industry during the time he knew the Oswald's, he would have flexible working hours. 

Let's look at the problems identified in Jeff C's piece.
------------------------------
A counterfeiter creating such forgeries would require: 

access to the Neely Street backyard;

If Taylor was self-employed, he could have visited any time he wanted.

assistance from at least one other person; 


Take your pick of any number of candidates.


access to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and a pistol; 

As indicated in other threads, there is reasonable suspicion that Ruth ordered and collected those items.

access to the specific issues of The Worker and The Militant;

Not difficult if they were posted to Oswald at the PO box or to Ruth's home.

access to the Imperial-Reflex camera; for superimposition

The critical issue is "who owned it"? Taylor I believe had access to the type of technology required to make very good fakes.

and access to a photo featuring Oswald’s face (or two or three similar photos of Oswald ) 

Might some photos have  been taken that never surfaced?

Dallas Police recreations staged at the location on November 29,1963 show mature flowered plants behind the subject and therefore date the backyard photos themselves, or at least a photo of the backyard used for a later composite, as generated some months ahead of the assassination.

That appears to be plausible.

The counterfeiter would likely possess knowledge of a plot involving Oswald. 

Or was having a joke at his expense. In March, the only plausible plot involving Lee was the Walker incident, but there is no reason to believe it was anything but a publicity stunt. Framing him for JFK becomes plausible if the fakes were made from Sept on.

Alternatively, it cannot be ruled out that photos were taken in the Neely St backyard featuring an unknown male subject for a reason unrelated to the future assassination, possibly with Oswald’s assistance, and then later appropriated for another purpose by superimposing Oswald’s face.

Also plausible.

Greg great points as usual.

The more I'm thinking about this the more inclined I am to believe the use of and the allegation that it was Oswald's  Imperial Reflex camera which was used to take the incriminating BYP's was a ruse. Someone like for example Gary Taylor and his photography acquaintance imo most likely took the Backyard photos with a decent quality camera did the darkroom work and then took photos of the finished product on the Imperial Reflex camera or something similar. 

There are pics of Junie and Marina in IIRC allegedly taken on the Imperial reflex camera which look more like the quality one would expect from that sort of camera, quite different to say CE133a

I need to confirm this but that's my recollection.

Fact or Fiction?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/12/03/marina-and-ruth

Interesting article. 

In the period just after the assassination, Marina had a brief affair with Lee’s brother, Robert Oswald. Their involvement may have provided the chance for revenge against a brother and a husband; surely it made the growing distance between Marina and Ruth even less bridgeable. Marina was now subject to both Robert’s viewpoint and her own shame; 

Allegedly when Ruth Paine visited. Imperial Reflex? Ruth Paine snapping Marina and Junie?

Mick Purdy wrote:

Allegedly when Ruth Paine visited. Imperial Reflex? Ruth Paine snapping Marina and Junie?

These are from New Orleans aren't they?

Jake Sykes wrote:

Jake Sykes wrote:Ok gents, between Mick breaking it down into the different possibilities for the various parts being assembled in different ways/times (in combo with the apparent photographic integrity of remaining parts of the figure) and Greg's validation and enhancement of what I was trying to formulate regarding Marina and Gary having a relationship and taking photos together, comments have combined to stimulate a thought: 

Assuming Gary had the right body type, what if it was originally a photo of Gary holding June in his arms? Most of the body would be correct except for the arms and except for the shadows. The arms look processed and so do the shadows. The fidelity of the shadows to the weapons is remarkable, but that shadow could have been accurately simulated and then adapted to the photo. The part about this that I really like is that it could explain the cattywonkis center of gravity thing. Is the torso position (and the weirdness of it) actually reflecting the the counter-weighting effect of June's weight in Gary's arms? Was that the photo for June "to remember him by"?

After further consideration, it does not seem likely as far as Junie explaining the odd pose. Thanks for your kind support Greg, but having second thoughts. Unless it was just the legs and lower torso up to the belt line that was used, and then the upper torso added, and then the head added, it doesn't really wash plus I have no idea how on earth that could have been done.

It sounded very plausible to me until his height was discovered.

I remain concerned about the comment about having something for June to remember him by. Just doesn't sit well as a comment Lee would make.

greg parker wrote:

Mick Purdy wrote:

Allegedly when Ruth Paine visited. Imperial Reflex? Ruth Paine snapping Marina and Junie?

These are from New Orleans aren't they?

They are from New Orleans Greg. This set and the Walker House snap along with the BYP's were attributed to the Imperial reflex camera by the HSCA Panel. I may have this wrong but I think this set from New Orleans is when Ruth Paine visited her. If that is true then she would be the person taking the photos of Junie and Marina and according to the HSCA panel with the Imperial Reflex camera.