Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Jon G. Tidd

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

Recommended Posts

IF Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs. AND he was weighed at his last arrest date at 131 lbs (on a scale, presumably) AND you assert that 3 people estimate him at between 150 and 175 pounds - how DO you propose he gained 20 pounds in that short amount of time?

Nobody is suggesting that LHO gained 20 pounds in two days. The three people who estimated his weight simply THOUGHT he looked like he weighed more than he did. That's all.

Why on Earth are you playing dumb and pretending like you don't realize the basic point I was making about those three weight estimates?

Those THREE people (Baker, Brennan, Dallas coroner) all were looking at LHO....and ALL THREE estimated his weight as being somewhere between 150 and 175 pounds. But Oswald very likely did not weigh that much at all. And yet we have three people in Nov. '63 who thought that he did weigh that much.

The actual and TRUE weight of Oswald is totally irrelevant in this discussion. It's what those three witnesses THOUGHT Oswald's true weight was that is relevant.

Do you really not understand this, Glenn?

And my second question was (implied) - why bother correcting the man if that 150 pounds "could easily have been wrong," "was just an estimate", and "not mattering in the long run"... just something to do, split hairs with someone...?

I already explained this in my last post. Go read it and find out.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Footnote/Addendum:

Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on

"November 22, 1963", and not on November 25.

However, author Vincent Bugliosi was of the opinion that the FBI did take Oswald's prints after his death on November 25 at Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, Texas. [see pages 413-415 of Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".]

I, however, tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) A case cited by the defendant, the only evidence tending to establish guilt consisted of fingerprints found on a jewelry box recovered outside the complainant's apartment in an area accessible to the public.   In this circumstance, the Appellate Division ruled that such evidence “was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”   The judgment of conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed.  People v. Richard Collins, 150 A.D.2d 476, 541 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2nd Dept.1989).



2) In the second case cited by the defendant, the evidence presented to a Grand Jury consisted largely of the testimony of a detective who had investigated the alleged burglary of a church.  People v. John Jacob, 55 A.D.2d 961, 391 N.Y.S.2d 165 (2nd Dept.1977).   As stated by the Court:


"...entry had been gained by means of removal of louvers from a window at the side of the building.   The window was in a ‘fenced-in area’;  access could only be had by climbing over a 12-foot-high wall and fence.  (The detective) processed the louvers for fingerprints and discovered two prints which were subsequently identified as belonging to the defendant.   This evidence, even though unexplained and uncontradicted, would not warrant a conviction by a trial jury.  (Citation omitted.)   The evidence against the defendant was circumstantial and we are unable to conclude that the evidence adduced did ‘exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt.



3) [Therefore]... "In the opinion of this Court, the cases cited by the defendant do lend credence to the assertion that “fingerprints found on an item that was accessible to the general public is not sufficient to convict.”"





Exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt. (I just LOVE that phrase...)




this is obviously in reference to the strength of the fingerprint(s) in the TSBD and on the rifle, not on his fingerprint card.


Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more plausible, IMHO, that Baker and Brennan were coached, maybe even beforehand, on the descriptions (based on a 1960 Lee Harvey Oswald FBI / CIA "marked card" in which Oswald was described as being a Robert E. Webster-like 5' 10", 165 pounds) they were to give the authorities in order to incriminate Oswald...

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh?

Yes

They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, ...

Yes

... but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it?

Almost, David. Almost.

The patsy-framers thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was 5' 10" tall and weighed 165 pounds because those were the biometrics that had been "given" to him way back in May of 1960 when FBI agent John W. Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald and in that interview she allegedly described her son, Lee, as being 5'10", 165 lbs, and having blue eyes. Fain's report with its false description of Oswald soon made its way to the CIA's Ann Egerter and Bill Bright and was quickly incorporated by the latter into the Agency's computerized Central Registry.

What's interesting for our purposes is that It just so happened that another "defector" (who really was 5'10", 165 lbs, had blue eyes, light brown wavy hair, and a face that somewhat resembled Oswald's) who was living in Russia at the time and who was trying to get permission from the Soviet authorities to return to the U.S. His name was Robert E. Webster of the Rand Corporation. The theory is that Oswald was "given" Webster's height, weight, and eye color in certain classified CIA documents so that those intentional inaccuracies could serve as "marked cards" in an ongoing "mole hunt" for "Popov's mole." .

The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that those false biometrics (5'10", 165 lbs) of Oswald were still circulating and / or being preserved in certain CIA documents at the time of the assassination, and my belief is that the patsy-framer was someone in U.S. intelligence (or an outsider who was privy to it) who was relying on the information in those aforementioned documents to be accurate descriptions of Oswald, but they weren't.

So yeah, the bad guys almost blew it, David.

Please bear in mind that Baker and Brennan weren't the only two witnesses to claim that "Oswald" / "The Assassin" was 5'10" tall and around 165 lbs.

There was also the mysterious, unnamed "witness" whom Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer allegedly relied upon for the description of the fleeing assassin -- "Early 30's, 5'10", 165 pounds" -- for the police radio broadcasts Sawyer made 10 to 15 minutes after the assassination. This alleged witness allegedly saw a man with those biometrics running away from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

--Tommy :sun

David,

Google "marked card" or "barium meal" if you want to. And "Popov's mole," too, while you're at it. Have you read Bill Simpich's "The Double Dangle"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Footnote/Addendum:

Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on

"November 22, 1963", and not on November 25.

However, author Vincent Bugliosi was of the opinion that the FBI did take Oswald's prints after his death on November 25 at Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, Texas. [see pages 413-415 of Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".]

I, however, tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

i happen to suspect the date at the top of that document more than the date ON the fingerprint form.

especially when this one shows the arresting officer's name on the Nov 22 63 form:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0196a.htm

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF VINCENT J. SCALICE

The following inked impressions were examined and compared at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978.

  1. 1) Fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    U.S. Marine Corps

    Service No. 1653230

    Prints taken by: Ogell W. Melam

    Date of prints: October 15, 1956

    Armed Forces No. 327925D

    Signed:Lee Harvey Oswald

  2. 2)Arrest fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    Dallas, Tex. Police Department

    Dallas No. 54018

    Commission exhibit No. 630

    Prints taken by: Not indicated

    Date of prints: November 25, 1963

    Individual fingerprinted refused to sign same

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/hand.htm

  3. 3) Arrest fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    New Orleans, Louisiana Police Department

    New Orleans No. 112-723

    Prints taken by: Arthur M. James

    Date of prints: August 9, 1963

    Not signed by Lee Harvey Oswald

  4. 4) Palm print impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    Dallas, Tex. Police Department

    Left hand No. 628

    Right hand No. 629

    Prints taken by: J.B. Hicks

    Date of prints: November 22, 1963

  5. 5) Fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    Dallas, Tex. Police Department

    Commission exhibit No. 627

    Prints taken by :J. B. Hicks

    Date of prints: November 22 1963

    The inked fingerprint and palm prints of Lee Harvey Oswald appearing on exhibits 1-5 are identical and are those of Lee Harvey Oswald.

    In addition, the following latent impressions were examined and compared with the inked fingerprint impressions of Lee Harvey Oswald at the latent print section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on June 8, 1978.

  6. 6) Latent fingerpoint designated 4a recovered from brown paper container (wrapping) and developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the left index finger (no. 7) of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  7. 7) Latent palm print, designated 4b, recovered from brown paper container (wrapping), developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  8. 8) Latent fingerprint recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5-millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial no. C2766, processed at the Dallas Police Department. It is of no value for identification purposes.
  9. 9) Lift from rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip at t. he gun barrel end of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.
  10. 10) Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  11. 11) Palm print recovered from small cardboard box A (commission No. 641), by Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the left palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  12. 12) Latent print (designated 2a) recovered from a cardboard box and processed by Federal Bureau of Investigation. I identified it as the right index finger (No. _0) of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  13. 13) Latent palm print recovered from the bottom of a cardboard carton marked D. developed by Dallas Police Department. I identified it as identical to that of right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  14. 14) Latent fingerprint recovered from page 37 of the American Rifleman (June 1963), developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An order blank for Klein's Sporting Goods Co. had been torn from page 59. I identified it as the right thumb (No. 1) Lee Harvey Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Date of prints: November 25, 1963

Individual fingerprinted refused to sign same

Yeah, as I've mentioned several times now, it would be a little difficult for Oswald to sign the fingerprint card

on November 25 seeing as how Lee had been dead for about 24 hours by that time.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i was replying to the claim that 8 HSCA 385 shows that the form is dated wrong, but this thread's all out of whack...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Date of prints: November 25, 1963

Individual fingerprinted refused to sign same

Yeah, as I've mentioned several times now, it would be a little difficult for Oswald to sign the fingerprint card on November 25 seeing as how Lee had been dead for about 24 hours by that time.

except that this Scalice fellow didn't seem to think so, since the document repeats the date of Nov 25. so something's wrong somewhere. I don't doubt you that LHO was dead by then. makes sense, and it's easy enough to validate.

nevertheless, the doc verifies the date...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever read either one of my most recent books?

Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once.

If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?-- then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more?

It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually have some DOUBT as to whether Oswald was dead on Nov. 25, Glenn? Or are you in "Sarcastic" mode again tonight?

~shrug~

Is this dispute over Oswald's being fingerprinted after death? Because I'm virtually positive he was. To my recollection it was SOP when suspects were killed that they be fingerprinted so the records would reflect they were dead, and not on the lam somewhere. It's also true that Rusty Livingston, in First Day Evidence, admitted that he was the one who took Oswald's prints. He said he did this on Sunday night.

From First Day Evidence:

"

As stated earlier, Rusty has an original fingerprint card that he and J. B. Hicks made of Oswald following his murder while his body lay in the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night. At that time, the Dallas Police Department used a small fingerprint card which was manufactured by the Faurot Company of New York. To use the card, an invisible chemical was placed on the victim's fingers, and the card was then rolled over them. The paper that the card was made from then reacted to the chemical from the finger, producing a print on the card. This type of card was typically used by detectives on deceased individuals in order to avoid leaving ink stains on a body already prepared for burial.

The reason Rusty and J. B. Hicks took a photograph and fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue was actually a routine assignment for the Crime Lab.

Rusty told me, "In fingerprinting, normally a lot of times we would have to go to a mortuary where a body had already been prepared for burial, and if we didn't get to it beforehand, we had to go to the mortuary and roll a set of prints. We did roll some prints while Oswald was in the morgue. He hadn't been prepared for burial."

Rusty and J. B. Hicks rolled at least three inkless cards and one inked card of Oswald that Sunday night in the Parkland morgue. Rusty retained one inkless card for his reference. The inked card was taken back to the Identification Bureau and was checked the following day against Oswald's prints taken the previous Friday. Rusty told me it was typical that, when a detective back at the office verified that the prints were indeed from the same person, the fingerprint card was usually initialed by him, showing it had been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you ever read either one of my most recent books?

Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once.

If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?--then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more?

It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.

Let's cut to the chase --- You're full of crap, Jimmy. And the worst part is that you don't even know it. (Or maybe you do, but you can't admit it.)

The bottom line on this is that you said something that was incredibly stupid and I called you on it. And now you don't like it. Well, that's just tough, Jimbo. And you can't walk it back. So you're stuck with that dumb quote from now until doomsday. You said something that is not supported by the facts in any way, shape, or form--and you damn well know it. And the incredibly stupid thing you said was this....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

The above quote doesn't come close to resembling the facts and the witness testimony of both Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly, and anyone with the ability to read the testimony (and to watch the video below) knows it.

And yet I am being chastised for "making stuff up". The irony is so delicious and thick, we'd need a chainsaw to slice through it.

You, Jimmy D., give new meaning to the words POT, KETTLE, and "MAKING STUFF UP".

You're a joke, Jimmy. And, yes, you're a clown. (There, I said it again. Cry me a river.)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

I'm still scratching my head about the "Refused To Sign" remark if the prints seen in CE630 were really taken on 11/25/63. And the HSCA doesn't seem to think the CE630 prints were taken on 11/25 either.....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0195a.htm

~big shrug~

And the fingerprint card signed by J.B. Hicks is dated 11-22-63. It is seen in CE627....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154b.htm

Did Hicks take Oswald's prints twice? He sure as heck never said a word in his Warren Commission testimony about fingerprinting Lee Oswald after he was killed. Hicks said he fingerprinted Oswald in Captain Fritz' office at the DPD....

Mr. BALL -- "Where were you when you took the prints?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I was in Captain Fritz' office. In other words, I made those on an inkless pad. That's a pad we use for fingerprinting people without the black ink that they make for the records."

~~~~~~~~~

Hicks also said this.....

Mr. BALL -- "Did you do anything else with respect to the investigation?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I don't recall anything outstanding that I did in the investigation further there. Now, I know we were all pretty well busy there until about 2 or 2:30 in the morning but most of it was, I would imagine regular office work and just back and forth if someone had asked did we get a picture of this and picture of that; well, I can't recall any other particular item that I might have done."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hicks.htm

~~~~~~~~~

Why wouldn't Hicks have told the Warren Commission that he had fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue if he really had done so and if it was merely "a routine assignment for the Crime Lab", as it says in the book "First Day Evidence"?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×