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
Douglas Caddy

How the FBI lost the rifle's fingerprints

Recommended Posts

Hi Mike K.,

There's testimony in the WC volumes to the effect that the Carcano can be assembled using nothing but just a regular ol' ten-cent piece. (Do you disagree with that?)

Re: the spacing of the shots....

There were several witnesses (at least 7 or 8) who said the shots were more "evenly spaced", instead of the last 2 being closer together. So there's certainly SOME conflicting testimony regarding that subject (although you'll never hear a CTer ever mention the eight witnesses I talk about in the post below when it comes to this topic)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 3:18 PM, David Von Pein said:
On 12/23/2017 at 4:19 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

David, is there a document stating that the latent palm print had finally been photographed? That's what we need.

CE637 is a picture of the palmprint. I can't see any distinct print there either, but do you really think the DPD & WC just introduced a BLANK CARD and then just SAID it had LHO's palmprint on it? The print is on that card---it's just very hard to see because the detail in the picture is not very good.

Plus....

Latona positively IDed CE637 as the palmprint of Oswald. Was Latona lying here too?....

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

David,

Apparently there remains fodder for CTers surrounding the palm print on the rifle.

First, we know that DPD Lt. Carl Day had found no identifiable latent fingerprints on the rifle by the time his work was interrupted and the rifle sent to FBI Headquarters in Washington D.C. The FBI found no latent prints at all.

According to this document, Day at one point had "raised" a latent partial palm print but ran out of time before photographing and lifting it. The pertinent question is, did Day actually photograph and lift that print before the gun was taken to Washington. He claimed he did, and claimed that he showed the print to FBI agent Vince Drain when Drain came to take the rifle. But Drain said he had no recollection of that.

In an October 1993 interview, Lt. Day said, "The prints on the rifle weren’t made the day of the assassination - or the day before that, or the day before that. The prints were at least weeks, if not months, old." So no prints from the day of the shooting were found.

According to Gerald Posner's book, the HSCA was able to determine that the lifted print came from the rifle.


Other Notes:

  • According to this document, the FBI found no trace of any latent print. And the FBI's examiner was unaware of the one supposedly lifted by Lt. Day of the DPD until November 29, the day he received the print from Dallas.

    So a period of one week went by before it was known that a palm print had supposedly been found on he rifle.
     
  • According to this document, Lt. Day sent the lifted palm print to the FBI on November 26. He said that two latent fingerprints remained on the gun -- yet to be processed -- when the FBI took the gun, and he thought one of them was their "best bet" (better than the palm print). And yet the FBI found NO latent prints.

    The "best" latent print remained on the gun for the FBI to process. And yet the FBI found NO latent prints at all!
     
  • According to Vincent Bugliosi's book, the way the HSCA determined that the print came off of the Carcano rifle is by comparing other marks that were lifted (e.g. rust) with the prints with marks on the rifle. Lt. Day did that.

    It's a shame we can't trust the HSCA.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Hi Mike K.,

There's testimony in the WC volumes to the effect that the Carcano can be assembled using nothing but just a regular ol' ten-cent piece. (Do you disagree with that?)

Re: the spacing of the shots....

There were several witnesses (at least 7 or 8) who said the shots were more "evenly spaced", instead of the last 2 being closer together. So there's certainly SOME conflicting testimony regarding that subject (although you'll never hear a CTer ever mention the eight witnesses I talk about in the post below when it comes to this topic)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Thanks for replying, David.

I've ready a few books that attempt to make it 4-6 bullet sounds.  But after speaking to 3 witnesses personally, each with the identical description and based in different areas of Dealey, I'm going with that.  So saying there were only 3 is somewhat anti-CT.  I think the WC and DPD have supporting witness testimony that backs it up - 3 shots, two coming on top of each other at the end.

Did Oswald have a dime on him when arrested?  So you think he dropped his bag in sniper's nest when he came into the building and then later put it together with a dime with the clock ticking there?

I'd love to see a re-creation of someone putting together a working Carcano with a dime in a few minutes.  At least one writer I've seen said he couldn't do it.

 

Edited by Mike Kilroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

From another discussion that took place in March 2013, I can offer up the following information regarding the palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day lifted off of Oswald's rifle....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

In an actual court proceeding, [Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day would have been impeached by Drain and LaTona [sic] to the point that he would [have] been laughable.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just exactly HOW would Vince Drain and Sebastian Latona have "impeached" Lt. Carl Day of the DPD?

You actually think something Drain and Latona said means that Day couldn't possibly have lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle on November 22?

If you DO really believe that, you've taken a trip deeper into Rod Serling's T-Zone than even I had figured.

I'll also add this:

Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a [L-word] regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799.

A key excerpt:

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print.

It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?"

But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted.

J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle."


-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History"

[Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.]

[Another related discussion can be found here.]
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIKE KILROY SAID:

Thanks for replying, David. .... Did Oswald have a dime on him when arrested?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, he sure did. He had three of them, in fact. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1148 for the coinage breakdown.)


MIKE KILROY SAID:

So you think he dropped his bag in [the] sniper's nest when he came into the building and then later put it together with a dime with the clock ticking there?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know exactly how, when, and where Lee Harvey Oswald managed to assemble his rifle within the Book Depository on 11/22/63. Nobody knows those details. Oswald took that information with him to his grave, unfortunately. But I have speculated about some of the things Oswald might have done after he got to work on November 22nd, and when he might have done them --- here.

Plus, FWIW, I think it's quite possible that Oswald might have temporarily hidden his rifle package out on the loading dock of the Depository when he first got to work on 11/22. More about that here.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have quite a lot of material on this issue on my website, that those with an interest should check out. The Fingerprints of Myth PowerPoint presentation should be of particular interest.

As far as DVP's claims about the palm print... he misses quite a bit.

1. In September, after questions were raised re the palm print, Day refused to sign a sworn statement in which he said he found the palm print on the rifle.

2. Hoover's claim Latona matched up artifacts on the lift which matched up with the rifle was contained in a letter written to the commission, and was never received in sworn testimony.

3. Latona was not recalled as a witness to make a sworn statement about the palm print.

4. No copy of Latona's report on the palm print has ever surfaced.

5. No photo showing the location of the palm print on the rifle has ever surfaced.

6. Although Day claimed he lifted the print on the 22nd, there is no record of him making this lift or comparing this lift to Oswald's prints in the DPD's files. I mean, just think about that. He lifts the print on the 22nd. And FAILS to do a comparison to Oswald's prints. Even though the DPD knows by the next day the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle. Then Oswald gets murdered. And the world wants to know if Oswald was the killer. And he STILL fails to perform a comparison to Oswald's prints, or even call the FBI and tell them he has a print that can tie Oswald to the gun. For two days... And then he sends the print to the FBI with no notice... If this isn't suspicious, well then, it sure is proof of incompetence....

 

As far as Day's integrity, etc... he is without doubt one of the least credible witnesses put on display by the commission.

He claimed HE found the palm print on the seat box, when it was really his assistant Robert Studebaker who discovered and signed the cardboard holding this print.

He made out that he inspected the paper bag in the building, when it was almost certainly "discovered" and removed while he was transporting the rifle to the police station.

He claimed he noticed signs photographers had been in the sniper's nest upon his return to the building on Sunday 11-24, when the photographers claimed he'd given them a personal tour of the sniper's nest on Friday 11-22, and even took pictures of him pointing out the window and the location where the rifle had been found.

He made out that the 11-25 sniper's nest re-enactment photos showed the window boxes from the 22nd, when they showed different boxes, including one marked up to look like the box from the 22nd.

He never revealed the whereabouts of the original boxes from 11-23--11-26, when they were presumably sent to Washington.

 

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I have quite a lot of material on this issue on my website, that those with an interest should check out. The Fingerprints of Myth PowerPoint presentation should be of particular interest.

As far as DVP's claims about the palm print... he misses quite a bit.

1. In September, after questions were raised re the palm print, Day refused to sign a sworn statement in which he said he found the palm print on the rifle.

2. Hoover's claim Latona matched up artifacts on the lift which matched up with the rifle was contained in a letter written to the commission, and was never received in sworn testimony.

3. Latona was not recalled as a witness to make a sworn statement about the palm print.

4. No copy of Latona's report on the palm print has ever surfaced.

5. No photo showing the location of the palm print on the rifle has ever surfaced.

6. Although Day claimed he lifted the print on the 22nd, there is no record of him making this lift or comparing this lift to Oswald's prints in the DPD's files. I mean, just think about that. He lifts the print on the 22nd. And FAILS to do a comparison to Oswald's prints. Even though the DPD knows by the next day the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle. Then Oswald gets murdered. And the world wants to know if Oswald was the killer. And he STILL fails to perform a comparison to Oswald's prints, or even call the FBI and tell them he has a print that can tie Oswald to the gun. For two days... And then he sends the print to the FBI with no notice... If this isn't suspicious, well then, it sure is proof of incompetence....

 

As far as Day's integrity, etc... he is without doubt one of the least credible witnesses put on display by the commission.

He claimed HE found the palm print on the seat box, when it was really his assistant Robert Studebaker who discovered and signed the cardboard holding this print.

He made out that he inspected the paper bag in the building, when it was almost certainly "discovered" and removed while he was transporting the rifle to the police station.

He claimed he noticed signs photographers had been in the sniper's nest upon his return to the building on Sunday 11-24, when the photographers claimed he'd given them a personal tour of the sniper's nest on Friday 11-22, and even took pictures of him pointing out the window and the location where the rifle had been found.

He made out that the 11-25 sniper's nest re-enactment photos showed the window boxes from the 22nd, when they showed different boxes, including one marked up to look like the box from the 22nd.

He never revealed the whereabouts of the original boxes from 11-23--11-26, when they were presumably sent to Washington.

 

 

A lot of good stuff here to put on the other fingerprint topic I created. Thanks Pat.

But I need to play Santa Claus now. Hopefully I'll remember to do this tomorrow!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mike Kilroy said:

David - I've always wanted to ask the lone nut theorist - where and when did Oswald assemble the rifle?  There was no screwdriver found in the 'sniper's nest.'  I never heard of any screwdriver being found on the Sixth Floor.  He HAD to assemble it on the 6th floor but there were people up there until as late as 12:15 - 10 minutes before the motorcade was due to pass by.  He couldn't assemble it on another floor and bring it up to the 6th.

The Carcano also broke down into about 9 different parts as I recall with screws.  Was all that stuff rattling around in the "lunch" bag that Wesley Frazier said in no way was big enough to even carry the disassembled rifle?  (And Wesley made a good point to me personally at the recent JFK Lancer conference - did the WC ever place the disassembled Carcano back in the bag that was found themselves to see if it fits instead of badgering him to say it did?).

And one more thing - the majority of witnesses said the shots came Pow!......[long pause].........Pow!Pow!

How did the Carcano, which the FBI said takes at least 2.5 seconds to recycle, manage those last two shots that were nearly on top of each other?

I said pretty much the same thing above elsewhere on this forum. It goes beyond reason that a gun with many parts in it would be "rattling around" that morning.  I'm no gun expert but after assembly you're supposed to also test fire the gun and sight the scope before actually using it.  We obviously know that that was never done.

Also, this cinches it for me as well.  This is from the FBI's own reenactment film they shot from the so-called sniper's nest:

FBI+reenactment+from+rear+photo.jpg

Note the white patch of the Kennedy stand-in's back, which is pretty accurate when you note where the hole is on JFK in the autopsy photo. How would the bullet be able to exit the throat that low on the back and even if it did exit, it wouldn't have even hit Connally. And we all know JFK is reacting to the so-called single bullet ans JBC doesn't react until seconds later.

But we all know that that back hole terminated right there where it went in - Humes said as much in the autopsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that the alleged palm print taken by Day would be credible in any real court of law has a screw loose, or maybe more than one.

It simply defies all logic that if Day had done so that he would not have a comparison ready, and at least verbally told Drain about it, or taped a note to the rifle, or given a note to Drain for LaTona.

When I talked to Tanenbaum about this matter he said two things:

1. You always photograph the print the minute you find it because there is a possibility you will lose it in the lift.

2. LaTona was the foremost authority on the subject in the land.  He had penned a pamphlet which was the universal guideline used in police departments on the subject.  Any DA felt lucky to be able to get him in court because everyone wanted the guy as his witness.

Its pretty obvious what happened here between what Sandy and Pat have produced. All one has to do is look at the evidence and the testimony.  Hoover was such a slime bucket.  So glad I wrote that chapter about him in Reclaiming Parkland, which will soon be reissued as JFK: The Evidence Today

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't there at least some Dealey Plaza ear witnesses who said the last shot sounded louder or more powerful than the first two?

Bang ............................ Bang ... BOOM ???

If so, could that more powerful sound wave effect have come from two shots being fired relatively at the same time? 

Another often repeated observation I know, but the shooter's accuracy improving as his target gets farther away defies logic. Especially in the JFK case.

The first and closest target shot misses completely. The second farther away shot hits JFK in the back, which as a lone wound he may have survived.

Then at 265 feet distance this two off-target shot shooter finally makes the perfect "bulls-eye" shot on JFK's cantaloupe sized head "while it is moving"  dramatically up and down and side-to-side ( JFK jerks up, comes back down, then turns to look at and even leans slightly toward Jackie then back forward and down again ) in a vehicle that is moving farther away ahead and dropping on a downward slope ... all at the same time?

That's "three - even four - noticeably effecting dynamics of movement" of JFK's head all during the lining up and firing time of the so-called third (and obviously hurried) shot.

Up and down, side-to-side, farther away and dropping downward on the slope of Elm street as it nears the overpass.

I know that hitting a bulls-eye on a "stationary" cantaloupe sized target not quite as far away as the length of a football field and brought even closer with a telescopic sight would probably be a somewhat easy feat. 

But move that cantaloupe in three or four ways simultaneously while trying that shot with a known inaccurate bolt action rifle and from a cramped position under life and death stress hurried circumstances ( Oswald or not the shooter must have known this could very well be a suicide mission ) and try this.

Now, if a second, more highly trained shooter in another less visible location versus the 6th floor open window and with a better quality rifle had only one shot to line up in this stressed 6 seconds, that last moving target bulls-eye makes doable sense.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/27/2017 at 9:08 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Weren't there at least some Dealey Plaza ear witnesses who said the last shot sounded louder or more powerful than the first two?

Bang ............................ Bang ... BOOM ???

If so, could that more powerful sound wave effect have come from two shots being fired relatively at the same time? 

Another often repeated observation I know, but the shooter's accuracy improving as his target gets farther away defies logic. Especially in the JFK case.

The first and closest target shot misses completely. The second farther away shot hits JFK in the back, which as a lone wound he may have survived.

Then at 265 feet distance this two off-target closer shot shooter finally makes the perfect "bulls-eye" shot on JFK's cantaloupe sized head "while it is moving"  dramatically up and down and side-to-side ( in the short time between the second and third shots JFK jerks his whole upper body up, comes back down, then turns his head to look at Jackie and even leans it slightly toward her, then moves his head back forward and down again ) in a vehicle that is moving farther away ahead and dropping on a downward slope ... all at the same time?

That's "three - even four - noticeably effecting dynamics of movement" of JFK's head all during the lining up and firing time of the so-called third (and obviously hurried) shot.

Up and down, side-to-side, farther away and dropping downward on the slope of Elm street as it nears the overpass.

I know that hitting a bulls-eye on a "stationary" cantaloupe sized target not quite as far away as the length of a football field and brought even closer with a telescopic sight would probably be a somewhat easy feat. 

But have that cantaloupe sized target move in three or four ways simultaneously while trying that shot with a known inaccurate bolt action rifle and from a cramped position in a hurried stop action, reload and re-sight way under life and death stress circumstances ( Oswald or not the shooter must have known this could very well be a suicide mission ) and see how far from easy a bulls-eye would be. 

Now, if a second, more highly trained shooter in another less visible location versus the 6th floor open window and with a better quality rifle had only one shot to line up in this stressed 6 seconds, that last moving target bulls-eye makes doable sense.

Felt the need to edit and repost my thread response above for the sake of clarity and coherency . My writing skills are awful.

I do feel there is worthiness regards the questions I present suggesting the improbable and illogical circumstances of the third bulls-eye shot on JFK's head.

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

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

×