David Von Pein

My crystal ball is broken. Sorry. I don't know for sure who Joe Smith encountered. I think it was probably James Powell, but maybe it was somebody else. I was thinking just yesterday of the remote possibility that it could have been SS Agent Lem Johns (who we know was stranded in Dealey Plaza for a brief period immediately after the assassination). Yes, I know Lem Johns said he was sure he never got out of the street, and therefore he was never in the Knoll area to encounter anyone, but Johns WAS a "Secret Service agent" and he definitely WAS on the ground in Dealey Plaza at just about the time Officer Smith encountered the alleged "Secret Service agent" on the Grassy Knoll. So...just maybe... Flame away if you wish.

Which is nothing but semantics....and provably so, because of what we see in CE903, which places the entry in the BACK, not the neck. So the fact that Specter continued to incorrectly use the word "neck" is meaningless and is debunked by the very exhibit with Specter in the picture -- CE903.

Right on, Kathy. :-)

This opposite-angle pic shows the stand-in's posture to be closer to the real JFK's position at the time of the shooting. But Specter's rod still isn't SPOT ON perfect over the chalk mark. But it's awfully close. And, as I mentioned in one of my CE903 articles (repeated below), some amount of slack and margin-of-error needs to be applied here. (Or can any CTer find it in them to cut the Warren Commission ANY slack at all. Not even one inch or so, which is what we're talking about here? Or is utter 100% perfection in the re-enactments the only thing that will be tolerated by conspiracy believers?) Excerpt from my webpage..... Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt. If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224. Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that. So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off. Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory? But the end result of the reconstruction we see being done in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer either. Let me ask this of the CTers: Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility? If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier. And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the trajectory isn't even close either!" If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-bin crazy. In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates). I'll also ask this question: If CE903 is such a "con", as Pat Speer said earlier, then I'm wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like this one to ever get released to the public? Why weren't those pictures destroyed? Also: Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the stand-in's back in CE903, does anybody really think that the wound placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-Bullet Theory completely? And even if the trajectory angle seen in this reverse angle picture is exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure of, since that picture is not an official photo and does not appear in the Warren Commission volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in that reverse angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short indeed. And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurement is just an "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of leeway on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30 angle, since the limo was closer to the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository at Z210. But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have been less (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure. Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11 minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16 or so degrees downward). The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission Exhibit No. 903. And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet Theory. In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224. And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's stand-in (click the picture for a larger view): Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered [at 5 H 133]: ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?" THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here." MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?" MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President." MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?" MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time." Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred). Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture. That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment. David Von Pein December 22, 2011 May 17, 2013 December 9, 2014

FWIW / IMO / BTW, It looks like the string on the wall, as well as Arlen Specter's pointer/rod, are always being kept at the same angle (17.72 degrees) in the various "opposite angle" photos and in CE903. But the key is the positioning of the victims---particularly the JFK stand-in. In the "opposite angle" photo below (on the right), the JFK stand-in is quite clearly NOT in the exact same posture that the real JFK was in on 11/22/63. The stand-in is leaning back hard on the car seat (his suit coat is even visibly overlapping onto the back seat). That doesn't match JFK's posture in the Croft picture at all. So it would be my guess that Specter (for some reason) was just trying out different postures using the stand-ins and then having pictures taken of those INCORRECT postures. But as we can see in the "Croft/CE903" comparison below, the posture of the stand-in for President Kennedy as depicted in CE903 looks very close to the actual posture of JFK in the Croft photo on Elm Street on November 22nd.

Well, Pat, this one below sure as hell wasn't taken with the intent to depict where the bullet entered or exited President Kennedy. It's not even close. And I don't think Specter ever thought the bullet entered this high on JFK or exited under his chin....

Yes, they did -----> jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html -------

The Warren Commission didn't "collect" any of the evidence. Nor did the FBI or CIA. The DPD did. Too many CTers wrongfully claim that it was "the Warren Commission's evidence". Total nonsense. The WC didn't collect or test the evidence. The WC merely evaluated it. The wound IS where it is, as anyone can see via the autopsy photograph. The wound is in the UPPER BACK. Not the NECK. Perfectly consistent with what we see in CE903 (within the "margin of error" leeway that MUST be afforded the WC regarding that exhibit, as I discuss HERE). jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

But you have no doubt that the evidence was, indeed, "manufactured", versus it being real and legitimate evidence that was merely being collected and handled by a bunch of idiot country cops who didn't know what they were doing. Right, Ray? It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray? ~shrug~

No, I can't. But I certainly wouldn't conclude that the various dates that show up on certain documents indicate any kind of fakery. Because it makes no sense for someone faking a document to put into the record a copy of that fake document which includes dates on it that would make that fake document look like an obvious fake document. Therefore, the answer likely resides outside the realm of "fakery". But, maybe the plotters working for Hoover's FBI weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Incompetence is everywhere, isn't it Ray? But where are you trying to go with this line of thought regarding the dates on the documents? Are you suggesting that the various dates that appear on some documents indicate they are fakes? Or what?

Brian, You and I have just proved that there's a "Scenario For Every Occasion" (and for everyone with a computer and a mouse).

Yes. Plus, given what CTers think of Mr. Ford and the perpetual decades-long "cover-up" that Ford was supposedly a part of -- just THINK for two seconds about how utterly stupid it would have been for Ford to utter such a comment to ANYONE. Does it make ANY sense from that POV of the CTers who think it was Ford's job to keep quiet and "cover up" the truth about JFK's death? It's laughable. And it's even more laughable from my "LN" POV and what I've heard Ford say in public many times since 1964. So, yes, it's a lie. (Either that or somebody has severely misquoted Mr. Ford.)

"(I guess)" Yep. "I guess" is the best I can do. Sorry.

Gerald Ford (1978) ------> https://app.box.com/s/jdihp42tp51stkwn60z7hr5dl29hsx80 -------

Beats me, Brian. I can't read a word of it.

The 11/22 stamp is meant to reflect the date of the interview. (I guess.) ~shrug~

That was commonplace for FBI reports, Ray. The date in the upper-right corner (which I assume is the date the report was typed up and put in the files) is almost always one or two days AFTER the information in the body of the report is collected. Here's an example where the dates are four days apart -----> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=295 (And, btw. that document I just linked to above is one that more CTers should probably take notice of, because it proves (IMO) that FBI Special Agent Elmer L. Todd definitely DID scratch his initials into the stretcher bullet on 11/22/63. Many CTers will argue that it proves no such thing and that Todd must have marked some bullet OTHER than CE399. I would beg to differ, however.)

Good points, Pat. Oswald is still guilty as O.J., and all the "Oswald Did It" evidence IS still there on the table here in 2015 (even though it was collected by "a bunch of incompetent boobs", to quote Patrick J. Speer). But you make valid points regarding the DPD's weaknesses. If only life (and the DPD) were perfect and flawless. What a grand existence it would be.

ADDENDUM (after reading some more of Lieutenant J.C. Day's Warren Commission testimony): Not true, Pat. See my last post. Lieutenant Day specifically said he had noticed TWO prints on the trigger housing while Day was still looking at the rifle inside the Book Depository Building. So Day obviously would have had MULTIPLE prints in his mind when he talked to FBI agent Nat Pinkston if Day had been referring to the trigger guard prints in the Pinkston memo. Not true. Lieutenant Day specifically mentioned in his WC testimony that he wanted to "try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print". And, btw, Day said this about wanting to use "photography" on the palmprint even AFTER he had already used Scotch tape to lift most of the palmprint off of the gun already! He said he wanted to then photograph the remaining "traces" of the print which he said he could still see on the gun after he lifted the majority of the print off the barrel.... J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." {DVP's emphasis.) So, based on the sum total of things Lieutenant J.C. Day told Nat Pinkston on 11/22/63, I think the Pinkston memo is referring to the palmprint and not the trigger guard prints. Let's re-examine what's in the Pinkston document: 1.) "[Lt. Day] had been successful in raising a partial latent print." (Sounds like he's talking about the palmprint here, from the SINGULAR nature of the wording.) 2.) "He had not had time to photograph or lift this print." (Again, we have the use of the SINGULAR, "print".) 3.) "...intended to return immediately and endeavor to both photograph and lift this latent print." (Once again, the singular--"print"--is used here. And this is, IMO, perfectly consistent with what Lieutenant Day told the Warren Commission in the testimony I cited above. I.E., Day did, indeed, have it in his mind to both photograph and lift the palmprint. And he undoubtedly would have photographed the leftover remnants of the print if he had not been told to stop working on the rifle late on November 22nd in order to hand it over to the FBI.) Now, I'll admit that I'm perplexed about one part of Lt. Day's WC testimony concerning his work on the palmprint....and that is: Why on Earth wouldn't he have photographed the complete palmprint BEFORE he lifted it with the tape? It seems odd that he only considered "photography" AFTER he had already lifted most of the print off the rifle. But since I'm not an expert on how to best get prints off of a firearm, I'm in no position to say that Lt. Day blew it. But it does seem odd that he wouldn't take a picture of the print before he tried to lift it. But the record indicates that he did not. ~additional shrug~ Final Conclusion.... It's my opinion (FWIW) that the Nat Pinkston FBI document of 11/23/63 is referring to the palmprint and not the multiple trigger guard prints found on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by Lieutenant Day.

Yes, I see your point, Pat. And it makes sense too. However, based on Lieutenant Day's Warren Commission testimony, it's pretty clear that he had noticed TWO PRINTS (plural) on the trigger housing of the rifle before he ever took the gun out of the Book Depository: J.C. DAY -- "After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. .... I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." (DVP's emphasis.) But the Pinkston document specifically indicates just a SINGLE "latent print" having been observed by Lieutenant Day, which would seem to be more indicative of the SINGLE palmprint Day lifted off of the under side of the rifle (IMHO). But I do agree with you about your #5 item on your list above, Pat. It seems odd that Day wouldn't have mentioned to Pinkston about seeing the TWO trigger guard prints too, particularly since he had seen those two prints while the gun was still being examined in the TSBD. But we're left with just a reference in Pinkston's report to only one "latent print". ~shrug~

1.) But WHERE on Kennedy's body IS the wound, Pat? Neck or back? 2.) And does the ACTUAL wound of entrance align itself with what we see in CE903? I'll answer both of my above questions... 1.) The upper back. 2.) Yes, it does. (Within the leeway that must be granted the WC regarding the precise "SBT" angle, given the fact the angle seen in CE903 is merely an AVERAGE angle between Z-Film frames 210 and 225. So a tiny bit of "margin of error" HAS to be applied to this "CE903" topic, as I discuss here....) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html So, again, we're back to merely semantics. Nothing more. (Caption by DVP.)

Related discussion about Lt. J.C. Day.... 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 xxxx 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.] JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: In fact, I seriously doubt if the judge would have allowed him to testify. And when you brought in the Groody testimony, I mean, please. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jimbo thinks Paul Groody is MORE reliable than Lt. Day. To repeat what Jimbo just said -- I mean, please! (And remember my weak bladder, will ya?!) [...] JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: What's next: Oswald was a good shot? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: He was a good shot by ordinary CIVILIAN standards, yes. And he was certainly (at one time at least, in 1956) an average shot by Marine standards. Or do you think the United States Marine Corps dishes out "sharpshooter" rankings to really, really lousy riflemen? [...] PAT SPEER SAID: Ah, yes, the Hoover letter. Note that Hoover's letter was just that, a letter. It was NOT sworn testimony. Note also that the exhibit itself is nearly impossible to make out, and that NO corresponding photo was taken showing where the heck this lift came from on the rifle. Note also that Hoover had no problem lying even when under oath, as proved by his testimony, where he claimed the FBI had no reason to put Oswald on the watch list, months after he'd ordered an internal witch-hunt in which those failing to put him on the watch list had been persecuted. And then there's this... The rifle was returned to the DPD on the 24th. The FBI didn't find out about the lift until the 26th. It remains possible, therefore, that the print was somehow added to the rifle, and THEN lifted. As stated, I never came to a conclusion as to this possibility...but the evidence presented by Hoover and Bugliosi in support of the print's authenticity, is weak, weak, weak... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Let's leave Hoover and Bugliosi out of this for a moment and talk about the people who actually set the ball in motion for re-examining the palmprint that Lt. Day lifted off of the rifle -- namely Wesley Liebeler and (most importantly) fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona: It was LATONA, not Hoover or Bugliosi, who said the palmprint contained the rust spots and other marks that EXACTLY matched the place on the rifle where Lt. Day said he lifted the print. Or do you think Mr. Liebeler was telling a big fat lie in the HSCA testimony shown below? (I would guess that some conspiracy theorists will rake Liebeler over the coals for using the word "happily" in this testimony, even if those CTers don't have the nerve to come out and call him an outright xxxx regarding this palmprint issue.) .... "Latona went back and looked at the lift [CE637; Oswald's palmprint]. He found that there were indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that that lift had come from that rifle." -- Wesley J. Liebeler; HSCA Testimony [11 HSCA 254] So what we have here, folks, is a situation where the Warren Commission and its staff (namely Wesley J. Liebeler) weren't totally satisfied with something associated with their investigation into President Kennedy's death (the palmprint of Oswald's lifted by DPD Lieutenant Carl Day), and so Liebeler did something about it. He had Latona re-examine the print to see if further information could be obtained in order to find out whether or not it could be proven that that print had, indeed, been taken off of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. And even when such proof and corroboration is discovered, the conspiracy theorists (such as Pat Speer) are still not satisfied at all. The theorists will still cry foul and say that the print COULD have possibly been lifted on November 24 after the rifle was returned to Dallas (to use Pat Speer's exact words, he speculated that it was certainly possible that "the print was somehow added to the rifle, and THEN lifted"). In response to that speculation brought forth by Mr. Speer which I just quoted above, let me offer up the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book: "Apart from the absurd notion that for some reason Lieutenant Day would decide to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for Kennedy's assassination, as he told me in 2002, "I don't even think such a thing [transferring Oswald's prints on the finger and palm print samples, or exemplars, he gave to the Dallas Police Department, onto the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle] could be done. In this day and age they might be able to figure out some way to transfer the ink print on the card to the weapon, but I wouldn't know how to do it myself. Sounds like an impossible task to me."" -- Page 802 of "Reclaiming History" Conspiracists are quite good at offering up a wide variety of convenient excuses in order to avoid the obvious truth. With that truth being: Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint was lifted off of Oswald's OWN RIFLE just hours after that same rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas, Texas. Pat Speer says the evidence is "weak, weak, weak". But in my opinion, it's simply a case of a conspiracy theorist offering up more "excuses, excuses, excuses". David Von Pein March 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html ----------

Pat, Yes, you could be right. The document could conceivably be talking about the trigger guard prints. But it could very well be referring to the only print Lt. Day LIFTED -- and that was CE637, Oswald's palmprint. I think the Pinkston document is referring to the palmprint. But I stipulate that I could be wrong. It's too bad Pinkston didn't add just a few more details to his report to indicate what KIND of "latent print" it was -- Finger vs. Palm. (Or what part of the gun it came off of.)

The lies of Roger Craig are quite extensive. I think he did see a man getting into a Rambler at about 12:40 in Dealey Plaza. But we know that that person could not possibly have been Lee Oswald... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/cecil-mcwatters.html The sum total of all the evidence (plus other witness testimony) prove that Roger Craig told two huge whopper lies regarding the bullet shells ("an inch apart, pointing in the same direction") and the rifle ("right on the barrel was stamped '7.65 Mauser'"). -------------- Related Discussion.... JERRY CRAIG (NEPHEW OF FORMER DALLAS COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF ROGER D. CRAIG) SAID: ANYBODY THAT SAYS MY UNCLE ROGER WAS LYING IS A FOOL. THERE ARE PICTURES OF HIM AT THE DOOR OF WILL FRITZ' OFFICE IDENTIFYING OSWALD AND HIM IN THE TSBD WITH THE MAUSER BEING FOUND!!!!! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Roger D. Craig was one of the few people connected with the JFK murder case who I am very confident referring to as a "xxxx". Without any doubt whatsoever. (Another one being Jean Hill.) It can proven that Roger Craig was a xxxx by typing out just the following words: STAMPED ON THE RIFLE WAS "7.65 MAUSER". Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him a xxxx. And there's NOTHING that any conspiracist can do to UNDO Deputy Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And Craig also later told another whopper of a lie when he said that the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than "an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by the police. (This is hilarious silliness on the part of the plotters who supposedly planted this evidence, isn't it? I guess they WANTED people like Craig to immediately think the shells were planted, so they arranged them in a nice, neat little row.) So, who (or what) should a reasonable person believe? Commission Exhibit No. 510 below? Or Roger "Big Fat xxxx" Craig? Not a tough choice really. But guess who many conspiracy theorists are going to believe? That's not tough to figure out either. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JbkbBN6KJKE/TZEOJYRVCNI/AAAAAAAATcc/D0i89sUs91Y/s1600/CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.jpg JERRY CRAIG SAID: All of you have to understan[d] that Bill Decker had control of every aspect of the investigation... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Huh? WTF? Decker was the SHERIFF. The Sheriff's office had NO CONTROL over the evidence in the case on Nov. 22 or Nov. 23. None. The DPD (Fritz, Curry) had the case and had the evidence. Not the Sheriff's office. Why are you making up this crap, Jerry? JERRY CRAIG SAID [JERRY'S HORRID SPELLING AND GRAMMAR HAS BEEN CORRECTED BY DVP]: I'm not making up anything, but you wouldn't know anything about Decker and the corruption in the DSO [Dallas Sheriff's] office in '63. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, sure, Jerry. Whatever you say. JERRY CRAIG SAID: ...and you all will find out soon... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, why would 46-and-a-half years be enough time for "the truth" to leak out? Will it be another 46.5 years before this famous "truth" is finally unveiled? Is Jimmy Files' milkman going to write a tell-all book that will FINALLY reveal "the truth" about how JFK died? JERRY CRAIG SAID: I don't care what you say. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Then why join a public forum at all? JERRY CRAIG SAID: You've got to realize, I'm 46.5 years old. My family has been in this since the beginning. I might have been born on Nov. 23, 1963, but I asked questions and listened to my uncle. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: So? David Von Pein April 13, 2010 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-922.html