Gary Mack Explains

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Drip, drip, drip.

Great rebuttal, Jimbo. Just gorgeous.

But Callaway's still there--IDing Oswald.

And Davis, and Davis, and Guinyard....

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Drip, drip, drip.

Great rebuttal, Jimbo. Just gorgeous.

But Callaway's still there--IDing Oswald.

And Davis, and Davis, and Guinyard....

Yes David, but which Oswald did they identify, the one arrested at the Texas Theater or the one who was driving Carl Mather's Plymouth a half hour later?

Or does it matter?

Your opinion on this appreciated.

BK

[Pat Speer]

DiEugenio: "Oswald never picked up that rifle."

Yeah, he was only photographed with it by his wife. His palmprint is on it (CE637). His fingerprints are on the trigger guard (Scalice; 1993). The HSCA said that C2766 was the same rifle Oswald is holding in the backyard pictures (6 HSCA 66). And we know that C2766 was shipped to OSWALD'S post office box in Dallas by Klein's.

You DO realize how many people you have to call LIARS (or boobs) in order to take that rifle out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands, don't you Jimmy? I haven't counted up the total number of liars there would have to be in this regard, but it's certainly quite a few. (Maybe Jim will count them up for us and give us his final "Liars" total connected with the rifle issue.)

A serious question, David. Perhaps I can learn something. You referenced Scalice's 1993 conclusion regarding the trigger guard. As you probably know, the methodology behind his analysis--pasting together a number of photographs to make a trigger guard print suitable for comparison purposes--was rejected by far-more experienced fingerprint experts, including George Bonebrake of the FBI. As far as I can recall, that's where it stands. Scalice came to a unique conclusion, which men with better credentials rejected. So I guess what I'm asking is...have any other experts offered their support for Scalice's conclusions, and, perhaps more importantly, has he EVER made the pasted-together exhibits used to reach his findings public?

Because I'd love to see them...and don't remember seeing them in First Day Evidence or Reclaiming History.

[David Von Pein]

Yes David, but which Oswald did they identify, the one arrested at the Texas Theater or the one who was driving Carl Mather's Plymouth a half hour later?

Or does it matter?

Your opinion on this appreciated.

Are you serious, Bill? Or just playing with the LNer (me)?

Well, I'll bite anyway....

The people I mentioned positively identified the man pictured below (except for Domingo Benavides, who didn't make a "positive" identification of Oswald, AFAIK, until 1967 on CBS-TV; but Benavides did tell the Warren Commission that the man he saw kill Tippit "looked like" Oswald [6 H 452]):

The man in the photo above, by the way, is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. And it's a picture of the man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Do conspiracy theorists want to pretend that witnesses like Ted Callaway, the two Davis girls, Bill Scoggins, and Sam Guinyard (among others) actually identified a DIFFERENT "Oswald" when those witnesses each picked the man pictured above out of a police line-up shortly after Tippit's murder?

You surely aren't suggesting something so crazy....are you Bill?

BTW, that photo of Oswald above is interesting for another "bushy" reason. There has been much talk about how Tippit murder witness Helen Markham supposedly described Oswald's hair as being "bushy". It's debatable whether Mrs. Markham ever used that word to describe LHO's hair, but let's assume she actually did say "bushy" to a reporter shortly after the Tippit murder.

Perhaps she saw Oswald's hair in much the same condition it was in after his arrest (as seen in the above photo). And while Oswald's hair isn't exactly long, perhaps it could pass for "bushy" in the eyes of some people who only saw his hair for a few fleeting moments on Tenth Street on 11/22/63.

It's possible, of course (and even quite likely, in fact), that Oswald's hair only achieved its mussed-up status after the wild brawl with the police in the theater, but it's also interesting to note this testimony of Helen Markham when she was questioned by Warren Commission counsel about the condition of LHO's hair:

JOE BALL -- "Is it your memory that his hair was bushy?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "It wasn't so bushy. It was, say, windblown or something. What I mean, he didn't have a lot of hair."

Food for "bushy"-haired thought.

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Scalice came to a unique conclusion, which men with better credentials rejected. So I guess what I'm asking is...have any other experts offered their support for Scalice's conclusions, and, perhaps more importantly, has he EVER made the pasted-together exhibits used to reach his findings public?

Because I'd love to see them...and don't remember seeing them in First Day Evidence or Reclaiming History.

Very good points and good questions, Pat. And I just simply do not know. I just know that Scalice went on PBS-TV in 1993 (in "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald") and said he could now say with 100% certainty that "these are the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no doubt about it."

I, too, would like to see more of Scalice's analysis. Dave Reitzes, on his website, has a page about Oswald's prints. Here's a quoted passage from Gary Savage (from Dave's site):

"As the book ["First Day Evidence"] was headed to press, an independent examination of Rusty's trigger-housing photos was done for the television program FRONTLINE by Vincent J. Scalice, a Certified Latent Print Examiner. Scalice was the fingerprint expert used by the HSCA in 1978. He stated in a letter of conclusions to the author that "Based upon the results of this examination and comparison, it is logical to assume that ALL of these photographs, which exhibit varying degrees of contrast, were not available for detailed comparison purposes in 1963 or 1978." Scalice had not seen all of the photos possessed by Rusty before.

Instead of focusing on only the clearest photograph (detailed in this chapter as performed by Captain Powdrill), Scalice used different enhancement techniques with all of the photographs. He stated. "It was necessary to utilize all of the photographs in order to carry out this procedure as the photographs were taken at different exposures ranging from light to medium and dark. As a result of the varying degrees of contrast from photo to photo, it became possible to locate and identify a sufficient amount of identifying characteristics on which to base a positive identification. As a result of an exacting and detailed examination and comparison under varying degrees of magnification and illumination, I have reached the conclusion that the developed latent prints are the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald's right middle finger (#3) and right ring finger (#4) as they appear on the inked fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."

A comparison was also done by Scalice of Rusty's fingerprint card to JFK Exhibit F-400. He determined that "the inkless prints taken by Rusty [and J. B. Hicks] were indeed those of Lee Harvey Oswald, as they compared favorably with the inked impressions taken on 8-9-63."

Although the trigger-housing fingerprints were "extremely faint and barely distinguishable" and "partially distorted," a positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald was made by Scalice. This is perhaps the most important finding made since the time of the assassination. It may now be stated as fact that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald were left behind on the trigger housing of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository." -- Gary Savage

http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

DVP is so desperate he just recycles this discredited garbage. Without holding his nose.

The palmprint lifted by Lt. J.C. Day on 11-22-63 hasn't been "discredited" at all.

Day testified that he lifted that print (CE637) off of the Carcano rifle on Nov. 22. The fact that the FBI found no OTHER prints of Oswald's means zilch. Day had ALREADY lifted the palmprint off of the gun before the rifle ever was given to the FBI. Simple as that.

And Sebastian Latona verified that the palmprint lifted by Lt. Day was positively the right palm of Lee H. Oswald:

MEL 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."

-------------------

So, tell us again, Jim, how J.C. Day was a big fat xxxx when he said this:

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?

Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing..."off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766."

[...]

Mr. DAY. Your No. 637 is the right palm of Oswald.

-----------------------

Lt. Day did add this (which is a pretty strange thing to say if he was really the bald-faced xxxx and evidence-planter that many CTers think he was):

Mr. BELIN. Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify the print shown on Commission Commission Exhibit No. 637 as being from the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?

Mr. DAY. Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.

----------------------

But, remember, we've also got Latona verifying it WAS Oswald's print:

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

Plus Ron Wittmus of the FBI too:

"I have conducted independent examinations of the items which were the subject of Mr. Latona's testimony and on the basis of these independent examinations I reached the same conclusions reached by Sebastian Francis Latona." -- Signed, Ronald G. Wittmus; 07/30/64

All LIES, right Jimbo?

I want any lurkers to note just how many liars and frauds and cover-up operatives James DiEugenio requires in nearly every single post he makes on this forum. It's absolutely unbelievable, not to mention absurd. Has anybody ever done a count? Or does anyone have the six months to spare that it would take to add up all of Jimbo's liars and evidence manipulators?

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The WC WAS NOT a judicial proceeding. It was kangaroo court. .... They were there to frame Oswald.

Yeah, sure Jimbo.

~yawn~

~vomit~

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

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 Nov. 22?

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

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.

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?!)

The WC was not the real world. It was a twilight supernatural world that exists only in bad novels.

Actually, the only "twilight supernatural world" associated with the JFK assassination exists on websites like CTKA.net, which wallows in fake evidence, cover-up agents, "Troikas", make-believe "imposter Oswalds", and a "Patsy" plot that is so inept and far-fetched that nobody in the whole world (even if they were half drunk) would have planned it that way -- i.e., a LONE-patsy plot featuring MULTIPLE shooters firing from the FRONT and REAR. I mean, please. LOL.

>>> "What's next: Oswald was a good shot?" <<<

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?

>>> "A plea to the mods: put this guy out of his misery. And eliminate ours." <<<

Good idea, Jim. Because if there's one thing you don't want to have to contend with on this forum (or any other forum), it's somebody with an opposing viewpoint who isn't shy about pointing out the long list of impossible things you believe in.

Also:

I want to remind everybody reading this that Jimmy's last quote I just cited above are words that were written by a man who said this to fellow Education Forum member Randy Gunter just eight days ago on March 6, 2013:

"Randy: After long experience, I advise anyone to avoid getting into it with DVP. He uses all kinds of rhetorical techniques to dodge the issue. .... Consider this a friendly warning."

Can anyone say "hypocrite"?

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

The palmprint lifted by Lt. J.C. Day on 11-22-63 hasn't been "discredited" at all.

Day testified that he lifted that print (CE637) off of the Carcano rifle on Nov. 22. The fact that the FBI found no OTHER prints of Oswald's means zilch. Day had ALREADY lifted the palmprint off of the gun before the rifle ever was given to the FBI. Simple as that.

And Sebastian Latona verified that the palmprint lifted by Lt. Day was positively the right palm of Lee H. Oswald:

MEL 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."

-------------------

So, tell us again, Jim, how J.C. Day was a big fat xxxx when he said this:

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?

Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing..."off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766."

[...]

Mr. DAY. Your No. 637 is the right palm of Oswald.

-----------------------

Lt. Day did add this (which is a pretty strange thing to say if he was really the bald-faced xxxx and evidence-planter that many CTers think he was):

Mr. BELIN. Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify the print shown on Commission Commission Exhibit No. 637 as being from the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?

Mr. DAY. Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.

----------------------

But, remember, we've also got Latona verifying it WAS Oswald's print:

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

Plus Ron Wittmus of the FBI too:

"I have conducted independent examinations of the items which were the subject of Mr. Latona's testimony and on the basis of these independent examinations I reached the same conclusions reached by Sebastian Francis Latona." -- Signed, Ronald G. Wittmus; 07/30/64

All LIES, right Jimbo?

I want any lurkers to note just how many liars and frauds and cover-up operatives James DiEugenio requires in nearly every single post he makes on this forum. It's absolutely unbelievable, not to mention absurd. Has anybody ever done a count? Or does anyone have the six months to spare that it would take to add up all of Jimbo's liars and evidence manipulators?

Now, David, I think even you can agree the "palm print" story stinks to high heaven. I spent a lot of time looking into it, and never came to a final conclusion as to whether the print was planted or not. But it was incredibly clear to me that enough REASONABLE doubt existed about it--even among the WC's counsel--that it would probably not have been brought up at trial.

The problem, as I see it, is not that EVERYBODY lied about it, as you seem to believe, but that Day might have lied about it.

1. He gave the rifle to the FBI on the 22nd without filling out a report on the prints he'd been examining.

2. He said he told Drain about the print, but Drain denied being told anything of the sort.

3. He supposedly lifted the print on the 22nd, and then took the next day off, while leaving the lift at the DPD lab. And yet, no form or report of any kind has ever surfaced demonstrating that he did so.

4. The DPD received the FBI's report on the rifle prints on the 24th. This report made no mention of the palm print. And yet Day failed to tell the FBI about the lift, or show them the lift, until he sent it to them on the 26th, as I recall.

5. Day said he told Fritz and Curry about the print on the night of the 22nd, and yet there is no record of them backing him up on this, as far as I can tell.

6. Day refused to sign an affidavit regarding his discovery of the print.

7. Day later told the FBI that he'd failed to tell any of his co-workers about the print, or study the print after taking a quick glance on the 22nd. And yet, Wade told the press on the 24th that they'd found OSWALD's prints on the underside of the rifle. Now, this appears to support that Day had told Fritz and Curry about the print, and that one of them had, in turn, told Wade. But Day claimed he'd come to no conclusion regarding the print, so why did Wade say he had? And, if Wade was just making stuff up about a print on the underside of the rifle, who's to say he wasn't talking about the trigger-guard prints? All this leads me to suspect that maybe, just maybe, Wade oversold the trigger-guard prints, and that the city of Dallas, in the aftermath of Oswald's murder while in their custody, was afraid how this would look, and decided to try and save face by faking up a print the FBI could verify.

8. That Day and/or his co-workers were willing to lie about the print is confirmed by First Day Evidence, in which, as I recall it, Rusty Livingston claims the whole crime lab knew of Day's lift from the beginning, and KNEW it was a match. Well, back in 1963, when he had every reason to bring these guys in as support, Day claimed he'd told them nothing of the sort. So, why, if everything was on the up and up, did Livingston lie about it later?

9. A few years back, I contacted a top expert on fingerprint forgery, and asked him to take a look at the evidence regarding the palm print, and at the print itself. He said he'd met Day in the early 90's in the company of a former FBI man, who claimed to have been present when the packages were un-wrapped at FBI HQ. They both told this expert that the print on the rifle had been developed in black powder. This expert then told me "I can assure you there is no possibility of that print having been planted." Well, this expert didn't know who he was dealing with. When I confronted him with Latona's testimony, and his claim no trace of a print was found on the underside of the rifle, he backed off, and said he may have remembered Day's and this FBI man's words incorrectly, but that, in any event, he wasn't interested in pursuing the case. Well, this raised the possibility with me that, when talking to others within his profession, Day had LIED about the circumstances under which he discovered the print.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

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

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0130b.htm

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[J. Raymond Carroll]

My latest e-mail conversation with Gary Mack

Date: 3/10/2013 9:09:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

As for the mistake, it was probably mine, but I'm not sure. We did talk about the Walker shooting and I could have mentioned the note then.

Translation:

"The mistake was mine

but it could have been THE REPORTER's mistake."

In polite circles, this is known as

DOUBLESPEAK!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Excerpt from my review of another trash show by Mack/Dunkel, The Ruby Connection.

As Australian researcher Greg Parker has noted, the police had planned a four point pocket around Oswald as they escorted him down the corridor.

Jim:

Could you point us to this article by Greg Parker?

[Pat Speer]

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

http://history-matte...Vol11_0130b.htm

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...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I gather Gary Mack was unhappy

when I demonstrated

his DOUBLESPEAK.

I just received this email from Gary:

Uh, no, Ray, it’s called the truth, for I don’t know the answer. I didn’t record the conversation nor did he. So the real translation is:

Ray Carroll is a nut, and I won’t waste my time on him anymore.

Gary

If Gary did not say it,

then ONLY TWO possibilities exist:

The reporter -- who must have had at least pen and paper --

is an incompetent

and has no business masquerading

as a journalist

OR

THe reporter DELIBERATELY CONFABULATED

in which case again

he has no business masquerading

as a reporter.

Gary's email did not specify

which of these applies to the reporter

but it has to be one or the other.

The alternative is that Gary Mack is a very confused individual.

Edited March 14, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[David Von Pein]

Uh, no, Ray, it’s called the truth, for I don’t know the answer. I didn’t record the conversation nor did he. So the real translation is:

Ray Carroll is a nut, and I won’t waste my time on him anymore.

Go Gary!

Perhaps Gary also saw this gem from Raymond (below), which might have also contributed to the reasons for Gary's quote above:

"Since the evidence does not support your case, you and Mack and Bugliosi, et al have to try to DEMONIZE an innocent man." -- J. Raymond Carroll

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

...the evidence presented by Hoover and Bugliosi in support of the print's authenticity, is weak, weak, weak...

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".

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein