Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tippit Motive and Rifle Chain of Evidence, looking for some guidance.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can't you just hear the surprise in Belin's voice when he says, "You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?"

Just to keep this orderly, the alleged palm print was on the trigger guard and the alleged fingerprint was under the wood on the barrel, is that correct?

 

I swear,  I'm going to go to sleep tonight with images in my head like a soft rock montage from an early season episode of CSI Miami... or should that be CSI Dallas? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm going to ask what may seem to you guys like a dumb question, but here goes anyway.

Considering the rifle's provenance was established through both Marina initially, and the paper trail subsequently, what relevance would a dried finger/palm print found beneath the wooden stock have?

If, as Day points out on numerous occasions, (it's one of the few things he seems to stick to throughout) it was a dried print that didn't take the powder so well, would that not simply indicate Oswald had held the rifle at some point prior to the 22nd?

Even Dean Andrews would have been able to throw that out of a prosecution case as evidence that Oswald had been the shooter on the day. 

Was it all simply a case of building more and more trivial circumstantial evidence, (which after Oswald's death no one was going to challenge,) to convince the public of his guilt? What I guess I'm trying to establish is, Once they had established his ownership of the weapon, why did the print remain a factor?

Am I being a bit naive here or am I missing something?

Edited by Tommy Tomlinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

Was it all simply a case of building more and more trivial circumstantial evidence, ...

Tommy,

I think Jesse Curry said it best in his book, "No one can put Oswald in that window with a gun in his hand."

(Or something to that affect).

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Tommy,

I think Jesse Curry said it best in his book, "No one can put Oswald in that window with a gun in his hand."

(Or something to that affect).

Steve Thomas

Yeah, that's the point I've made with everyone who has ever called me a loon, a conspiracy nut, or various worse things than those.

"Show me what anyone has that puts Oswald on the 6th Floor at 12.30"

Something else did occur to me since my last question, and I am sure someone here will be able to put me straight one way or the other.

I think I remember reading in one book (I think it was Howard Roffman's "Presumed Guilty") that a fingerprint degrades after 3 days, so that it needs chemical analysis to see it rather than powder?

I have scant knowledge of that side of forensic science, so would having a lift-able powder print have shown that Oswald had disassembled the rifle at some point within the past three days?

Edited by Tommy Tomlinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can't you just hear the surprise in Belin's voice when he says, "You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?"

Just to keep this orderly, the alleged palm print was on the trigger guard and the alleged fingerprint was under the wood on the barrel, is that correct?

 

Other way around Jim....   palm on barrel and finger on trigger....  that musta been right before you and Stone walked in.... :P

 

4 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

I have scant knowledge of that side of forensic science, so would having a lift-able powder print have shown that Oswald had disassembled the rifle at some point within the past three days?

All a print would tell us is that at some point in time Oswald came in contact with that rifle... 1) if the print was actually his and 2) WHEN is just as important as where on the rifle....   your point is spot on tho...  it adds to the legend of his practicing and maintaining that rifle...  which of course he didn't.  They also did not test the barrel for it having been fired.   If it was clean then you know the rifle was fired recently and there was no time for the barrel to soil again... if soiled... then it was not fired recently at all...  

In all likelihood, the rifle was part of a shipment of 700 rifles in June 1962 thru EMPIRE in Canada

700 6.5 cal Italian Carbines from Italy to Empire Wholesale Montreal Canada, to Century Arms, Inc. then to Alden’s on 6/29/62

These rifles are the EXACT SAME Total Length, Stock length, Barrel and action, Barrel only, Rear to Receiver
as the rifle claimed to have killed JFK:  CE139

Only none of the 700 has a letter prefix despite half dozen of them having the same serial # as 6 of the rifles on the 10 "packing slips"

Sorry for the tangents...  yet this is important I feel....  this is the only piece of evidence that validates the pencil written "V836" being C2766

If you go thru the presentation of the essays you'll find that both on Friday and Sat, 22nd/23rd, the FBI has the orders and knows that C2766 was not in either of the orders to which FELDSOTT in NY refers....  in classic FBI style they have a "rethink" and on the 23rd they issue a statement that the rifle came from Italy and is consistent with a newly found February 22, 1963 order received for 100 rifles... Amazing!   

Notice please that this recap kept by Michael Scribor/Scibor (spelling keeps changing) actually has 2 order #'s on it, not just the "correct" on 1243...   That it says 1259 at the top right suggested to me that this was a real order, but all the serial #'s were changed....   I realize it is just a copy of a copy ad nauseum ...but something stood out to me

The copy noise appears everywhere except behind the serial numbers... as if they were whited out or erased and replaced... multiple copying would degrade the image to what we now see...

The rifle charade, like Mexico, remains one of the more interesting to examine... Where else do we get the likes of Harry Holmes and Nat Pinkston each telling stories about how THEY found the source for the rifle...

Cheers
DJ

5a95acf8a97aa_Kleinsserielnumbervclist-WH_Vol21_0362a.thumb.gif.fc33feaed733b8403ff745c23cfbaaf1.gif5a95acd3db3f3_EnlargementofblankareaunderserialnumbersinWaldman4.jpg.f8ba8f60da25740c6ba142c2dd396f2b.jpg

 

529538813_FBID-103CenturyArmsships2766toVermont.jpg.bcc5cf9323fc4a851cda2b2f777df42e.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again David.

I'd previously thought the "Palm print" had possibly been pulled from Oswald's cold dead hand after the rifle had been sent back to Dallas. I'm now starting to get the notion that it was a far less complex operation, (I'm fairly certain a moderately complex plot was not something Day would have been able to pull off) and they just lifted it off something like his wardrobe door handle or a sink plunger.

It seems these guys were not as bright as I had initially given them credit for. I mean, Day is an experienced Police Investigator. He HAS to know that if you keep giving conflicting statements, at some point someone is eventually going to start considering your opinion as suspect. All those occasions when he gave differing time slots in later interviews, all he had to say was "I'm not entirely sure of the time... maybe early evening or late afternoon..." that sort of thing.

But he just keeps compounding his bullxxxx.

Edited by Tommy Tomlinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its pretty clear that PBS in 1993 pulled a similar stunt on the trigger guard fingerprint that they did with Michael Paine and the Minox .

The so called Rusty Livingston "set" of trigger guard prints PBS used were not a newly discovered set, as Gus Russo said, which had gone "unnoticed". The evidence that Pat Speer mounts indicates they were likely the two same photos--which included blow ups-- that Scalice looked at for the HSCA.  Which, at that time, Scalice said were not distinguishable enough to make a judgment about. And as LaTona said to the WC he saw these photos on the 23rd, and like the HSCA, he told them he could not make a judgment based on their quality.  PBS misrepresented this fact and compounded that misrepresentation by saying that LaTona studied  only the rifle. Yet that differs from his testimony in the Warren Commission, and we are supposed to think that Frontline and PBS did not know that?

But as Pat writes, if Scalice did make the match in 1993 that he could not in 1978, where are his charts to prove it? He did not reveal one on the show, and to my knowledge,  PBS has never shown one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

It seems these guys were not as bright as I had initially given them credit for. I mean, Day is an experienced Police Investigator. He HAS to know that if you keep giving conflicting statements, at some point someone is eventually going to start considering your opinion as suspect. All those occasions when he gave differing time slots in later interviews, all he had to say was "I'm not entirely sure of the time... maybe early evening or late afternoon..." that sort of thing.

Hey there Tommy...   I think you have to give Day a break....   the FBI, Fritz and Decker thru Fritz applied a lot of pressure to make sure things went a certain way.

It was the FBI who FUBAR'd the evidence while the Secret Service had their had in a few items themselves....

All this happening while DAY is trying to do his job...  Also remember that Studebaker was on the job 2 months with no experience at all (testimony bottom of post), and Roscoe White was transferred to DPD in mid October, just after Oswald starts work.  Roscoe was supposedly very competent around photographic equipment, developing and photographic manipulation.

I feel that DAY was the Victim of Circumstance... and just did his best.  He knew the FBI took all the evidence Friday night and made note of it - I just don't have it handy....

Interference from White, Westbrook, Croy, Hill (also recently transferred to Westbrook's personnel group) Boone, Mooney and on and on...   

The biggest event in Dallas history and this is who they send to take photos....

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I believe we got the call about 1:05 - we was down there about 1:15
Mr. BALL. And whom did you go with?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Lieutenant Day and I answered the call.

Mr. BALL. Then, were you directed to some place on the sixth floor, as soon as you arrived there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they hadn't found anything when we got there.


Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular building at that particular location?
Mr. DAY. The Texas School Book Depository, I believe is the correct name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you go there?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I went out of my office almost straight up 1 o'clock. I arrived at the location on Elm about 1:12.


Mr. DAY. I had to go up the stairs. The elevator--we couldn't figure out how to run it. When I got to the head of the stairs, I believe it was the patrolman standing there, I am not sure, stated they had found some hulls over in the northeast corner of the building, and I proceeded to that area excuse me, southeast corner of the building.

(DJ: they're there less than 5 minutes and already there are contradictions...  how could they tell them were to go if they had not found anything yet? )

Mr. BALL. Each one of you had a camera, did you?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, sir; we just had one camera.
Mr. BALL. What kind of camera was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It's a Graflex, a 4 by 5 Speed Graflex.
Mr. BALL. Have you had some experience in operating a camera?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How much?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Well, on this certain camera?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. About 2 months.
Mr. BALL. But you have had photography in your crime lab work?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. For how long?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Was about 2 months.
Mr. BALL. How long have you done photography altogether?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. In my lifetime?
Mr. BALL. No, as one of the assistants in the crime lab, what period of years?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. 2 months. I went to the crime lab in October, the 1st of October.
Mr. BALL. You did - had you done any photography before that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Just home photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, if you follow Day's story, he said that after the rifle was found, he had it taken to the police station.

But he did not work on it immediately.  He went back to the TSBD to look for other print evidence and to direct Studebaker on taking pictures.

He then went back to the station somewhere around 4 PM and started work on the rifle.  But that was interrupted when Marina got there and he had to bring the rifle down the hall to show her.

But still, that would leave him several hours to process the rifle and locate any prints.

Yet, he does not tell Drain about it, and LaTona said there were no marks or notes on the rifle to indicate any such prints.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I defer to your experience but it seems to me like Day was keen to get back to the TSBD to show the press around, and of course his little show for the media at (I believe the clock on the wall put it at...) around 6:17pm to take the rifle for Marina's examination. It just seems to me like he kind of liked the notoriety and attention the situation provided him and he was keen to keep an interviewer talking. I don't imagine he was deliberately misleading the various people who questioned him on the subject, I just don't think that beyond his technical expertise in fingerprint analysis, (which I'll let more qualified people than me judge) he was a very competent investigator.

As to Scalice, if Pat Speer is correct, (and I have no reason, having read that essay to doubt much, or any of that analysis) there seems to be some sort of wilful ignorance at play in reporting that ability to more than triple the number of markers on the fingerprints from what seem to be the exact same photos as seen in the initial examination.

I just wish that someone either at the DPD, FBI or WC had presented a "This is our official statement..." that took account of all the discrepancies and stated what their official line was. Like a "Here is a picture of the rifle, here are the prints, and here is where we found them. Oh and this is why there was a some confusion over the palm prints and the stuff about the parts of the rifle underneath the wooden stock. You're welcome!" Or wasn't that supposed to be what the WCR was supposed to show us?

I remember reading that one member of the Commission once wrote in a memo in reply to a question about Oswald's capability to perform the shooting something to the effect that "Well, we know he was capable of doing it, otherwise how would he have been able to do it?" That may of course be a bit of an urban myth generated by conspiracy theorists to show how they felt the WC operated,  but I'll see if I can find who was supposed to have said it. (Mind you if it is true, I'm sure most people here will be able to tell me who, and when, before I could kick start my search engine.)

But whether its true or not, it seems (and I may be stating the blindingly obvious here) that most of the physical evidence was treated in such a manner that "we know it must prove Oswald did it, because like... he did it... so how could it not?" and any adherence to proper protocol and procedure was hand waved in light of the "Well, it's all a moot point anyway..." attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, if you follow Day's story, he said that after the rifle was found, he had it taken to the police station.

Did you know it was ODUM who drove him there with the rifle?

Mr. McCLOY. There was never any doubt in your mind what the rifle was from the minute you saw it?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; It was stamped right on there, 6.5, and when en route to the office with Mr. Odum, the FBI agent who drove me in, he radioed it in, he radioed in what it was to the FBI over the air.

The image on the right with 7.35 above it is the one and ONLY photograph of the caliber of some weapon they claimed was C2766

1931760820_CalibredesignationonCE139hasa3-6.5doesnothavea3-smaller.jpg.80ed2e22e5075cb9d699fd19e21ca078.jpg


I have to admit in some versions it resembles a 5... yet we are to remember the William Harvey sourced report from Italy about which the CIA kept quiet.

5a9aca5c6f2c1_63-12-31REPORTOUTOFITALYDISCREDITSTHERIFLEIDANDCE1391OF3.thumb.png.10998341dfc0343c67db90ecb0a58617.png5a9aca66f30c4_63-12-31REPORTOUTOFITALYDISCREDITSTHERIFLEIDANDCE1392OF3.thumb.png.3ab4d4f8b03a798cec8d4ded08302bac.png5a9aac874f95a_63-12-31REPORTOUTOFITALYDISCREDITSTHERIFLEIDANDCE1393OF3.thumb.png.e3f5a355f39ddc45aa1a75871cad7e76.png

 

 

I also have a report from PINKSTON from 11/22 stating exactly what Jim said...  he had lifted a latent print, location unidentified, and was told to get back to the TSBD (he had to rearrange boxes to take photos and such) leaving the rifle in his office, supposedly in a safe....

Pinkston claims years later (below) it was him who found Crescent and ultimately  Kleins....  yet his reports say he spoke with AL YEARGAN of HL GREEN ( not Titche-Goettinger) who said they were the only ones selling Carcanos in Dallas, and they get their stock from Crescent/Adams/Louis Feldsott....

EVERYBODY gets to put their 2 cents in on that rifle...  and it had nothing to do with the assassination but to incriminate Oswald... and ultimately make the SS, FBI, and Postal Inspectors look incredibly foolish....

 

 

img_10406_396_300.png

 

396055963_FBIAgentPINKSTONclaimingyearslatertohavebeen1stontheTSBDsceneandspokewithDayabouttherifle.thumb.jpg.dee99fcfe02391a2de7a89c32bfc458d.jpg

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

But whether its true or not, it seems (and I may be stating the blindingly obvious here) that most of the physical evidence was treated in such a manner that "we know it must prove Oswald did it, because like... he did it... so how could it not?" and any adherence to proper protocol and procedure was hand waved in light of the "Well, it's all a moot point anyway..." attitude.

For the LNers... "Oswald did it" pack up, go home

For the Conspiracy Realists, "you need to read 10 million pages to learn how he didn't do it and was set up"  get to work as the evidence is literally strewn all over the Report, Hearings, Exhibits and WC Documents, of which there are over 1500 files with evidence that never saw the light of day  (excuse the pun)

Tommy, you've nailed it...  which is also the reason "why would he do that" questions from LNers are so useless as we are now discussing the merits of an action that never occurred as opposed to the subject at hand...

:cheers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

For the LNers... "Oswald did it" pack up, go home

For the Conspiracy Realists, "you need to read 10 million pages to learn how he didn't do it and was set up"  get to work as the evidence is literally strewn all over the Report, Hearings, Exhibits and WC Documents, of which there are over 1500 files with evidence that never saw the light of day  (excuse the pun)

Tommy, you've nailed it...  which is also the reason "why would he do that" questions from LNers are so useless as we are now discussing the merits of an action that never occurred as opposed to the subject at hand...

:cheers

 

I saw a similar notion expressed in a meme about anti vaccination. 

A picture of Doctor with the label, "Spent 14 years of education, study, research, experimentation and peer reviewed analysis" beneath it a person lounging on a couch gawping at a mobile phone with the label, "Spent 14 minutes on Facebook".

 

 

Can someone also either confirm or discount the little nugget I picked up while delving down the Harvey sized Rabbit Hole that is "patspeer.com" (It really is both informative and entertainingly written... it's like visiting TvTropes.com. I go there intending to spend 5 or 10 minutes looking something up, a few clicks later and six hours have gone by...) is it true that the Police Description that led half of DPD to the Texas Movie Theatre was "Unknown white male, mid 30s"? THAT was the description that led them to 24 year old Lee Harvey Oswald?

Edited by Tommy Tomlinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

I saw a similar notion expressed in a meme about anti vaccination. 

A picture of Doctor with the label, "Spent 14 years of education, study, research, experimentation and peer reviewed analysis" beneath it a person lounging on a couch gawping at a mobile phone with the label, "Spent 14 minutes on Facebook".

 

 

Can someone also either confirm or discount the little nugget I picked up while delving down the Harvey sized Rabbit Hole that is "patspeer.com" (It really is both informative and entertainingly written... it's like visiting TvTropes.com. I go there intending to spend 5 or 10 minutes looking something up, a few clicks later and six hours have gone by...) is it true that the Police Description that led half of DPD to the Texas Movie Theatre was "Unknown white male, mid 30s"? THAT was the description that led them to 24 year old Lee Harvey Oswald?

At 12:45 this description was broadcast over both DPD channels....  whether the time is correct is hard to know

 

Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45. 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that description - I have a hard time seeing that Tippit was stopping our Oswald based on that description...

If you search there are some great threads about the 5'10" 165, slender... etc...  related Robert Webster... the other defector Marina met in Russia

Even seems to have that same blank stare as Ozzie

2037084757_RobertEdwardWebster.jpg.625ce576a15e8be074820f2e3b49afb3.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...