Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed

[John Iacoletti]

    "Rusty was standing by as lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that
     Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was
     hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, 'Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day
     and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm plant
     at the time.'"
          -- JFK first Day Evidence, Gary Savage, 1993
              "Rusty" is Crime Lab Det. Richard W. Livingston, with the DPD 1951-74.

Of course. And Day just let the matter drop, because that’s what crime lab officers do when they are instructed to turn over ALL the evidence they have to the FBI.

[Tim Nickerson]

You still have not read my chapter on the backyard photos in Hasty Judgment, have you? Or did you overlook the fact that I note therein that the Houston Post contacted a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, Dr. Hershel Womack, regarding the DPD backyard rifle prints.

If you would read chapter 5, you would see that I corresponded with Dr. Womack about the backyard rifle photos. I include two of Dr. Womack’s e-mails to me regarding the photos, in which he explained some of the indications of tampering in them.

You stated that the Houston Post acknowledged that the backyard photos show stages of manipulation in the production. In reality, it was just Mary LaFontaine pushing the Conspiracy Buff narrative. Womack said nothing at all about his own examination of the autopsy photos and negative(s). He never said that they showed any signs of fakery or alteration. His comment was only in regards to the matte photograph. Even in his emails to you, he's not giving opinion based on an actual examination of the photos themselves. Nor does he even claim outright that the copies he looked at are fake. He's not even accurately describing the photos. His descriptions sound rather amateurish.
 

So you are going to rely on one giant appeal to authority? Is that it? I notice that you guys only insist on “trusting the experts” when they say what you want to hear. Do you regard the HSCA acoustical experts with the same slavish reverence? I’m guessing the answer is a big, whopping No.

It is almost as if you guys were born yesterday when it comes to your willingness to gullibly, uncritically accept whatever this or that government-hired expert says—that is, as long as he says what you are determined to believe.

The comparison between the two isn't even close to being apt. The National Academy of Sciences panel had at its disposal all of the material that BRSW had. Their examination of that material was not as rushed and was more thorough. Those who question the authenticity of the backyard photos have never examined the actual photos or the negative(s), or the camera that took them.

Should we take several pages and go through the instances, in the JFK case alone, where government experts goofed, misrepresented their own experiments or the experiments of others, suppressed evidence that did not fit their conclusions, rigged their tests, etc., etc.? 

Sure, go ahead.

Yeah, well, after your reply, Mr. Mytton made the ludicrous claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical. Mytton might want to start by reading the HSCA PEP’s report, wherein the panel acknowledged that they found only “very small” differences in the background after photogrammetrically measuring them. This is especially telling because the PEP made this observation because outside experts had noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, but the panel didn’t bother to explain how in the world photos taken in the alleged manner could have produced backgrounds that were so similar that the variations between them could only be detected by photogrammetric measurement.

Then, perhaps Mytton will address the facts I present in my article “The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm

The claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical is not ludicrous at all. John Mytton has made it plain for all of us to see. None of us need to be photogammetrists in order to see it. It's right there. And not just within the section that bordered in red.



Why don't you send that to Dr Womack and get his opinion on it?
 

Except for the failure to take a single photo of the print before lifting it—Lt. Day surely knew that such photos would be strong evidence of the print’s presence on the rifle on 11/22. Except for the unexplained delay in getting the print to FBI HQ. Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel. Except for the unexplained visit of FBI agents to the funeral home to take prints of Oswald’s fingers and hands—gee, what was that all about? Except for the inexplicable silence of the DPD for several days about finding a palmprint on the rifle, when the DPD rushed to tell journalists about every other piece of seemingly incriminating evidence that they found. Except for the absence of any trace of fingerprint processing on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle on 11/23.

 
By Day's four month old recollection, signs of the print were still visible on the barrel when he gave it to Drain. Day was mistaken. His recollection was faulty.

Regarding the alleged visit by the FBI to the funeral home, it was a claim made by Paul Groody some three decades after the fact. Groody said that the Agents had left ink all over Oswald's hands. There are a couple of problems with your suggection that the FBI planted Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the rifle then. One, any ink on the lift of the print would not have gone unnoticed by Latona or any of the others who examined it. Two, the FBI had handed the rifle back over to the DPD at 3:40 PM  on the 24th. According to Groody, he never even got to the funeral home with the body until around 11 o'clock that night.

I think you might be right. Perhaps the memo was referring to the trigger-guard prints. But, as we’ll see in a moment, Scalice’s statements raise some interesting questions.
 
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?

I'll just repost this:

The five points that Scalice identified did not have to do with print identification. They had to do with matching the lift to the barrel of the rifle. Scalice didn't say how many points of identity that he found to make the determination that the palmprint was Oswald's.

And, of course, the palmprint is only valid evidence if it was not planted on the rifle barrel. If the palmprint was planted on the rifle after Oswald was killed, obviously it is worthless as evidence against him, and that’s why the glaring holes in the print’s chain of evidence are so important.

The "palmprint being planted after Oswald was killed" notion is abject quackery, if I may use that term.
 

I explained that Day had ample time to take 1 or 2 minutes to photograph the most important palmprint he would ever (supposedly) lift. Even if we buy the story that he was being rushed, he, as a senior crime-scene detective, surely could and would have said, “Ok, give me just a minute, because I need to take a photo of this palmprint.” Whoever was supposedly rushing him certainly would have understood the need to photograph the print in situ on the barrel. A rookie cop fresh from the police academy would have known this.

When Lt. Day was asked why he had not made a photograph of the palmprint, he claimed that he had been told by DPD Chief Curry “to go no further with the processing,” which is an unbelievable tale in and of itself. But in an earlier interview with the FBI, Day had claimed that he had not received this instruction from Curry until immediately before the rifle was due to be sent to Washington, more than three hours after he had worked on the prints (26 H 832-833 vs. CE 3145:7). So this “he was rushed” dog just won’t hunt.
 
“Minor inconsistencies”? “Minor”? He swore the print was still visible when he handed over the rifle. He knew he was supposed to photograph the print before lifting it, and he had ample time to do so. He somehow found the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard, but supposedly just couldn’t squeeze in a minute or two to photograph the much more crucial palmprint. He said he told Drain about the palmprint on the barrel when he gave him the rifle, but Drain said he did not.

Day was told by Curry to go no further with the processing. He had not yet got around to photographing the print.  He may have had plenty of time to do so prior to that but he just never got around to doing it. Criticize him all you want for failing to do so but it won't alter the fact the he lifted that print.  I believe him. He was an honest man. The "he was rushed" dog hunts very well.

And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.

Day felt no need to sign an affidavit. If he had something else to offer than what he said under oath, or as a clarification or correction,  then he would have. Like with his June 1964 affidavit regarding the hulls.

You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.

Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339534/

"This is a list of evidence released to the FBI from our crime lab 11-26-63."

Drain got the lift of the palm print on Nov 26. Not sure why he held onto it until the 29th. How have you determined that every other item on 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27?

You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)

I am aware that, according to Henry Hurt,  Drain told Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22. I wasn't aware that he said that he thought it was planted.  Are you aware that Agent Drain told Larry Sneed that he believed Day to be an honest man?

[Tim Nickerson]

    "Rusty was standing by as lieutenant Day gave the rifle to Drain. Rusty told me that
     Drain was in a hurry to leave and was distracted by another FBI agent who was
     hurrying him to leave. According to Rusty, 'Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day
     and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm plant
     at the time.'"
          -- JFK first Day Evidence, Gary Savage, 1993
              "Rusty" is Crime Lab Det. Richard W. Livingston, with the DPD 1951-74.

  I have to get a copy of that book.

[Tom Scully]

.....
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.

You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.

Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?

You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)

Henry Hurt was run by Bush and Readers Digest editor, Fulton Oursler and reported directly at Readers Digest to the younger Edward Thompson, son of the former Life Magazine editor.

Henry Hurt leaned on Billy Joe Lord, under the direction of Bush's best friend, Gerry Bemiss, a cousin of Henry Hurt's wife, who happened to be the niece of Freeport Sulphur's chairman, Langbourne Williams.

Dec. 6 specially decorated Bush '41 Train engine, was Billy Joe Lord on board?
« on: December 06, 2018, 06:59:00 PM »
.......

And :

.....

...........

[Tom Scully]

Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.

Couple of questions, Tim

1. What evidentiary value does the paper bag allegedly found in the snipers nest have, considering that;

(1) it was made from TSBD material and found in the TSBD, on a floor where Oswald worked,
(2) it only had two identifiable prints on it, apparently belonging to Oswald, of which the locations on the bag were not consistent with the way Oswald, according to Frazier, carried the bag he brought with him,
(3) there were more prints present on the bag which could not be identified, leaving open the possibility of other people also having touched the bag

2. What, other than assumption, proves that the bag allegedly found at the TSBD is the same one Oswald carried that morning?

3. First of all, there is no match, to the exclusion of all other blankets, between the fibers found in the bag and the blanket found in Ruth Paine's garage. At best you can say the fibers are similar, but using the term "matched" is overstating the evidence.

And the question is; I'm sure you've seen the photographs made by the DPD and the FBI lab in which the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage lies directly next to the paper bag allegedly found at the TSBD. How can you rule out a transfer of fibers from the blanket to the bag when those photographs were taken? And if you can not rule out such a transfer, what evidentiary value do the fibers found in the paper bag actually have?

Elaborate means were undertaken to discourage the drawing of conclusions. Another of numerous examples besides what appears below in this post was Roscoe White's wife, Geneva, being in possession of the BYP photo print with the figure of Oswald cut out of it....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24554-roscoe-white/

http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/murr.htm
The Undeliverable Package
by Gary Murr

What I am about to outline, briefly, is from notes regarding this issue that grew out of discussions between myself, Fred Newcomb and the late Perry Adams back in 1972.

This brown paper parcel that showed up at the "dead letter" section of the Irving, Texas Post Office, had been labeled, as described by Jerry, and it was handwritten. Originally the word Dallas had been on the ostensible address, but this had been scratched through with a pencil and Irving, Texas (gray box) was written beneath the original Dallas inscription.



The FBI agent who examined this find indicated that when he was shown the parcel, it "...was partially opened at the time of discovery [Dec. 4, 1963]." (CD 205) As Jerry's writings indicated, this "parcel" contained a brown paper bag "...open at both ends." The address was non-existent and, importantly, the parcel lacked any postage. Commission Document # 735 indicates that the FBI thereafter launched an investigation to determine the contents of the now-empty parcel, but that is where the trail ended. As far as I know, the results of this FBI "investigation" have never come to light. Of course, none of this was mentioned in the Warren Report.

Fred Newcomb had the parcel, bag etc. photographed at the Archives, and when he received the enlarged detail of the handwritten address label, he and Perry Adams were of the opinion that the writing was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. This is one potential lead which would be nice to pursue, with handwriting experts.

Where does this all tie in? Fred and Perry came up with a hypothesis, the nuts and bolts of which I will herein present for everyone's edification.

One of the items listed on the inventory of those articles seized during a search of the Paine residence on November 23, 1963, was the following:
1(one) notice of attempt to deliver mail, card dated November 20, 1963, to Mr. Lee Oswald, 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas - a parcel to be picked up.(CE2003;24H348) ....
.......

[Tom Scully]

Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.

The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.

Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.

This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.

Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!

But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves. To be clear, I'm not saying this actually happened, but it needs to be ruled out as a possibility before anyone can say with any kind of certainty that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.

The government's questioned documents expert witness testified to examination and evaluation of the handwriting on the original postal money order. The provenance of the original, located at the Arlington, VA archive, IMO, is solid. My research forced a revision by John Armstrong of his claim the Klein's money order was located in the wrong city compared to what Armstrong originally inaccurately claimed was the correct location, the Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City and disqualified Armstrong's claim the Klein's money order serial number was out of sequence compared to the
serial numbers on money orders known to have been purchased by Oswald in Dallas in  fall, 1962 and sent to the Dept. of State to repay his travel expenses loan in the process of his and Marina's journey from Minsk to the U.S.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0191a.htm

[Tom Scully]

.....

Not submitted just means that it was not submitted to the Crime Lab. Submitting an item to the Crime Lab was not an absolute requirement. Lots of items were never submitted. The shell was accounted for.

minor details -- LOL

OK, as has been documented so far also the WC knew that foggy Day was FoS.

The 'Rusty' story makes no sense since there was nothing to explain, just hand Vince the card (CE 637) which said where the lift came from.

Holding on to the card would have made no sense for Day as the FBI now had the reference prints from Oswald, Day couldn't work on that lift anyway.

All BS, implying that CE 637 was fabricated evidence --- that's why the commission had to come up with something in September.

I'll get back to you on the fake Waldman exhibit and the third shell.