Paul Landis was one of two Secret Service agents tasked with guarding first lady Jacqueline Kennedy on November 22, 1963—the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In a new book, The Final Witness, to be published in October, Landis claims to have seen something that afternoon that he had never publicly admitted before. His secret, coming to light only now, will certainly reorient how historians and laymen perceive that grave and harrowing event. His account also raises questions about whether there might have been a second gunman in Dallas that day...
He claims he spotted a bullet resting on the top of the back of the seat. He says he picked it up, put it in his pocket, and brought it into the hospital. Then, upon entering Trauma Room No. 1 (at that stage, he was the only nonmedical person in the room besides Mrs. Kennedy, and both stayed for only a short period), he insists, he placed the bullet on a white cotton blanket on the president’s stretcher.
This secret, as it turns out, may upend key conclusions of the Warren Commission, the body created by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the assassination.
The sad fact is that Landis—though required to provide his version of events to the Secret Service (and, in a second report, to what would become the Warren Commission)—never sat for an interview before the FBI and never testified before the commission itself. He left the Secret Service months after the assassination and before the panel had finished its work and issued its report.
Landis, to this day, attests that in the first few years following the assassination, he was simply unable to overcome his PTSD from witnessing the murder firsthand. He says that the mental image of the president’s head, exploding, had become a recurring flashback. He maintains that he desperately tried to push down the memories. He also says he felt unable to read anything in detail about the assassination until some 50 years later, starting in 2014, when he began to come to grips with all that he had witnessed, suppressed, and finally processed...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman
Vanity Fair: A New JFK Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held “Lone Gunman” Theory
If Landis' story is true, it likely confirms that CE399 wasn't found on the Governor's stretcher and proves that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back didn't exit his throat.
As absurd as the single bullet theory is, for this guy to not come forward for 60 years strains credulity about his story.
The "shallow wound" and "non-transit" conspiracy myths, while powerful arguments at first glance, might have influenced Landis.
…later that night, an autopsy began at Bethesda Naval Hospital, near Washington, DC. During the procedure, doctors examined the president’s remains, only to discover a small bullet hole in the right shoulder, about five inches down from the top of the collar. This injury had gone unnoticed at Parkland since the president was declared dead before his body could be surveyed in its entirety. The Bethesda pathologists were puzzled when they probed the wound because it clearly was an entrance puncture, but it did not seem to have an exit wound, even though X-rays showed no bullet in the body.
In fact, the shoulder wound was shallow. Two doctors found that they could not pass more than half a pinky finger into the opening. Metal probes likewise uncovered no path of the bullet through the body.
Standing in proximity to the doctors were two FBI agents, Frank O’Neill and Jim Sibert, who had been dispatched by the bureau’s director, J. Edgar Hoover, to witness the autopsy and recover bullets or bullet fragments for the FBI lab. In their written statement, the agents discussed the frustration of the Bethesda doctors when they could not locate a bullet or exit wound for the projectile that had entered the president’s shoulder.
That night, according to the agents’ account, one of them placed a call to the FBI lab and found out that a “stretcher bullet” had been discovered at Parkland. Doctors used this information to theorize that “this accounted for no bullet being located which had entered the back region and that since external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital, it was entirely possible that through such movement the bullet had worked its way back out of the point of entry and had fallen on the stretcher.”
The next morning, the Bethesda pathologists, as stated in their Warren Commission testimony, were told by Parkland doctors that the wound in the front of Kennedy’s neck was more than just the result of the tracheotomy they had performed. In fact, the Parkland team stated, there had been a bullet hole in the anterior (front) of the neck, and the ER staff had used that wound to create the tracheotomy. No one at the autopsy, according to FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill, had suspected there was a hole in the front of the president’s neck. With this new information, the Bethesda doctors revised their findings and assumed that the front wound was an exit for the bullet that had entered the president’s body from the back.
There were problems with this inference. The neck and shoulder had not been sectioned by those performing the autopsy to establish a bullet path. And by the time of the revelation of the front-neck injury, the president’s body had been brought to the White House to lay in repose in the East Room. (The next day, it lay in state in the Capitol rotunda.) Further, the wound in the back, according to Silbert and O’Neill, did not align with the location of the front-neck wound; such a pathway would have required a bullet traveling from the book depository, behind the motorcade, to have changed course inside the president’s body so as to exit higher up, through the neck, without hitting any bone to alter its course.
Agents O’Neill and Sibert didn’t buy it. “I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder in the back could have come out the front of the throat,” O’Neill told the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978.
Landis’s discovery of the bullet on top of the rear seat, if true, comports with the initial finding: that the bullet had lodged superficially in the president’s back before being dislodged by the final blast to his head. It also explains the “pristine” nature of the bullet.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/new-jfk-assassination-revelation-upend-lone-gunman
From Mr. Richard Smith's favorite newspaper, the NY Times:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nh3cxnZG/Landis-hill-nytimes.jpg)
Thumb1:
From Mr. Richard Smith's favorite newspaper, the NY Times:
Clint Hill is a lying piece of scum. His foot never hit the road until JFK was dead anyone can see that on the Muchmore film. I always thought Ruby could have planted it since he was at Parkland according to Seth Kantor and I 100% believe him. Seems the Secret Service did several illegal things that day including stealing JFK's body from Parkland.SSA Hill was on the tarmac & was level with the front left wheel of Queen Mary when SSA Hickey fired his say 4th shot at Z312 (hitting JFK in the head).
Anotherhoax“new account” in a new book that “just happens” to be published perfectly timed with the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination. Yawn, these types of things will probably still be appearing on the hundredth and sixtieth anniversary…
I read all three of Clint Hill’s books. I don’t remember him even hinting at anything resembling Paul Lands’ outlandish story or Landis ever mentioning it to him. Apparently Clint Hill is still alive and kicking. But I saw no indications in the Vanity Fair article that anyone has tried to contact Clint regarding Landis’ contentions. And not surprisingly, the naysayers have expressed no skepticism about Landis’ story.
Clint Hill was quoted in the NY Times article about Landis’ book.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/09/us/politics/jfk-assassination-witness-paul-landis.html
Parkland nurse, Phyllis Hall’s testimony, corroborates Landis’ claim that he put a bullet on Kennedy’s stretcher.
The question is, did Landis know of her story before he started telling others about what he did 60 years ago?
He’s at least credible and not easy to dismiss as a witness. It’s just a matter of figuring out what parts of his story can be corroborated by the evidence or other witnesses.
Apparently one has to subscribe to The NY Times in order to read the article. What did Clint Hill have to say?
“Indeed, his partner, Clint Hill, the legendary Secret Service agent who clambered onto the back of the speeding limousine in a futile effort to save Kennedy, discouraged Mr. Landis from speaking out. “Many ramifications,” Mr. Hill warned in a 2014 email that Mr. Landis saved and shared last month.
Mr. Hill, who has set out his own account of what happened in multiple books and interviews, cast doubt on Mr. Landis’s version on Friday. “I believe it raises concerns when the story he is telling now, 60 years after the fact, is different than the statements he wrote in the days following the tragedy” and told in subsequent years, Mr. Hill said in an email. “In my mind, there are serious inconsistencies in his various statements/stories.””
It was not until 2014 that he realized that the official account of the bullet differed from his memory, he said, but he did not come forward then out of a feeling that he had made a mistake in putting it on the stretcher without telling anyone in that pre-C.S.I., secure-the-crime-scene era.
“I didn’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Landis said. “I was afraid. I started to think, did I do something wrong? There was a fear that I might have done something wrong and I shouldn’t talk about it.”
Indeed, his partner, Clint Hill, the legendary Secret Service agent who clambered onto the back of the speeding limousine in a futile effort to save Kennedy, discouraged Mr. Landis from speaking out. “Many ramifications,” Mr. Hill warned in a 2014 email that Mr. Landis saved and shared last month.
Mr. Hill, who has set out his own account of what happened in multiple books and interviews, cast doubt on Mr. Landis’s version on Friday. “I believe it raises concerns when the story he is telling now, 60 years after the fact, is different than the statements he wrote in the days following the tragedy” and told in subsequent years, Mr. Hill said in an email. “In my mind, there are serious inconsistencies in his various statements/stories.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/09/us/politics/jfk-assassination-witness-paul-landis.html
I do plan to read Landis’ book when it becomes available. Mostly because I have in the past enjoyed reading the accounts of the people who were there. Landis’ outlandish story regarding finding a bullet on the top of the back seat of the limo and placing it on the hospital stretcher is just not believable. But maybe his story includes some other information that might be interesting.
Parkland nurse, Phyllis Hall, was there on 11/22/63.
She said she saw a bullet on JFK's stretcher (she saw the governor enter the ER as well but mentioned nothing about seeing a bullet on his stretcher). That independently corroborates Landis' story (assuming he wasn't aware of her statement before 2014).
(She mentions the bullet at 2:08 into the video)
I'm inclined to believe Landis is telling the truth as he remembers that day even if some specific details may be wrong.
I also don't believe the official story of how CE399 was discovered fwiw.
I noticed Phyllis Hall said she saw what she described as an exit wound in JFK’s throat. That would make the shallow back of neck wound theory invalid. Also, she said that she hasn’t seen a photo of the bullet she claims to have seen on the stretcher. Has she seen a photo of CE399 and does she claim the bullet she saw was different? If so, her account definitely does not cooborrate Landis’ outlandish story.
There's something not right here. Do y'all really think it's credible that a Secret Service agent would put such an immensely valuable piece of evidence on a hospital stretcher? - where it could have easily gone unnoticed momentarily and dropped off, rolled under a cupboard, been fingered, stolen as a souvenir?
Following professional protocol, he would immediately have pocketed the bullet, then submitted it to be bagged as crucial evidence.
So, the discovery of the bullet on the stretcher points more to an "amateur" plant.
Common sense time - why would "they" put this crucial piece of evidence on the wrong stretcher?
I would like to add that Paul Landis’ outlandish story most certainly fits my definition of a morphing memory. And therefore could be added to the ones already specified in the thread by that title.
I was hit by a BB when I was a much younger and more foolish person. It lodged just beneath the skin but still had to be surgically removed. A typical BB gun from that era fired in the range of approximately a 300 to 400 feet per second velocity. The slowest velocity that I can get the Hornady Ballistic Calculator to calculate a Carcano bullet’s trajectory is 600 feet per second. At that velocity (due to gravity and the resistance of the air) the barrel would need to be aimed 48.92” above the target to hit it at a distance of 58-yards (the approximate distance from the sixth floor window to JFK at Z224). Does anyone really believe that this is what actually happened? If so, please explain your position.
A - Landis is telling the truth about feeling guilty about potentially mishandling what he later realized could've been a major piece of evidence. He didn't talk about it because he knew he screwed up.
or
B - This is a Limited Hangout intended to cover for someone else who placed a bullet on either Kennedy's or Connolly's stretcher.
Only the folks that are ignorant about the details of the JFK assassination and people biased against the authorities would believe Landis’ outlandish story. Sadly, the publishers know that there are enough people in these two categories to make this book profitable for them. Especially if it is timed to coincide with the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination. I think the publishers most likely took advantage of Landis’ advanced age and perhaps his financial situation. So I do have some sympathy for Landis. The biased folks tend to throw common sense out the window in their desperation to believe in anything other than the official story. Pleas for common sense usually go in one ear and out the other….
he days following the tragedy” and told in subsequent years, Mr. Hill said in an email. “In my mind, there are serious inconsistencies in his various statements/stories.”[/b]It is difficult to understand why he did not mention the bullet in his written statements of November 27/63 (18H758: 2 pages) and November 30/63 (18H751: 7 pages). His Nov 30 statement included these details:
I would like to add that Paul Landis’ outlandish story most certainly fits my definition of a morphing memory. And therefore could be added to the ones already specified in the thread by that title.
It is difficult to understand why he did not mention the bullet in his written statements of November 27/63 (18H758: 2 pages) and November 30/63 (18H751: 7 pages). His Nov 30 statement included these details:
"Agent Hill helped Mrs . Kennedy out of the car, and I followed. Mrs . Kennedy's purse and hat and a cigarette lighter were on the back seat. I picked these three items up as I walked through the car and followed Mrs . Kennedy into the hospital. The President's body was taken directly to an Emergency Room, and I think I remember Mrs . Kennedy following the people in but coming out almost immediately.
The door to the Emergency doom was closed and I stayed by Mrs. Kennedy's side. Someone, in the meantime, had brought a chair for Mrs . Kennedy to sit in and she and she sat just outside of the Emergency Room. There were several people milling around and with the help of a nurse we cleared all unauthorized personnel out of the immediate area."
Come on Charles. I know you're aware that the NY Times has tended to promote the official narrative about the Kennedy assassination. They don't typically boost JFK conspiracy books.
Do you think the Times did nothing at all to determine whether or not Landis is a credible witness before publishing their article?
To me, given their history, it's significant that they are taking his book and his claim seriously. And the rest of the news media seems to be following the lead of the NY Times on the Landis story.
Again, it's possible that he could be misremembering some things. But we don't know enough to conclude that it's a hoax and Landis is just doing this to sell a book. Time will tell...
I noticed Phyllis Hall said she saw what she described as an exit wound in JFK’s throat. That would make the shallow back of neck wound theory invalid. Also, she said that she hasn’t seen a photo of the bullet she claims to have seen on the stretcher. Has she seen a photo of CE399 and does she claim the bullet she saw was different? If so, her account definitely does not cooborrate Landis’ outlandish story.
Just looking back at the Phyllis Clark video, it's clear that she saw the bullet on the trolly next to Kennedy's head while it was on the way to the Emergencies room - so I'd say there was no time for a deliberate plant by Ruby or anyone else. I've also ruled out Landis's story so that would only leave the theory of the shallow back wound splurging out the bullet when Kennedy was put on his back on the stretcher...BUT she noticed that exit wound at the throat! Hells bells.
Just looking back at the Phyllis Clark video, it's clear that she saw the bullet on the trolly next to Kennedy's head while it was on the way to the Emergencies room - so I'd say there was no time for a deliberate plant by Ruby or anyone else. I've also ruled out Landis's story so that would only leave the theory of the shallow back wound splurging out the bullet when Kennedy was put on his back on the stretcher...BUT she noticed that exit wound at the throat! Hells bells.
There are so many accounts of witnesses that are not consistent with each other. Anyone who has a theory can typically find at least one account that seems to support their theory, no matter how outlandish it may be. Follow the evidence and give the accounts that tend to agree with the evidence more weight than accounts that have no evidence to support them. Example: the clothing that JFK was wearing supports an exit wound in the throat.
Frankly, the fact that he was one of the Secret Service agents assigned to Jackie Kennedy instantly makes him and his outlandish story newsworthy. They’re in the business of selling newspapers. That doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with his morphed account.
I agree and it would seem to prove that the throat exit it was exit of that upper back entry shot. So explaining the bullet lying there next to his head is a real conundrum.
That wasn't my point. The point is that they are at least treating him as credible. Which they don't typically do with books that go into JFK assassination conspiracy territory. Do you think the Times didn't do their due diligence and ask people if Landis is senile or has a history of lying or exaggerating before running that article? This isn't anything like Tucker Carlson saying a friend told him the CIA killed JFK.
But IMHO, the Vanity Fair article on Landis is better written and has more details than Pete Baker's NY Times article. That's why I cited the VF article in the original post.
LOL, they asked Clint Hill who said (very nicely) that Landis’ outlandish story wouldn’t hold water. But they published it anyway. And only because it is newsworthy and will help them sell their paper. That’s all there is to it.
No. Clint Hill said what Landis is saying now conflicts with what he said in his official statements in 1963. Which is worth keeping in mind but doesn't prove that he's not telling the truth now the same way that Malcolm Perry and other witnesses changing their statements about the assassination doesn't prove that they lied before or after their statements changed.
FWIW, Hill and Landis are friends as Landis' email exchange with Hill from 2014 proves.
Might want to wait til the book is released before jumping to any further conclusions...
I don’t remember that anyone has ever said that Landis was ever actually inside Trauma Room 1. But I could be forgetting something. The account you posted appears to indicate that he stayed outside the room in the corridor when Jackie went into the room. I know that the room was relatively small and that would have been a deterrent to anyone who wasn’t needed in there.The fact that he thought he remembered "Mrs . Kennedy following the people in but coming out almost immediately" suggests she came into the room where he was ie. he did not go in.
There's something not right here. Do y'all really think it's credible that a Secret Service agent would put such an immensely valuable piece of evidence on a hospital stretcher? - where it could have easily gone unnoticed momentarily and dropped off, rolled under a cupboard, been fingered, stolen as a souvenir?
Following professional protocol, he would immediately have pocketed the bullet, then submitted it to be bagged as crucial evidence.
So, the discovery of the bullet on the stretcher points more to an "amateur" plant.
Having read Clint Hill’s three books, I know Hill and Landis are friends. I haven’t seen the email from 2014 that you have cited a couple of times. But I do know that Clint Hill is very much a gentleman who wouldn’t be unduly critical of his friends. I was a little surprised to see him be as critical of Landis’ outlandish story as he was in The NY Times article. It is what Hill said (without really saying it) that tells us the story is full of holes. I have pointed out a few of the holes. There are others.
At best, Landis' account would explains how CE399 got from the car to a stretcher. But not JFK's stretcher.
Hill didn't say what you're saying. You're putting words into his mouth.
All he said is that what Landis is saying now is inconsistent with his official statements from 1963. Which is important to keep in mind but doesn't prove that Landis isn't telling the truth (as he remembers it).
From the NY Times article (again):
It was not until 2014 that he realized that the official account of the bullet differed from his memory, he said, but he did not come forward then out of a feeling that he had made a mistake in putting it on the stretcher without telling anyone in that pre-C.S.I., secure-the-crime-scene era.
“I didn’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Landis said. “I was afraid. I started to think, did I do something wrong? There was a fear that I might have done something wrong and I shouldn’t talk about it.”
Indeed, his partner, Clint Hill, the legendary Secret Service agent who clambered onto the back of the speeding limousine in a futile effort to save Kennedy, discouraged Mr. Landis from speaking out. “Many ramifications,” Mr. Hill warned in a 2014 email that Mr. Landis saved and shared last month.
Mr. Hill, who has set out his own account of what happened in multiple books and interviews, cast doubt on Mr. Landis’s version on Friday. “I believe it raises concerns when the story he is telling now, 60 years after the fact, is different than the statements he wrote in the days following the tragedy” and told in subsequent years, Mr. Hill said in an email. “In my mind, there are serious inconsistencies in his various statements/stories.”
The first part is correct. There is no conceivable reason that a SS agent would leave the bullet that he believes was used to assassinate the president on a stretcher. That is absurd. Then never say a word about doing that for six decades? No one can believe that narrative. These people have been hounded by CTers for decades. Telemarketers and scam artists target the elderly for a reason. Clint Hill is trying to be polite to an aging colleague.
There is no conceivable reason that a SS agent would leave the bullet that he believes was used to assassinate the president on a stretcher. That is absurd.
There is also no conceivable reason why a SS agent would receive a bullet from a citizen, put it in his pocket instead of an evidence bag (which were available at Parkland), take it to Washington and not establish a credible chain of custody for it. Yet, that's exactly what happened.... Go figure.
There is no conceivable reason that a SS agent would leave the bullet that he believes was used to assassinate the president on a stretcher. That is absurd.
There is also no conceivable reason why a SS agent would receive a bullet from a citizen, put it in his pocket instead of an evidence bag (which were available at Parkland), take it to Washington and not establish a credible chain of custody for it. Yet, that's exactly what happened.... Go figure.
Hi Everybody, This bullet seems to be the original bullet that everybody saw at Parkland that morphed [was replaced by] into the Carcano bullet entered into evidence. I cannot think of anybody who handled the Carcano bullet at Parkland who was willing to sign off on it later as being the same bullet that they saw. Please correct me if I am wrong. Sincerely yours, Michael
They were all in on it? This from the joker who claims over and over that he is not alleging a conspiracy or that the evidence was fabricated. But he constantly implies that there was a conspiracy, and the evidence was fabricated. You have to pick one narrative or the other. You can't eat your cake and have it too as the Unabomber noted.
The "chain of custody" with respect to this Pristine Bullet would never hold up in court. No Carcano bullet takes the alleged journey that this one did and emerges in this condition. No getting around it, even though they tried and tried.Why would it not be in the condition it was? As to the court standard. Why is that standard used when we discuss this event? No one discusses any other historic event, no one tries to reconstruct what happened and tosses out information because some legal standard required it. It's bizarre that people argue this way.
As absurd as the single bullet theory is, for this guy to not come forward for 60 years strains credulity about his story.
Yes, very well said. I highly doubt this story and I think this guy is simply trying to drum up business to buy his book. I mean, really? Sixty years on and we only now hear about this?
For goodness sake - people will say and do anything to try to make a buck off of this case.
And this should tell you a lot about the Vanity Fair article:
After much prodding and reflection, Landis, now 88, made the decision to begin laying out his recollections for publication. Because I have written three books on presidential history, and because Landis’s publisher, Chicago Review Press, happens to be my publisher, an editor there asked me to read a copy of the galley and offer my comments, which I did quite eagerly.
As well as this:
All products featured on Vanity Fair are independently selected by our editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission.
It's all a money grab. Jeez.
Your cynicism is understandable but we can just as easily ask “why did he wait so long to cash in on his experiences?” if we are assuming that he’s just trying to make a quick buck.
Landis is 88 years old now. He could’ve wrote a book decades ago and had more time to enjoy his earnings if he didn’t wait 60 years.
So I’m more inclined to believe he’s coming clean because he’s near the end of his life. Which isn’t unusual for people who keep secrets after experiencing a traumatic event. When he says he experienced PTSD after the Kennedy assassination, I believe him. Can’t imagine how I’d feel after seeing someone’s brains blown out in front of me…
No. You'd don't handle a situation like that. He was a government official. Any official would have seen the bullet, picked it up, and reported it immediately to a superior or colleague. You DON'T pick it up, lay it on a towel, and walk away from it and THEN decide to write a book about it 60 years later. It sounds like pure bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
And if the quotes and disclaimers I pulled from the VM article mean nothing to you, then it sounds like you're one of the many others who fall for stuff like this.
No Secret Service agent would put a bullet on a stretcher.But you could also say, with the same level of incredulity, that no Secret Service agent would come out with a story 60 years after the event that conflicted with his original statements and saying that he put a bullet on a stretcher.
Royell is back too? It’s like old home week!
No. You'd don't handle a situation like that. He was a government official. Any official would have seen the bullet, picked it up, and reported it immediately to a superior or colleague. You DON'T pick it up, lay it on a towel, and walk away from it and THEN decide to write a book about it 60 years later. It sounds like pure bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
And if the quotes and disclaimers I pulled from the VM article mean nothing to you, then it sounds like you're one of the many others who fall for stuff like this.
It’s fine to criticize how Landis handled the evidence (I’m sure he’s aware that it was a mistake) but let’s not pretend that he was the only police officer or federal agent who mishandled JFK assassination evidence.
No. You'd don't handle a situation like that. He was a government official. Any official would have seen the bullet, picked it up, and reported it immediately to a superior or colleague. You DON'T pick it up, lay it on a towel, and walk away from it and THEN decide to write a book about it 60 years later.
What's freaking out the Warren Gullibles about this Landis thing is not just Mr. Landis' story itself but also the fact that it is getting not unsympathetic coverage from legacy media
That's EXACTLY what VF, the author of the book and the article author are hoping to happen. I've seen this way too many times over the years. Case in point - Clint the SS guy started off as a guy who was shaken by the murder and tried to be honest about what happened that day [circa late 60s]. Then, when the money machine kicks in and there's plenty of suckers to be had, he starts writing *SHOCKING NEWS ABOUT THE MURDER -- BUY HIS BOOK!!!* BS.
This Landis thing is no different and that's what we're seeing - the guy who just so happens to work at the same publishing company as Landis takes a "keen" interest in his long-lost tale, Landis writes the book, then the other guy writes an article in a "major" media outlet. All just in time two months before the 60th anniversary for the books to start flying of off the shelves.
That's EXACTLY what VF, the author of the book and the article author are hoping to happen. I've seen this way too many times over the years. Case in point - Clint the SS guy started off as a guy who was shaken by the murder and tried to be honest about what happened that day [circa late 60s]. Then, when the money machine kicks in and there's plenty of suckers to be had, he starts writing *SHOCKING NEWS ABOUT THE MURDER -- BUY HIS BOOK!!!* BS.
This Landis thing is no different
What is actually pushing this revival of the JFK Assassination is the candidacy of RFK Jr for POTUS. He makes no bones about his "uncle" having been murdered in a conspiracy involving the CIA. He brings it up every time he is interviewed. RFK Jr is gonna continue to drive this topic as the JFK assassination anniversary heads into yr 60/Nov. Count on it.
Mr. Kennedy may come to wish he'd never asked what really happened---------------the truth could be v. damaging to the memory of his uncle and father
(Hello again to you btw, Mr. Storing!)
Hey Alan. RFK Jr is not asking what happened. He claims to already know what did happen via direct conversations with CIA sources.
I encourage you as I did Iacoletti to direct your JFK Assassination knowledge/eye toward "You Tube". Over there, "The JFK Theorist" has posted 2 very good copies of the Darnell Film, and there is also a "HD/Between the sprocket holes" copy of the Bell Film from start-to-finish. Looks like the same HD Bell Film that was spottingly used on "The Lost Bullet" DVD/Max Holland. The better definition Darnell Film(s) over there, and specifically the train yard segment with Sheriff Roger Craig, call into question the current timeline of Motorcycle Officer Haygood. The evolving/revealing images on these films merit being discussed here by knowledgeable JFK Assassination researchers such as yourself and Iacoletti. The truth continues dribbling out.
Hi Everybody, Is this the bullet captured on film on November 22, 1963? It is the silver object about an inch and a half long stuck where the bubble top would go about 24 inches behind Clint Hill's left hand where a curve begins. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/780aa39f61944325916fd6dddc3ca6c5-2cd3ce52cd524eceb4dec8ee73ce19cd-0_zps9a7fced4.jpg)
(https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/9a09a1d/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F58%2Ffb%2Fc1d581af4208abbbe3816d1cff4a%2Fwebp.net-resizeimage%20%2828%29.jpg)
Yeah, we have the WC initially working on a 2 Shots Fired scenario, and then there's the Carcano being ID'd as a Mauser, and don't forget that for roughly 40 yrs the Wiegman film was erroneously ballyhoo'd as being filmed "continuously" along with the Bogus ID of McKinnon/Mumford. But all of that is hunky dory in the Lone Nut World.
That bright area about 1" long is a reflexion of the Sun.
I wonder whether Landis can tell us (show us) exactly where the slug was sitting.
Hi Everybody, Is this the bullet captured on film on November 22, 1963? It is the silver object about an inch and a half long stuck where the bubble top would go about 24 inches behind Clint Hill's left hand where a curve begins. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/780aa39f61944325916fd6dddc3ca6c5-2cd3ce52cd524eceb4dec8ee73ce19cd-0_zps9a7fced4.jpg)
(https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/9a09a1d/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F58%2Ffb%2Fc1d581af4208abbbe3816d1cff4a%2Fwebp.net-resizeimage%20%2828%29.jpg)
I only see a mechanical “catch” that appears designed to hold the top in place and a couple of reflections of the sun on the curved part of the trim and the corner of the top of the back seat. Maybe you could point it out with an arrow or circle or something like that?
Hi Charles, I am so sorry. I have no computer skills. If you went straight up from the left rear hubcap, and over about four inches to the curve in the trim, you would hit the particular shiny spot that I am talking about. If Paul Landis is telling the truth, it would have to be right there when Clint Hill is on the limo. Thank you very much for your kind reply! Sincerely yours, Michael
I have drawn a yellow, red, and a blue arrow to three possibilities as I see it. Is your “object” one of these, or something else? If it is one of these, which color arrow points to it?
(https://i.vgy.me/MdDjNG.jpg)
Thanks.
Hi Charles, This is so cool! You are terrific!!!!! It is the red one. I know it could be the yellow one too, but I really think Paul Landis was trying to explain it was in the seam in between the leather and the metal trunk. We both know it is not the blue one because that is one of those metal clasps to hold the bubble top in place. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Thanks Michael, the red arrow points to what I believe to be a reflection of the sun on the chrome trim. CE399 is a copper-clad full metal jacketed bullet. It would not be near as shiny as the chrome is.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T37DqsYM/Limo-love-field-marked.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jz1FBstY/Limo-love-field-zoom.jpg)
Do we have any good photos of this part of the limousine prior to 11/22?
Hi Alan, I hope that you are doing well. Here is one picture of the limo before November 22.
(https://www.baltimoresun.com/resizer/uoU6nORWs5orL8JKO3Zfnf0budM=/800x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DPZSQTRVU62K7TMCLNHL6KXHQU.jpg)
Sincerely yours, Michael
Thank you very much, Mr. Welch! Thumb1:
Would you happen to know when/where this photo was taken?
Hi Alan, It was in 1961 freshly made at the factory. Please call me Michael. Alan, you do wonderful work! Was it you or Royell that always used to say back in 2013 that people sell out for thirty pieces of silver like Judas. I think it was you. Anyway Paul Landis in some ways is more of an overloaded almost autistic person at the time of the assassination. He just kind of does what he wants to do! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi Charles, I think the yellow arrow points to a reflection but the red arrow points to a shiny silver colored bullet hard metal tipped bullet that was not CE399 but was the bullet that Nurse Hall and O. P. Wright and others at Parkland described. This bullet was replaced by CE399. This is always my opinion as you know. Thank you for taking an interest and helping me! I really appreciate it! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide4_thumb.jpg)
This is the type of bullet that O. P. Wright says he saw at Parkland.
A shiny silver colored bullet? Were “they” trying to kill a vampire [Edit: or was that supposed to be a werewolf?] with a polished silver bullet? Here is your other photo of the limo before 11/22:
(https://i.vgy.me/8AUkeo.jpg)
The yellow arrow shows a similar light reflection (to what I am describing) on the curved portion (convex) trim closest to the camera. The red arrow shows a similar light reflection on the inside (concave) portion of the curved part of the trim in the same area that your 11/22 photo depicts (except on the convex surface). You can have your opinion, I really don’t care. I am just trying to show you what I believe the 11/22 photo depicts.
Mr. Paul Landis' description for NBC News of where he found the bullet:
"...on the back of the seat where the cushioning meets the trunk of the car [...] It was just lying where the seam on the back of the seat meets the metal of the trunk, and it's where they would have attached the bubble top if they were putting it on"
A quote from the pre-publication proofs:
“When Mrs. Kennedy finally stood up, I looked down at the seat and saw a bullet on top of the tufted black leather cushioning behind where she had been sitting. It was resting in a seam where the tufted leather padding ended against the car’s metal body. It wasn’t a bullet fragment like the other two pieces. It was a completely intact bullet. It had been hidden behind Mrs. Kennedy all the time she was seated.”
Do the underlined words definitely mean 'behind her side of the [long] seat'?
What is actually pushing this revival of the JFK Assassination is the candidacy of RFK Jr for POTUS. He makes no bones about his "uncle" having been murdered in a conspiracy involving the CIA. He brings it up every time he is interviewed. RFK Jr is gonna continue to drive this topic as the JFK assassination anniversary heads into yr 60/Nov. Count on it.
Newest JFK Twist: Agent’s Explosive Story Conflicts With Forgotten Earlier One
Landis is now clearly stating what he found in the car was a whole bullet, as distinguished from fragments.
But in his 1983 Associated Press interview, according to the AP account,
Landis said that when he got to the Kennedy limousine outside the hospital, the president had already been taken inside, but he helped Mrs. Kennedy out. He said there was a bullet fragment on the top of the back seat that he picked up and gave to somebody.
So, in that version, it was a fragment, and, instead of putting it on Kennedy’s stretcher, he gave it to someone else...
---
Robenalt says that Landis, who resigned from the service within months of Dallas and who, like his colleagues in the Secret Service, faced major trauma and guilt over the assassination, almost entirely avoided any of the debate and emerging claims over the years and had trouble coming out with his full story. (In fact, he was never interviewed by the Warren Commission or FBI, and was never asked what happened that day.) In two reports to his own agency he never mentioned finding that bullet.
Asked whether he knew about the 1983 statement, Robenalt paused briefly, then said Landis told him that he had been misquoted in the AP story. But he went on to acknowledge that Landis had recounted essentially the same bullet-fragment story in The Kennedy Detail: JFK’s Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence. This was a 2010 account written by former presidential detail agent Gerald Blaine and a journalist, Lisa McCubbin, with the participation of Clint Hill, who became famous for crawling on the trunk of the limousine to protect Jackie Kennedy as she clambered backwards.
Robenalt says Landis, who didn’t know McCubbin well, wasn’t sure whether he should trust her, so he withheld the truth about what really happened. But then in 2014, after reading Josiah “Tink” Thompson’s 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, and seeing for the first time the “official” explanation that a whole bullet had been found on Connally’s stretcher, he realized that, no, that was actually the bullet he had found in Kennedy’s limousine, and that he shouldn’t remain silent any longer.
Landis communicated with Hill about what he now says he actually saw and did, and Hill cautioned him to be careful about damaging the Secret Service’s reputation further. This was shortly after one of the Service’s biggest scandals, a 2012 trip to Colombia, where, tasked with protecting President Obama, agents cavorted with prostitutes. It’s interesting that Hill’s own story about what he saw also changed over the years, but in the direction of the official account. Hill now is expressing doubts about Landis’s recollections.
And here’s a kicker: a Parkland student nurse, Sharon Tuohy, being interviewed in the 1970s by staffers for another panel, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, recounting how she had seen a bullet on Kennedy’s stretcher.
https://whowhatwhy.org/culture/newest-jfk-twist-agents-explosive-story-conflicts-with-forgotten-earlier-one/
I actually don't have a problem with RFK Jr doing that. That family deserves to get to the truth of what happened on 11/22. I do have a problem with people trying to make a buck off of it.
There is no conceivable reason that a SS agent would leave the bullet that he believes was used to assassinate the president on a stretcher. That is absurd.
There is also no conceivable reason why a SS agent would receive a bullet from a citizen, put it in his pocket instead of an evidence bag (which were available at Parkland), take it to Washington and not establish a credible chain of custody for it. Yet, that's exactly what happened.... Go figure.
It's ridiculous to compare that to this story in which a SS agent obtains a critical piece of evidence and then abandons it on a stretcher and never says a word for 60 years. The SS had a lot going on that day. Pedantic nitpicking by a contrarian that they didn't comport themselves as they might in a calmer situation when the president and just been assassinated and they had to be concerned with further attempts on LBJ is laughable.
It's ridiculous to compare that to this story in which a SS agent obtains a critical piece of evidence and then abandons it on a stretcher and never says a word for 60 years. The SS had a lot going on that day. Pedantic nitpicking by a contrarian that they didn't comport themselves as they might in a calmer situation when the president and just been assassinated and they had to be concerned with further attempts on LBJ is laughable.Johnsen (the SS agent) took the bullet from Wright, the Parkland personnel director who got the bullet from Tomlinson, and placed it in his pocket. Why would he think it's evidence that requires being put into an evidence bag? Which he then, I assume, would have put in his pocket anyway? That's not remotely comparable to what Landis said he did. Sixty years later.
Johnsen (the SS agent) took the bullet from Wright, the Parkland personnel director who got the bullet from Tomlinson, and placed it in his pocket. Why would he think it's evidence that requires being put into an evidence bag? Which he then puts in his pocket anyway? That's not remotely comparable to what Landis said he did. Sixty years later.
It is remarkable, though what happened. Tomlinson finds a bullet, gives it to Wright who then tries to give it to an FBI agent - who refuses by saying he's not involved in the investigation (?!) - and another SS agent who also rejects it. Finally, Johnsen takes it after Wright finds him. So the conspirators who planted this bullet didn't have an agent around who would take possession of it? They would plant it on a stretcher and that's the end of it? It's kind of amazing that it wasn't lost in all of this.
Johnsen (the SS agent) took the bullet from Wright, the Parkland personnel director who got the bullet from Tomlinson, and placed it in his pocket. Why would he think it's evidence that requires being put into an evidence bag?
I am not comparing anything. Instead I am merely pointing out just how hypocritical your argument is.
You argued against the Landis story by claiming that there was "no conceivable reason" that a SS agent would act that way.
I merely pointed out that there was also "no conceivable reason" for a SS agent to deal with a crucial piece of evidence in such a negligent manner, yet it happened nevertheless.
In other words, your entire "no conceivale reason" argument is BS.
That's EXACTLY what you did. I can understand your attempt to run from that idiotic comparison. You attempted to compare the Landis story to the actual events to suggest that they were equally improbable. It's laughable. Abandoning critical evidence (i.e. the bullet used to assassinate the president) on a stretcher and walking away from it is vastly different than failing to put it in an "evidence bag" but retaining the evidence. How do you even know that such "evidence bags" were readily available to them? Or that they were aware (assuming that you are even correct) that was the protocol under the extraordinary circumstances. The SS task is to protect the president and VP. They were not in charge of a criminal investigation. They had their hands full under extremely chaotic circumstances not knowing if there were further threats and getting LBJ safely out of the area. If they had put it an evidence bag on live TV and that had been notarized by a group of nuns who witnessed the event, you would still be here claiming there was an issue (fabrication) but then refuse to confirm that you are implying a conspiracy. Rabbit hole.
“Yeah, we have the WC initially working on a 2 Shots Fired scenario,”
Good point Royell. Maybe you can elaborate on the WC "working" on a two shot scenario.
Unless you are talking about something in the Ball- Balin report, I was unaware the WC did any actual work on the fact there was only two shots fired, the WC did note it in their conclusion and stated the problem with the witnesses having been influenced by the media.
The one thing that has never changed in Paul’s memory, is Paul Landis still maintained there were only two shots. It was two shots in 1963 and two shots today. The second shot being the headshot. How about explaining JBC’s wound with this in mind. Paul found what bullet? It looks like SBT is the only answer that is possible. Are you thinking JFK somehow shot Gov Connally?
The WC was working on a 2 shot scenario until the news that James Teague had been scratched in his cheek area as the result of a bullet fragment or debris from a bullet strike/richochet. Teague was standing close to the Triple Underpass somewhat between Main and Commerce St. Once this info drifted down to the WC, it was back to the drawing board.
I believe that reading the Original Report that Landis filed would explain his long term silence regarding his alleged bullet retrieval. In that Original Report, Landis details from his running board position on the Queen Mary, "The only person I recall seeing clearly was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a sidewalk, towards some steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall. He was bent over while running and I started to point towards him, but he didn't have anything in his hands and by this time we were going under the overpass at a very high rate of speed. I was looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stopping along the curb approximately adjacent to where I saw the Negro running". With there being not a single image or assassination eyewitness to corroborate this detailed Landis citing of a colorfully dressed running man, I believe he became the butt of many, many running jokes among his SS colleagues. Hence, his bullet retrieval silence. I do believe if Landis did find a bullet, he fully understood then and going forward the significance of his find. Getting back to his Original Statement, the part I find interesting is his detailing seeing, "a motorcycle policeman ......". Landis would seem to be describing Motorcycle Officer Haygood, but the Queen Mary with Landis aboard was well on its' way to Parkland Hospital by the time that Haygood wrestled with his motorcycle at the Elm St curb. With there being next day newspaper reports that were soon documented by eyewitness testimony of a motorcycle going UP the knoll, the Landis description of a motorcycle cop at the curb is also worthy of being looked at closely.
End of April '64 the Report would still say 3 shots - 3 hits - James Teague caused that to change.
Sorry, but no he didn’t.
He most certainly did and could not be ignored.
There was no SBT before the end April '64 and it seems not for a period of time after that.
Then Teague talked Jim Lehrer June 3rd '64 - it was huge.
Did you read the snip I posted that indicates that the WC was already considering the SBT in February? And it includes some of their reason(s).
"The only person I recall seeing clearly was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a sidewalk, towards some steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall.
From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, pp. 120-122:
. . .
However, remnants of only two bullets were found in the presidential vehicle.
FFS, it’s Tague, not Teague.
I think the Nutters should have a meeting over this Landis story.
Gerald Posner’s comments about Landis surprised me:
“He (Landis) was there,” Posner said during an appearance on “Elizabeth Vargas Reports.” “He was in the car right behind the president. He has a recollection. … I’m assuming that he’s telling the truth. … I think he actually has provided the evidence, after all these years, as to how the single bullet ended up falling off a gurney after the president’s body was taken back to Washington.”
https://www.newsnationnow.com/vargasreports/account-jfk-assassination-posner/
Feb. ? that's funny.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3595
MEMORANDUM | April 27, 1964
TO: J. Lee Rankin
FROM: Norman Redlich
Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet,
Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet.
In April they still needed to test their SBT. The reenactment took place in May. Your bogus claim is that “Tague caused it.” He didn’t, they already had figured it out.
The WC was working on a 2 shot scenario until the news that James Teague had been scratched in his cheek area as the result of a bullet fragment or debris from a bullet strike/richochet. Teague was standing close to the Triple Underpass somewhat between Main and Commerce St. Once this info drifted down to the WC, it was back to the drawing board.
I believe that reading the Original Report that Landis filed would explain his long term silence regarding his alleged bullet retrieval. In that Original Report, Landis details from his running board position on the Queen Mary, "The only person I recall seeing clearly was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a sidewalk, towards some steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall. He was bent over while running and I started to point towards him, but he didn't have anything in his hands and by this time we were going under the overpass at a very high rate of speed. I was looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stopping along the curb approximately adjacent to where I saw the Negro running". With there being not a single image or assassination eyewitness to corroborate this detailed Landis citing of a colorfully dressed running man, I believe he became the butt of many, many running jokes among his SS colleagues. Hence, his bullet retrieval silence. I do believe if Landis did find a bullet, he fully understood then and going forward the significance of his find. Getting back to his Original Statement, the part I find interesting is his detailing seeing, "a motorcycle policeman ......". Landis would seem to be describing Motorcycle Officer Haygood, but the Queen Mary with Landis aboard was well on its' way to Parkland Hospital by the time that Haygood wrestled with his motorcycle at the Elm St curb. With there being next day newspaper reports that were soon documented by eyewitness testimony of a motorcycle going UP the knoll, the Landis description of a motorcycle cop at the curb is also worthy of being looked at closely.
test it out... :D
No, Tague could not be ignored. By the end of April they had testimony re: ricochet bullets. That was not yet pubilc
"The Buddy Walthers bullet" was exposed in "Red Roses from Texas" from Turkish author Nerin E. Gun, was released in the UK Jan 01, 1964.
That was pubic - Tague was out in the beginning of June - that was public -- He had to be addressed directly
In a meeting of Jan 27, Belin, Ball, Eisenberg, and Redlich, FBI: Shanyfelt, and SS: Kelley, and Howlett are trying to compare Z film with Nix
There is nothing in the record of anything other than 3 shots - 3 hits until May 3rd when the FBI began their reenactments.
And there was nothing to test, all Shaneyfelt had to do was position the men to create the possibility of a SB.
WC End of April:
Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet.
The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.
James Tague:
“They had to go back and rewrite the Warren Commission, that’s where the magic bullet came from. That’s the only thing they could come up with.
That one bullet went through two people.”
The single–bullet theory was developed in three stages:
Stage 1: December 1963
The FBI’s report into the assassination matched the wounds to the three bullets in the following way:
one bullet caused all of Governor Connally’s wounds by passing through his torso and shattering his right wrist;
one bullet caused President Kennedy’s fatal head wound;
and one bullet caused one of Kennedy’s non–fatal wounds by entering his back, but did not cause his throat wound.2
Stage 2: March 1964
The Warren Commission modified this explanation by assuming that Kennedy’s throat wound had been caused by the same bullet that had caused his back wound.
Stage 3: June 1964
When the wounding of the bystander, James Tague, was unexpectedly made public, the commission became obliged to use the only plausible explanation that would account for all of the wounds having been inflicted by just three bullets:
one bullet caused Tague’s wound;
one bullet caused President Kennedy’s fatal head wound;
and one bullet caused all of Kennedy’s and Connally’s non–fatal wounds by entering Kennedy’s back, exiting through his throat, entering Connally’s back, exiting his chest, passing through his right wrist, and lodging itself in his left thigh: the single–bullet theory.
The FBI, in their investigation during the immediate aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, didn’t consider the idea that Kennedy and Connolly were struck by the same bullet. They also didn’t consider the idea that at least one shot missed.
James Tague’s injury is what led to the birth of the Single-Bullet theory.
http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination
The only reason for a SBT was a missed shot.
The James Tague hit was public and became the missed shot.
I have already posted Willens’ account which in no uncertain terms explains how the SBT originated. It was not due to Tague. It was to explain where the bullet went after it exited JFK’s throat. [Edit: this theory began in February 1964]
I have already posted Willens’ account which in no uncertain terms explains how the SBT originated. It was not due to Tague. It was to explain where the bullet went after it exited JFK’s throat. [Edit: this theory began in February 1964]
It's possible, even likely, that the FBI knew they had a problem prior to April 1964 but the public becoming aware of Tague's injury is what forced them to come up with an explanation for the throat wound.
The public hadn't seen the autopsy photos or Zapruder film at that point so there would've been little doubt about the FBI's findings had the James Tague issue not become part of the public's awareness...
Based on an internal memo at the end of April, your timing is wrong. ;)
No it’s not. You are jumping to the wrong conclusion regarding the memo. Your claim that Tague caused the SBT is wrong by several months and the wrong reason. Live with it
It's possible, even likely, that the FBI knew they had a problem prior to April 1964 but the public becoming aware of Tague's injury is what forced them to come up with an explanation for the throat wound.
The public hadn't seen the autopsy photos or Zapruder film at that point so there would've been little doubt about the FBI's findings had the James Tague issue not become part of the public's awareness...
I agree, and without a missed shot there probably would not have been a SBT
too funny :D
April 27, 1964:
"Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building."
I agree, and without a missed shot there probably would not have been a SBT
Presumably
adverb
by assuming reasonably; probably:
This was one person assuming something that he was unsure about (hence he used the word presumably). Got it?
Hi Michael, There were plenty of missed shots. There was a first missed shot which hit near the Chism family and made sparks on either the street or left the six inch scar on the sidewalk there. Later when Mr. James Tague was standing up in the open about 40 feet from the Commerce Street triple underpass he was nicked by either a bullet fragment or a chip of the concrete curb there. At the same time a bullet hit the corner of the manhole cover and lodged itself in the grass. It was picked up and pocketed by a blond haired man in a suit who is unknown. So there were plenty of bullets to go around. Both John and Nellie went to their graves saying the first shot hit the President; the second shot hit John; and the third shot hit the President. People have done very strange things for sixty years out of fear. Buell Wesley Frazier has only just recently described a man similar to James Braden who threw a rifle in the back seat of his car in between the Dal-Tex and TSBD. Roy Edward Lewis is found on the Bronson, Nix, Hughes, and Zapruder films behind Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, yet he maintains/swears that he was behind the glass at the TSBD entrance and saw people hit the ground in front of him after he heard Boom, Boom, Boom. So he was and is still living in fear. The Warren Commission was super flexible with their interpretation of the evidence. The throat wound was initially okayed to be on Houston street right before the turn on ELM. Then it was allowed that the President looked back at the Sixth floor window and was shot. All they needed was creative lawyers like Arlen Specter and they could come up with any scenario. Thank you for your input! Sincerely yours, Michael
yea, at the end of April.
you, funny :D
Commission had no investigators on the ground and had to rely on the FBI
Not at all. The WC interviewed a multitude of witnesses. The WC hired many independent experts to examine the evidence. The WC questioned a lot of what the FBI provided. The SBT is a result of that.
Because of a missed shot having gone public. So called "independent experts" were called in to support a lone gunman theory.
WC Executive Session | Jan 27, 1964
A: They would like to have us fold up and quit.
Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don't you see?
Dulles: Yes, I see that.
Rankin: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and WC can go on home and that is
the end of it.
***************************
Jan 27th: The same day the writer of the April memo Norman Redlich led the meeting on the Z film & Nix film - to determine when the 3 shots had hit.
You really should try reading something other than the ridiculous BS: that the CT book authors want you to believe. You haven’t made any sense with this post. What point are you trying to make?
too funny :D
April 27, 1964:
"Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building."
What book? - All are from the official documents
I count on you to post "opinions" from books Thumb1:
Seems pretty clear that they were trying to bury Kennedy's throat wound and Tague's wound at least initially.
I ask again. What’s the point of that post? Is there one?
It was like the gunfight at OK Corral! I'm surprised any lived to tell the tale. LOL. Wasn't there an analysis of the witness testimony confirming that over 90% of witnesses indicated that they heard two or three shots? Almost no one suggested more than three shots. Even Landis was adamant that he heard three shots. And although there was disagreeing on the location of the shots based upon the sound distortions in an open area, almost no one suggested that they heard shots from two different locations. One shooter firing no more than three shots is the overwhelming take away from those present.
So called Independent Experts were called in to confirm one gunman: Oswald
The Executive Session is the Commission's realization - it is not an investigation; but an FBI confirmation.
Norm Redlich - who you waived off as just one guy questioning what the report would say - as late as April - was the one leading the meetings
(that is from your posting from a book ) at the end of January - 3 shot - 3 hits.
SBT was a result of a missed shot having gone public.
What don't you understand?
Your “conclusions” are not supported by anything at all. Regardless of what was opined in an executive session of the commission, here are some facts:
“History Will Prove Us Right, by Howard Willens, pp.79-80:
Redlich and I shared the view that our reliance on an FBI we didn’t fully trust meant we would have to work harder and longer to be sure we checked out every fact. We felt the weight of the staff lawyers’ distrust of the FBI as they accelerated the pace of investigative requests to check and double-check facts. Rankin had instructed that all such investigative requests should go to me before they went to him for approval. Rankin also felt the burden as he approved the taking of sworn testimony from an ever-growing list of individuals with potentially relevant information.
This process ultimately produced testimony from 552 people: 94 witnesses who appeared before the commission, 395 witnesses deposed by commission lawyers, 61 witnesses who provided sworn affidavits, and 2 who provided statements. In assessing this entire record of testimony, and more than three thousand exhibits, the commission had the responsibility to do what federal investigative agencies do not customarily do—evaluate all the available evidence and make reasoned judgments of the conclusions that are supported by that evidence. This process is one that lawyers routinely are called upon by their clients—whether public or private—to undertake, and the commission members and lawyers had a wealth of experience in doing exactly that.
Does your, "EVALUATE all the available evidence...", include moving a back wound UP to the neck? It's difficult to rely on WC "evidence" when it has been manipulated.
Your “conclusions” are not supported by anything at all. Regardless of what was opined in an executive session of the commission, here are some facts:
"...that our reliance on an FBI..."
Do you read what you post?
Charles prefers an account published by a single person 50 years later to contemporaneous executive session transcripts, because of course he does.
Why is it that the LN-faithful never accuse people like Willens of making up stuff to sell books on anniversaries?
Taking a few words out of the context and implying that they mean something sinister (AKA distortion by omission) is the MO of the CT. ::)
what are you babbling now?
The WC had to rely on the FBI for it's "investigation"- even when they needed an 'independent expert" they called on the FBI to get it.
Is there something WC did that Hoover was not aware of, or more importantly, didn't approve of?
...please name it.
The SBT aside, there's no getting around the "time spacing" between the 3 shots. The quickness cited by ear witnesses between the 2nd and 3rd shots rules out the bolt action Carcano being responsible for both of those shots.
The SBT comes to mind…
You are conflating issues. The claim being addressed was that there were many shots. More than three. The witness testimony is compelling that there was a maximum of three shots.
Hoover wasn't aware of that? - He didn't approve it?
The WC questioned their conclusions and came up with the SBT (without Tague’s help).
Really? - which WC member?
- Redlich is talking 3 shot 3 hits all the way until late April. and he led the meetings.
Then, FBI allowed Shaneyfelt to build the SBT, for the WC because of a missed shot.
The FBI complied with the requests of the WC. The SBT originated in February. It was an attempt to explain where the bullet went after it exited JFK’s throat. Tague’s account was not involved at this stage. Redlich was a special assistant to Rankin. He did not lead all of the meetings. April comes before May. May is when the reenactment happened. Your claim that Tague caused the SBT is simply not true.
Redlich was Executive Assistant to Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin. - He was building the report as the components came in.
Late April the executive branch of the WC were writing 3-shot 3-hits. You haven't shown anything otherwise.
Then, public news of a missed shot forced that to change.
There’s nothing in the alleged Willens journal transcript at jfk.org that indicates that the SBT was being formulated in early February. In fact, I don’t see anything about the SBT in the entire document.
https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/Howard-Willens-WC-Journal-1964.pdf (https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/Howard-Willens-WC-Journal-1964.pdf)
June 5, 1964 is the date that Lehrer wrote the story. June comes after May. The reenactment was in May. The origins of the SBT pre-dated June 5, 1964 by over 3-months.
“Truth Withheld” by James T. Tague, p. 86:
June 11, 1964: Assistant Counsel Arlen Spector made a memorandum to General Counsel J. Lee Rankin. “If additional depositions are taken in Dallas, I suggest that Jim Tague, 2424 Inwood, Apartment 253, and
Virgie Rackley (Richie), 405 Wood Street be deposed to determine the knowledge of each on where the bullet struck. These two witnesses were mentioned in the early FBI reports, but they have never been deposed.[/i.
The news report got the attention of the WC. And they asked for more information. But the SBT had already been conceived in February, and tested in May. Therefore Tague had nothing to do with the origins of it. This is my point.
You are conflating issues. The claim being addressed was that there were many shots. More than three. The witness testimony is compelling that there was a maximum of three shots. If you add in those who heard only two, that's almost every witness to the event. Very compelling that there was a maximum of three shots. And, of course, that matches the number of recovered shell casings from Oswald's rifle. To suggest that bullets were flying everywhere in DP is false.
In terms of what you are suggesting, many witnesses did claim the shots were not equally spaced out in time. They didn't have a stopwatch timing the shots, however. So any conclusion that a shorter time span between the 2nd and 3rd shots precludes Oswald from firing those shots can't be drawn from the evidence.
Eye/Ear witness testimony is "Evidence". If you are giving Brownie Points for "physical evidence", kindly state such. Of course, being aware of such would DQ you from being seated on any legit jury. And yeah, I have heard all that baloney about eye witness testimony being unreliable. Many, many, many people have been convicted on Eye/Ear witness testimony ALL by itself.
Many, many, many people have been convicted on Eye/Ear witness testimony ALL by itself.
Sure, but each case is different and many convictions based on witness testimony alone have been later overturned because the person who they locked up turned out to be innocent.
Witness testimony is indeed evidence, but as a general rule it is widely accepted that it is the weakest and most unreliable kind of evidence.
It is this type of attitude regarding "evidence" that results in most people being unfamiliar with actual WC "testimony". There's certainly a ton of it, but as the saying goes, "you can't know the players without a scorecard". Sworn WC Testimony is the JFK Assassination scorecard. Photos/Film Images are quick and easy to follow. Kinda like a connect-the-dots "painted" picture. Easy/pleasing to look at, but no real depth to them. The critical eye witnesses that the WC FAILED to call/swear in is the missing proof in the JFK Assassination pudding. Here, we have SS Agent Landis filing an "Official Report" that details his seeing a man running down the (N) Elm sidewalk at the time period that the Queen Mary was approaching/going under the Triple Underpass. This flies in the face of the JFK Assassination images on record. Does the WC call him in, put him under oath, and clear this up? Nope. The detail in the Landis "Original Report" can not be overlooked. Landis also detailed seeing a motorcycle policeman at this same curb area near The Steps. To me, Landis reporting a motorcycle cop in this specific area at this point in time adds corroboration to the WC testimonies of both S. M. Holland and Lee Bowers. They both gave sworn testimony regarding seeing a motorcycle cop riding UP the knoll. This is a missed opportunity to clear up whether a motorcycle cop did ride up the knoll as was also reported in numerous newspapers the day after the assassination. Obviously, the possibility of a SS Agent under oath placing a motorcycle cop at that position, at that point in time, was NOT what the WC wanted.
There is no evidence of SBT being conceived in Feb.
”While the rest of us who have written about the commission were only peeking
in, Howard P. Willens was there, a principal architect of the very history we could only write about. Now with his precise and very discerning pen, he has written with unimpeachable authority what actually happened, making his book a historically important one." — Vincent Bugliosi
It is your prerogative to distrust whoever you choose. Personally, I think Howard Willens’ book is one of the best sources we could have to help us understand how the WC worked.
”While the rest of us who have written about the commission were only peeking
in, Howard P. Willens was there, a principal architect of the very history we could only write about. Now with his precise and very discerning pen, he has written with unimpeachable authority what actually happened, making his book a historically important one." — Vincent Bugliosi
It is your prerogative to distrust whoever you choose. Personally, I think Howard Willens’ book is one of the best sources we could have to help us understand how the WC worked.
Did you have a problem with Clint Hill “trying to make a buck off it”?
When you say "...how the WC "worked", what does that mean? The staff did almost ALL the actual work, and the WC itself occasionally got together. The WC as a body NEVER even viewed the Zapruder Film as a moving picture. They ran away from the Z Film. How does a historical body such as this render a decision without EVER seeing the Zapruder Film start-to-finish?
I am referring to the WC as a whole, including the staff.
Understood going forward. I still can Not accept a decision from the WC when they refused to view the Zapruder Film. Same goes for Thompson and his "Six Seconds In Dallas" being based on the Zapruder Film and his never interviewing Zapruder himself. A Govt Body rendering a decision based on anything short of ALL the "evidence" is faulty at best and possibly a rigged outcome at the worst.
The following is a snip from Howard Willens’ contemporaneously written journal from April 28, 1964:
At 2:30 p.m. I participated in a meeting with M.r Malley
and Mr. Gauthier of the FBI, Inspector Kelley of the Secret Service,
Mr. Rankin and Messrs. Belin, Redlich, Eisenberg and Specter. The subject of the meeting was the problem of further work in Dallas to ascertain with greater precision the range of probabilities regarding
the location and timing of the three shots fired by the assassin.
Both the FBI and the SS prior to the meeting had indicated to Mr. Rankin
(and the Chief Justice) their reluctance to go down to Dallas with any
sort of further reenactment of the assassination.
This meeting was the culmination of many months of work by members of the staff, particularly Mr. Redlich, Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Specter, regarding the films and medical testimony. From the very beginning Mr. Rankin had been less persuaded than these that it was necessary to decide these problems
with greater precision. Just prior to the meeting, however, Mr. Redlich had finally put his views into memorandum form which I believe persuaded Mr. Rankin that some effort was necessary if the Commission wanted to make assertions in its report which coincide with the physical facts.
The memo persuaded Mr. Rankin to go to Dallas for reenactments
You left out two words just before the portion that you bolded: “I believe” (Willens).
I bolded the portions in response to Royell’s idea that the WC refused to view the Zapruder film.
Do you have a point that you wish to make? If so it isn’t clear.
The following is a snip from Howard Willens’ contemporaneously written journal from April 28, 1964:
At 2:30 p.m. I participated in a meeting with M.r Malley
and Mr. Gauthier of the FBI, Inspector Kelley of the Secret Service,
Mr. Rankin and Messrs. Belin, Redlich, Eisenberg and Specter. The subject of the meeting was the problem of further work in Dallas to ascertain with greater precision the range of probabilities regarding
the location and timing of the three shots fired by the assassin.
Both the FBI and the SS prior to the meeting had indicated to Mr. Rankin
(and the Chief Justice) their reluctance to go down to Dallas with any
sort of further reenactment of the assassination.
This meeting was the culmination of many months of work by members of the staff, particularly Mr. Redlich, Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Specter, regarding the films and medical testimony. From the very beginning Mr. Rankin had been less persuaded than these that it was necessary to decide these problems
with greater precision. Just prior to the meeting, however, Mr. Redlich had finally put his views into memorandum form which I believe persuaded Mr. Rankin that some effort was necessary if the Commission wanted to make assertions in its report which coincide with the physical facts.
My understanding of "contemporaneous" does not fit the above. This has been spit-shined
Snip from page 2 (introduction):
I began this journal at the suggestion of Alfred Goldberg, a Defense Department historian who joined the Commission staff in February 1964. I reviewed my files regarding December 1963 and January 1964 and prepared the five-page entry dated January 1964. Most of the other
entries were prepared shortly the events discussed, with only a few exceptions. I dictated these journal entries to my very competent secretary, Adele W. Lippard. Neither of us had the time to proofread and, fi necessary, to edit the entries. As a result, there are a few errors, which I have corrected in this copy of the journal.
.
.
.
I have donated the original journal and all my other Commission documents to the National Archives in 2015.
That fits the definition of contemporaneously.
The above only proves what was obvious. "Corrected" settles this issue.
The original is available at the archives. If you think that the corrections prove your idea, feel free to check it out and let us know.
Would you want notes taken during Oswald's numerous interrogations to be "Corrected"? This is the same kinda stuff that went on with Humes and his notes. Plus, your now damaging your own source.
It appears to me that the corrections are listed at the bottom of each page. Here’s an example from the bottom of page 1:
*Capitalization as appears in original.
There are similar corrections on numerous pages. These are obviously typographical errors.
You can find the complete document at the Sixth Floor Museum website. Here’s a link. Check it out for yourself.
https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/Howard-Willens-WC-Journal-1964.pdf (https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/Howard-Willens-WC-Journal-1964.pdf)
After my spit-shine observation, you reveal that his real "contemporaneous" notes are buried somewhere in The Archives. Now, the "complete DOCUMENT" is available via the Sixth Floor Museum website? There is Only 1 "contemporaneous" DOCUMENT. This DOCUMENT can not be in 2 places at the same time. As I mentioned earlier, this is right out of the Dr Humes autopsy notes dodge.
Are you going to back up your claim, or just play the suspicions and innuendo game? Sixty years of suspicions and innuendo have only made the CT community look ridiculous.
Nice try. YOUR claim was these were "contemporaneous" notes you were posting. By your own admission, what you posted has been sanitized. Truth in advertising needs to be adhered to.
Landis makes a clear distinction here between the examination table and stretcher. In fact, he says they were in the process of removing JFK from the stretcher to place him on the table when he puts the bullet down. The explanation from Robenalt makes less sense if that is Landis recollection. He suggests that Landis wanted the bullet and body to be together for the autopsy. But according to Landis, JFK was no longer on the stretcher. Landis is also confused about the basic facts since he says the "magic" bullet was the one which hit JFK's head. He has also changed his story here to suggest doubt as to Oswald's guilt. The notion that Jackie dislodged the bullet is laughable.
Given how chaotic and traumatic that day was, it doesn't surprise me if he misremembers some details. I don't hold that against him.
He seems credible and while I give him some wiggle room on the details of what happened at Parkland, I don't think the detail of 'where' in the limo he found the bullet is easily forgotten or misremembered. I don't think a Secret Service agent, whose duty it was to protect the First lady, would mistake Governor Connolly's seat in the limo for Jackie and the President's.
The biggest problem I see with his recent account is that in the past, as early as 1983, he said he found a "bullet fragment" in the rear seat of the limo. Today, he's saying he found an intact bullet. There's a huge difference between a bullet fragment and a somewhat pristine bullet. The author of the book says Landis was misquoted in 1983 but I haven't seen Landis challenged directly on conflicting statements he's made in the past in recent interviews.
Landis makes a clear distinction here between the examination table and stretcher. In fact, he says they were in the process of removing JFK from the stretcher to place him on the table when he puts the bullet down.
I can't believe he would confirm finding the bullet fragments in his original report but omit reference to finding an entire bullet.
But Landis doesn't confirm any such finding of even bullet FRAGMENTS in his two reports from Nov. '63. He doesn't say a word about finding ANY type of "bullet" item(s) here:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
...Are we to believe none of these things happened, simply because it wasn't mentioned in a report?
And, therefore, I guess we're supposed to believe that when Paul Landis wrote his very lengthy report on 11/30/63, this was his state of mind:
I'd better mention in my written report these three rather innocuous and unimportant things that I saw and took into the hospital with me (the hat, the purse, and the cigarette lighter), but I don't think I really need to mention anything about this WHOLE BULLET that I also took into Parkland Hospital and placed at the foot of President Kennedy's stretcher.
Yeah, why don't we all just go ahead and believe that was truly Paul E. Landis' state of mind on November 30, 1963.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
If you didn’t follow the proper procedures for discovering evidence and creating a chain of custody, would you mention the evidence in your report?
And, therefore, I guess we're supposed to believe that when Paul Landis wrote his very lengthy report on 11/30/63, this was his state of mind:
I'd better mention in my written report these three rather unimportant things that I saw and took into the hospital with me (the hat, the purse, and the cigarette lighter), but I don't think I really need to mention anything about this WHOLE BULLET that I also took into Parkland Hospital and placed at the foot of President Kennedy's stretcher.
Yeah, why don't we all just go ahead and believe that was truly Paul E. Landis' state of mind on November 30, 1963.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
If you didn’t follow the proper procedures for discovering evidence and creating a chain of custody, would you mention the evidence in your report?
First question: “Where’s the bullet?”
How would his superiors have responded if he said he left it on a stretcher or operating table?
What we do know is that a different SS agent at Parkland put a bullet found near a stretcher in his pocket and brought it to DC. Which also doesn’t seem like a good way to handle evidence.
The question has always been, did the bullet come from Governor Connolly’s stretcher or Kennedy’s?
Even if we exclude Landis’ story, there’s other witnesses who saw a bullet on Kennedy’s stretcher at Parkland.
And thank you for implicity confirming that we can not rely on what any law enforcement officer failed to mention in their day one report.... Thumb1:
It depends on what the evidence is and how important it is.
One of the things you mentioned on your four-item list in your last post is definitely wrong.....because Lieutenant Day did report that he "had been successful in raising a partial latent print" off of the Carcano rifle. And Lt. Day said that on 11/22/63, as confirmed here (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg).
The next-most-important item on your previous list would be the Odum/Tomlinson/FD-302 matter, which I discussed years ago here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#The-Lack-Of-FD302s).
Your desperation is obvious.
One of the things you mentioned on your four-item list in your last post is definitely wrong.....because Lieutenant Day did report that he "had been successful in raising a partial latent print" off of the Carcano rifle. And Lt. Day said that on 11/22/63, as confirmed here (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg).
The next-most-important item on your previous list would be the Odum/Tomlinson/FD-302 matter, which I discussed years ago here (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#The-Lack-Of-FD302s).
Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.
Your lack of ability to put things in proper context is duly noted.
...what you don't like is what Landis has said.
Mr. Landis has discredited himself, via his archived newspaper interviews from 1983 and 1988 (plus his comments that appear in the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail"), as discussed in detail here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html
VP claims that Day did mention the palm print he allegedly lifted from the rifle and he produces a FBI document in which it actually says that Day did not lift a print at all. A honest person would admit that he misrepresented the facts, but VP simply ignores that he has been caught in a lie and moves on.
The Pinkston memo (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s4000/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg) that I posted earlier illustrates how the conspiracy theorists misrepresent what Lt. Day did (and when he did it) with regard to the palmprint on the rifle. I've had many CTers tell me that Lt. Day never found a print on that gun at all. And, they'll say, it was only many days later that the FBI suddenly "discovered" an Oswald print on the underside of the gun.
Well, as I illustrated via the Pinkston memo, such a claim by CTers is 100% wrong, because Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print.
Yes, the Pinkston memo incorrectly says that Day hadn't yet "lifted" the print, but we know that part of the memo is not fully correct. How can we know it's not completely correct? Answer: Commission Exhibit No. 637 (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k0FT1l2g5sw/TwqYE_kXOAI/AAAAAAAACvg/jZ9fM5NCXFg/s1600/CE637.jpg).
DAVID W. BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"
LIEUTENANT J.C. 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 [plus] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."
(Also see 4 H 260 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0134b.htm) and 4 H 261 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0135a.htm).)
The Pinkston memo would be more accurate if it said that Lt. Day had not had time to FULLY LIFT the print.
CTers, of course, will still insist I'm full of crap and Day never saw or lifted ANY Oswald print, even though CE637 (which is DATED 11-22-63 and SIGNED by J.C. Day) is right there in evidence for the CTers to see. (But it's probably phony evidence and Lt. Day was merely lying through his teeth in his testimony on page 261 of volume 4, the CTers will say.)
And 'round and 'round we go until doomsday.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s2000-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg
The bottom line is a simple one. Your claim that the Pinkston memo confirms that Day lifted a print from the rifle on 11/22/63 is simply not true, which leaves you only with "Lt Day said so" and what Day said doesn't match what the FBI said.
The Pinkston memo (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s4000/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg) that I posted earlier illustrates how the conspiracy theorists misrepresent what Lt. Day did (and when he did it) with regard to the palmprint on the rifle.
Well, as I illustrated via the Pinkston memo, such a claim by CTers is 100% wrong, because Pinkston confirms in his memo that Lieutenant Carl Day, ON NOV. 22 ITSELF, found (i.e., "raised") a partial print.
Yes, the Pinkston memo incorrectly says that Day hadn't yet "lifted" the print, but we know that part of the memo is not fully correct. How can we know it's not completely correct?
If you didn’t follow the proper procedures for discovering evidence and creating a chain of custody, would you mention the evidence in your report?
First question: “Where’s the bullet?”
How would his superiors have responded if he said he left it on a stretcher or operating table?
A bullet fell from Connally's stretcher as he was being moved onto the operating table and was picked up by a nurse who showed it to Henry Wade who told her to give it to a police officer. She gave it to Bob Nolan who put it on Fritz's desk. By the time it reached the FBI lab it had miraculously changed into four small fragments taken from Connally's wrist.
Tomlinson found a "hunting slug" with a pointed tip which he gave to O. P. Wright who gave it to SA Johnsen. He gave it to his chief, Rowley, and by the time it reached the FBI lab it had miraculously changed into CE399.
Any bullet found on JFK's stretcher just disappeared.
And so it goes.
Every piece of ballistic evidence, other than the tiniest bullet fragments, were compromised in some way.
Fritz was seen picking up the three hulls on the sixth floor before they were processed by the Crime Lab.
He then pocketed the ejected round without it being processed [regardless of what Day said]
The two fragments found on the back seat were discovered, not as part of an official crime scene search, but handed to Orin Bartlett by two unnamed Secret Service agents.
As already pointed out - the pointed "hunting slug" found by Tomlinson morphed into CE399 and the bullet that came off Connally's stretcher in the operating room morphed into four small fragments taken from his wrist.
Thumb1:
And let's not forget that General Walker, during the HSCA enquiry, saw the bullet allegedly taken from his house, and instantly denied it was the correct bullet and claim there had been a switch.
For a straight forward murder case, as the LNs like to claim this is, this is all just a little bit too much. As if somebody was making the "evidence" fit the desired outcome.
For a straight forward murder case, as the LNs like to claim this is, this is all just a little bit too much. As if somebody was making the "evidence" fit the desired outcome.
Yes, I would.
I'd like to think I'm honest enough to do that. And I would have also included in my report the REASON for why I moved the piece of evidence in the first place.
Re: Lieutenant J.C. Day and the Pinkston memo.....
It's clear to me that the Pinkston memo (seen below) is referring to the PALMPRINT that was discovered by Lt. Day on the rifle.
Why do I say that?
Because the memo three different times specifically says "PRINT" (singular) and not "prints" (plural).
If the memo was referring to the trigger guard prints, it would very likely say "prints" (plural), or at least it should, because we know that Lt. Day saw two prints on the trigger guard (and he testified to that fact).
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg)
...one can argue that it can't be the palmprint because the memo claims Day did not lift it, when Day himself is saying that he did lift it.
Maybe Pinkston talked to Lt. Day at a time on Nov. 22 which was before Day had time to perform the lift.
Maybe Day changed his story after Nov. 22.
Wishful thinking! Your opinion isn't evidence.
But your “maybe Pinkston is talking about the palmprint” and “maybe Day told Pinkston this before he made the lift” somehow are evidence?
Did I say that my opinion was "evidence"?
Neither is yours.
Maybe Pinkston talked to Lt. Day at a time on Nov. 22 which was before Day had time to perform the lift.
Is that not even remotely possible in your world? Or am I merely showing my "desperation" yet again?
(https://i.postimg.cc/5N31KJHT/Screenshot-403.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I don't know if this clears anything up.
It appears Pinkston was interviewing Day some time after he had returned to the TSBD building on the day of the assassination.
I assume Day is referring to a print he had seen on the rifle during his processing of the rifle "in situ" - he is not referring to a palm print as he was yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5N31KJHT/Screenshot-403.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I don't know if this clears anything up.
It appears Pinkston was interviewing Day some time after he had returned to the TSBD building on the day of the assassination.
I assume Day is referring to a print he had seen on the rifle during his processing of the rifle "in situ" - he is not referring to a palm print as he was yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle.
As Martin points out, any trace of the prints noticed on the rifle disappeared by the time the rifle reached the FBI lab.
Has anyone ever given a reasonable explanation as to how this might have happened.
"Yet to return to the TSBD and disassemble the rifle" Did you mean Day has yet to return to police headquarters and work on the rifle. He had earlier removed (by holding it by the strap) the Carcano from the building and had locked it up in a drawer at police headquarters and then returned to the Depository. It was when Day returned to police headquarters later on that he disassembled the rifle. He also had the Tippit ambush-murder on his plate.
As you point out, Pinkston, seeing Day at the Depsoitory, could have gotten an update before the palm print was lifted. It was a "partial" palm-print, not a whole palm-print. Day ended up photographing the prints on the trigger-guard housing, but may have been considering photographing the palm-print as well.
The lead FBI print expert Sebastian Latona had been there for 30 years and was Old-School. The print had to exhibit a certain number of points and clarity before he would even think to lift it. He said there were numerous prints and smudges on the rifle that he didn't bother with. I believe Day's lifting of the palm-print in Dallas rendered the print undesirable by time the rifle arrived in Washington.
The trigger-guard housing fingerprints Latona did bother with but he apparently didn't have the confidence or ability to combine various photos of the prints to make a meaningful match as was done by Vincent Scalice in the early-90s.
I was under the impression there was no sign of any prints when the rifle got to the FBI Lab but, perhaps, it was meant there were no "usable" prints.
No, Latona said “there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle”.
Let's have a look at the entire statement that Sebastian Latona made to the Warren Commission (at 4 H 24 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0016b.htm)).
Emphasis added by DVP:
SEBASTIAN F. LATONA -- "We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."
"We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.
Which basically confirms that Day didn't tell Drain (or anybody else at the FBI) about the palmprint on 11/22/63.
There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints
Which is Latona's personal observation and thus carries evidentiary weight
This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete ."
Which is nothing more than an assumption on Latona's part, after he had been informed about Day's claim. There may just as well have been no print to begin with.
that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."[/size]
Which is in clear contradiction with what Day testified;
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
I'm not 100% on this - when Latona says "..indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard.", is he saying that he detected traces of cellophane on the trigger guard that revealed a print had been lifted?
I'm not 100% on this - when Latona says "..indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard.", is he saying that he detected traces of cellophane on the trigger guard that revealed a print had been lifted?
evidently the lifting had been so complete
“Evidently”. LOL.
For what it is worth, I think he's actually seeing cellophane on the trigger guard.
That makes sense.
It's a pity the wooden stock didn't protect the print that Day insists was present on the barrel. In fact, it seems to have wiped the barrel completely clean. Not only did it wipe the remainder of the print off (which had withstood an attempt to remove it with cellophane), it also wiped clean the dusting Day had used to raise the print.
There are two explanations for this - there was never any print there or someone deliberately cleaned the barrel before handing it over to Drain.
I would be interested to hear a third possibility.
Day essentially tells us that the remaining remnant of the palm print after he lifted it, was not photographable using standard techniques. He intended to use a time-lapse technique in which he moved the light around the barrel. This means to me that the light source would need to be positioned appropriately in order to see the remnant of the print. Also, the barrel is cylindrical so to see the full extent of the print remnants, either the barrel would need to be rotated, or the light source would need to be rotated around the barrel. Under the circumstances: (1) that Drain failed to tell the lab technicians about the print remnants under the fore stock, and (2) that that position underneath the fore stock would not normally be a very likely place to find a print, (3) the lighting would have to be at an appropriate angle to see the print remnant, and (4) that the vibrations, etc involved with transporting the rifle to the FBI lab could have caused most of what little powder that still clung to the dried print when Day turned it over to simply fall off, it is no wonder to me that the FBI didn’t find a useable print.
A snip from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 236:
By turning the rifle and letting the light shine on it, I could still see that print on the barrel. To take the proper pictures, you have to set a time exposure on the camera and move the light which reflects around the barrel because you can’t twist the barrel while you’re taking pictures. I was in the process of doing that when I got word from one of my captains, which came directly from the chief’s office, not to do anything else. Right in the middle of the stream I was told not to do anything else with it! So I slipped the barrel back on the stock and put it back in the lock box.
Here we go again.....
One wonders why we have testimony under oath, when we have Larry Sneed to tell us what happened.... :D
Isn't this Day doubling down on his insistence that there was an identifiable print on the barrel of the rifle before it was taken by Drain?
The remainder of this print had resisted being lifted because it was an old print and was clearly fixed in place.
However, when the rifle is examined by Latona this print is gone. There is absolutely no sign of it's presence.
There is also no sign of a speck of the powder used to raise the print.
Latona examined this rifle in meticulous detail. There was no print and no sign that an attempt had been made to lift a print.
There had been no mention made of a print being taken from the weapon that allegedly murdered the present.
The more I think about this palm print the more it becomes obvious how massively significant it is. It is possibly the most important piece of evidence in this case. There is nothing that links Oswald to the rifle like the palm print. It is central to identifying Oswald as the murderer.
By the night of the assassination Day would have irrefutable evidence that Oswald had contact with the murder weapon.
So, where was the big announcement regarding this game-changing piece of evidence?
Almost every detail of this case was gleefully passed on to the media, where are the reports?
Who else, other than Day, knew about this case-closing piece of evidence?
How could it not have crossed Day's mind not to pass on this most important piece of evidence to the FBI?
How is it conceivable that Day neglected to mention to Day he had identified Oswald's print on the rifle?
[Remember, Day had the print off the rifle and a sample of Oswald's palm print. Identifying this print would have been the very top priority.]
Other than Day's word for it, what evidence exists, testimonial or otherwise, regarding the existence of the palm print prior to it's arrival on Latona's desk on the 29th?
Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.
This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.
Even if your assumption was true that he didn't tell anyone for "days" (and there is abundant evidence this is a false premise), how exactly is that evidence of fabrication or whatever you are alleging to call into question the print? It is idiocy to argue that because he didn't tell anyone for a few days, that means for some inexplicable reason that Day manufactured and lied about the print.
Even if your assumption was true that he didn't tell anyone for "days" (and there is abundant evidence this is a false premise), how exactly is that evidence of fabrication or whatever you are alleging to call into question the print? It is idiocy to argue that because he didn't tell anyone for a few days, that means for some inexplicable reason that Day manufactured and lied about the print.
The palm print was not some big secret that Day kept to himself. Rusty Livingston and a few others who worked in the DPD crime lab told Gary Savage that they saw the palm print on 11/22/63 and the following weekend. The details can be found in Gary’s book: “JFK First Day Evidence.” The fact that the CT folks have for almost sixty years completely ignored these men indicates to me that the CT folks are not interested in learning the truth.
Perhaps they are simply not interested in what somebody selling a book wrote in that book, with the benefit of hindsight and plenty of opportunity for revision of history.
Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.
This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.
Paul Landis in 2023, anyone?
Paul Landis in 2023, anyone?
The official evidentiary record rested with the DPD on 11/22/63. The other personnel that Gary Savage wrote about and worked in the DPD crime lab were listed in the WC records. Yet Gary was apparently the first author to write about them. Why were none of the CT authors interested in them for the thirty years prior to Gary’s book?
"Revision of History"? People are dog piling SA Landis in the face of the current POTUS who Mon-Fri consistently does exactly this. Claims to have locked elbows with MLK and was jailed alongside Mandela, etc. Landis is small potatoes compared to the revision of history that is ongoing daily by people in positions of power.
Landis is small potatoes compared to the revision of history that is ongoing daily by people in positions of power.
That may be true, but he still has the entire LN clan throwing a hissy fit
But that's not what I am arguing, fool. My point has been and will always be that evidence can not be credible and needs to be called into question when it can not be authenticated. I know, that's a concept that goes way over your head, but then, you're not an LN for nothing.
Btw, tell me what is this "abundant evidence" you are rambling on about? All you've got is "cop said so", isn't it?
Not sure why the LN's are in such an uproar over Landis. His memory is fair game. What should scare the LN's is the memory of Bobby Kennedy Jr. That guy has the bona fides to bring the JFK Assassination back onto the front burner as Nov 22 looms.
Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.
This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.
That is exactly what you are arguing. Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it. Again, how does not mentioning it to anyone for a few days (even if that were true) call into question its authenticity? Failure to report finding the evidence doesn't equate to fabricating or lying about the evidence. If he had said on the first day that he found the print, would you then accept that it was Oswald's? Of course not. You would go down some other rabbit hole. It was Day's job to look for prints on the rifle. That's what he did. He reported the results. You don't like them so they must be fake.
Who is in an uproar.? I think the matter has been discussed rationally. Everyone has listened to what he has to say. Landis is older than even Joe Biden, though. He never reported finding a bullet until six decades later. I'm sure he has been influenced by CTers. Many elderly people are subject to manipulation. That is why scam artists and telemarketers target the elderly. I don't think he is a bad guy or intentionally lying. He is just a "patsy."
As I said before, the Landis "OriginaL Report" should garner the attention. In that report, Landis detailed seeing a motorcycle at the curb area near The Steps as the Queen Mary approached/went under the Triple Underpass. At the point in time that the Queen Mary approached the Triple Underpass, DPD Motorcycle Officer Haygood was nowhere near the Elm St curb where he would eventually dump his motorcycle. The motorcycle cop reported by Landis merits scrutiny.
That is exactly what you are arguing.
Just as I said, the whole thing went way over your head. You just don't get it.
Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.
Cases have been thrown out of court for a whole lot less than that. It's at best investigatory mishandling of evidence.
Again, how does not mentioning it to anyone for a few days (even if that were true) call into question its authenticity?
As per usual, you've got it the wrong way around. Authenticity of evidence can not be assumed, it needs to be proven.
Failure to report finding the evidence doesn't equate to fabricating or lying about the evidence.
Who said it did? That's just another one of your strawman
If he had said on the first day that he found the print, would you then accept that it was Oswald's? Of course not.
If it was only "cop said so" you would be right, but if he had documented his procedure and delivered the print to the evidence room on day one, I would most certainly have accepted it as evidence, no matter what print was on it. But that's hypothetical, because Day did no such thing and his actions justify questions being asked.
It was Day's job to look for prints on the rifle. That's what he did.
No, Day's job was not only to look for prints on the rifle, but also to preserve them, document every step of handling the evidence and enter the item(s) to the evidence room. He did no such thing.
He reported the results.
No he didn't. All he did was produce the evidence card with a palmprint on it just before the FBI collected the evidence from the DPD for a second time. Even at that time, Day, failed to disclose that there was any match with Oswald's prints he had on file.
You don't like them so they must be fake.
No, it's a matter of you like them so they must be authentic, never mind how they were obtained.
I have never argued that the palmprint is a fake. I can't even argue that because I simply do not know. I did not examine the print itself! All I say is that it needs to be demonstrated that evidence is authentic and "cop said so" simply isn't good enough. But that's exactly what has been way over your head for as long as you have been active on this forum.
Why?
In every criminal case, some law enforcement person collects the evidence (e.g. prints, DNA) and reports their results. Sometimes months or years later. You are suggesting that this is somehow suspect because the "say so." LOL. Day's job was to check the rifle for prints. He did that and reported the results. He explained how that was done. All you have done is claim his results were possibly fabricated because he didn't immediately report them during the investigation. Even that weak claim is suspect as there are indications that he did mention the results to others. But even if true, it in no way leads to any legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the prints. The police present the evidence that they have collected. Day did that in this case. If a defendant wants to argue that the evidence is fabricated, they then have to make that showing. You have shown nothing here to cast doubt on the print. You repeat the same nonsense. Almost anything is possible. Just suggesting that it is "possible" that Day fabricated the evidence because we do not have a time machine to confirm with 100% certainty is a ludicrous standard. It would be impossible to convict any criminal if that were the standard used in every case.
The palm print was not some big secret that Day kept to himself. Rusty Livingston and a few others who worked in the DPD crime lab told Gary Savage that they saw the palm print on 11/22/63 and the following weekend. The details can be found in Gary’s book: “JFK First Day Evidence.” The fact that the CT folks have for almost sixty years completely ignored these men indicates to me that the CT folks are not interested in learning the truth.
But even if true, it in no way leads to any legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the prints. The police present the evidence that they have collected. Day did that in this case. If a defendant wants to argue that the evidence is fabricated, they then have to make that showing. You have shown nothing here to cast doubt on the print. You repeat the same nonsense.
Is there any evidence that “these men” ever mentioned this prior to supposedly telling Gary Savage in the 90s?
If all of that is true, then as Martin already pointed out, it’s even more remarkable that they didn’t bother to tell the FBI about this and just mailed the index card several days later, unidentified. And that Fritz and Curry were publicly saying on Saturday that they had no matching prints.
I don’t know. But the names are included below. It would be interesting to find their oral history transcripts, etc (if any exist). It is amazing to me that no one (especially CT researchers) apparently ever interviewed any of these officers (before Gary Savage). I know that Larry Sneed indicates that most of the DPD officers involved that day were normally very reluctant to talk about the assassination.
Here is a snip from page 77 of “JFK First Day Evidence” by Gary Savage. The quotation marks indicate that these are the words of Rusty Livingston.
“After that [the arraignment of LHO for the murder of JFK] was over with, I went into the Lab Office and talked to the officer who was on duty during the three to eleven shift. He was showing me some of the pictures that they had taken and printed and also pictures of everything that was taken from Oswald’s house, or rooming house. He had all kinds of things that they had taken from there and photographed. They photographed the rifle there too. It was on the counter in the Crime Lab Office where I worked when they photographed it. This had happened sometime during the day. I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. 2 They had the actual print there in the office that night. I compared it myself with Oswald’s palm print, and it looked to me like there was enough there to say yes, it was Oswald’s palm print. I think all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”
Rusty went on to tell me that many times, when a print had been lifted at a crime scene and been brought back to the lab for analysis, it would be looked at by the other detectives. “That happened all the time.” He told me. “After we had made a comparison and felt as though we had a match, if someone else was in the office, they’d usually take a look too and help to verify the match.”
.
.
.
Today some assassination researchers do not believe that Lieutenant Day actually did lift the palm print of Oswald from the rifle. He’d did, however, and most if not all other Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including Rusty, Pete Barnes, H.R. Williams, and Bobby Brown. Ample opportunity to compare the palm print lifted from the rifle existed since it remained in the Crime Lab Office for several days, and each officer recalled the lift and had no doubt that it was Oswald’s.
Bobby Brown told Rusty and me that he remembered looking at the palm print lifted by Lieutenant Day. He stated that there was no doubt that it was Oswald’s palm print and said he looked at the palm print the day after the shooting. His scheduled hours for work on Saturday were from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Brown said that he didn’t come in on the day of the assassination.
There was no reason for them to tell the FBI about it (it wasn’t until the FBI received it and started their questioning that any controversy arose). And Day stated that he was instructed to stop his processing before he was able to state for certain whether or not it was Oswald’s print. So, if Fritz and Curry said that, they were apparently being honest.
There was no reason for them to tell the FBI about it...
Of all LN researchers I feel that you are the one who is most genuinely interested in what actually happened that day.
You must concede that there are two incredibly perplexing aspects to this particular aspect of the case.
1) Day could not make a positive identification of the print he had lifted.
His claim is that he didn't have enough time to work on it but the fact of the matter is that he had the print for days. The importance of this
print cannot be understated - above all evidence it connected Oswald to the murder weapon. It must have been a priority. Yet Day claims
he didn't have enough time to work on it. Yet here we have Rusty making an immediate 'satisfactory' identification.
2) Day is absolutely insistent there was a print on the underside of the barrel when he sent it off with Drain. He was so confident they would
be able to identify the print from the rifle he kept the print he had lifted. Yet, by the time it reached Latona, the morning of the next day,
the print had completely vanished. There was no trace of it. Not the slightest part left. And no indication that any attempt had even been
made to lift a print.
The tinfoil element of CTer's is on full display as far as this forum is concerned, but any reasonable-minded person would look at this and say there is something really not right.
<>
2) Day is absolutely insistent there was a print on the underside of the barrel when he sent it off with Drain. He was so confident they would
be able to identify the print from the rifle he kept the print he had lifted. Yet, by the time it reached Latona, the morning of the next day,
the print had completely vanished. There was no trace of it. Not the slightest part left. And no indication that any attempt had even been
made to lift a print.
I think that there was a very faint print left on the underside of the barrel. And that the FBI probably just missed seeing it. Now if Latona had been told there was a print under the fore stock and still couldn’t find it, you might have a point. Sadly, Latona had no way of knowing to look for anything under the fore stock because Day only verbally told Drain and Drain failed to make it known to Latona. Now, remember that the FBI did later scientifically confirm that the print was lifted from where Day said he lifted it. This can be viewed as a concession (without Latona having to admit it) that they missed what was left on the barrel.
1) Day could not make a positive identification of the print he had lifted.
His claim is that he didn't have enough time to work on it but the fact of the matter is that he had the print for days. The importance of this
print cannot be understated - above all evidence it connected Oswald to the murder weapon. It must have been a priority. Yet Day claims
he didn't have enough time to work on it. Yet here we have Rusty making an immediate 'satisfactory' identification.
Dan, I think that some of your words could be better selected. It wasn’t that Day said that he could not make a positive ID. But rather that he hadn’t yet spent enough time on it to say for certain one way or the other. He believed that it was a match based on his preliminary comparison. But it would have taken him some significant more time to be able to document everything so that he could say for certain that he had enough similarities to satisfy the requirements for certainty. Sadly, he was told to stop the processing that he was in the middle of. And even sadder is that Day followed just orders without standing up for himself and saying to his superiors that he was in the middle of processing the best print that he had found on the gun and that he would like to finish his work (or at least come to a good stopping point) on that portion of his work. Day had earlier been told not to do any more work on the rifle, he had had to interrupt his work to let Marina see the rifle, then he had been requested to continue his work on the prints by Captain Fritz, and finally was again interrupted in the middle of the work on the palm print and told to cease all work on the rifle. Working in the ranks of a police department is somewhat like working in the military in as much as one is expected to follow orders from their superiors regardless of whether or not they make any sense. Second guessing after the fact is easy, but I sure wish that Day had at least tried to explain his predicament to his superiors instead of apparently getting frustrated and disgusted enough to just stop right in the middle of an important process. Rusty’s and the others’ IDs were only for their own satisfaction, and, if needed, another opinion. I think that if they had needed to document their IDs enough to testify that the match was certain, their IDs would have required more time also. Day has said that if he hadn’t been instructed to stop, that he would probably have spent the entire night processing the evidence. Instead he went home shortly after the arraignment of LHO for the murder of JFK.
2) Day is absolutely insistent there was a print on the underside of the barrel when he sent it off with Drain. He was so confident they would
be able to identify the print from the rifle he kept the print he had lifted. Yet, by the time it reached Latona, the morning of the next day,
the print had completely vanished. There was no trace of it. Not the slightest part left. And no indication that any attempt had even been
made to lift a print.
I think that there was a very faint print left on the underside of the barrel. And that the FBI probably just missed seeing it. Now if Latona had been told there was a print under the fore stock and still couldn’t find it, you might have a point. Sadly, Latona had no way of knowing to look for anything under the fore stock because Day only verbally told Drain and Drain failed to make it known to Latona. Now, remember that the FBI did later scientifically confirm that the print was lifted from where Day said he lifted it. This can be viewed as a concession (without Latona having to admit it) that they missed what was left on the barrel.
Dan, I think that some of your words could be better selected. It wasn’t that Day said that he could not make a positive ID. But rather that he hadn’t yet spent enough time on it to say for certain one way or the other. He believed that it was a match based on his preliminary comparison. But it would have taken him some significant more time to be able to document everything so that he could say for certain that he had enough similarities to satisfy the requirements for certainty. Sadly, he was told to stop the processing that he was in the middle of.
I think that there was a very faint print left on the underside of the barrel. And that the FBI probably just missed seeing it.
Now if Latona had been told there was a print under the fore stock and still couldn’t find it, you might have a point. Sadly, Latona had no way of knowing to look for anything under the fore stock because Day only verbally told Drain and Drain failed to make it known to Latona.
Now, remember that the FBI did later scientifically confirm that the print was lifted from where Day said he lifted it. This can be viewed as a concession (without Latona having to admit it) that they missed what was left on the barrel.
Thanks for your considered response Charles.
I still can't get my head around the DPD not realising the importance of the print, especially as it had appeared to be common knowledge according to Rusty.
I was unaware the FBI later confirmed the print was lifted from where Day said he lifted it and will have to further research that particular area before drawing any conclusions.
So what was stopping him? He already (supposedly) had the lift and didn’t turn it over. He had days to continue examining it. If Savage is to be believed, everybody else in the office did on Saturday.The “didn’t have time” excuse falls flat when you consider that he “had time” to photograph and cover the trigger guard prints and Drain didn’t pick up the evidence until after midnight. Day was processing the rifle hours earlier.
Once Latona got the lift on the index card, he knew exactly where the print had supposedly been. He said there was nothing there.
But Day didn’t tell Drain.
All we have is a letter from J. Edgar (to the rescue), and an indistinct smudge. There’s nothing scientific about it.
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/be/88/DaeHb42r_o.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/2f/e1/6EC7nKmq_o.jpg) |
(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/88/DaeHb42r_o.jpg) (https://images2.imgbox.com/2f/e1/6EC7nKmq_o.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvJvjH7x/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JKxKTvt/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
(GIF: John Mytton)
So what was stopping him?
He was told to stop.
Once Latona got the lift on the index card, he knew exactly where the print had supposedly been. He said there was nothing there.
He said that no latent prints of value were developed. That’s not the same as nothing being there.
All we have is a letter from J. Edgar (to the rescue), and an indistinct smudge. There’s nothing scientific about it.
There are several irregularities on the rifle barrel that match up with irregularities on the lift tape.
Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.
Cases have been thrown out of court for a whole lot less than that. It's at best investigatory mishandling of evidence.
Can you cite us to these cases which have been thrown out for something less than a delay of a couple of days in reporting the evidence during the initial stages of the investigation? Particularly when you have cited no formal procedure for doing so that was violated by Day. Confusing this for your subjective opinion of how an investigation should be conducted with no actual knowledge of how the DPD processed evidence in 1963.
Why did Day refuse to sign an affidavit regarding the handling of the print when asked to do so by the WC?
Via this January 2014 discussion (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1185.html)....
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Why did Lt. Day refuse to sign an affidavit concerning his lifting of the palm print?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's also explained in CE3145 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0433a.htm). Didn't you even bother to read it?
Lt. Day told the FBI's Vincent Drain in CE3145 that since he (Day) had already written a fairly detailed report about the finding of the palmprint on January 8, 1964, he thought that report would suffice for the September '64 inquiry. And that January '64 report of Lt. Day's is even included (verbatim) in Drain's report that appears in CE3145.
But I guess conspiracy theorists like Garry Puffer must be of the odd opinion that Lieutenant Carl Day lied multiple times when he said he lifted a palmprint off of Rifle C2766 (even lying under oath to the Warren Commission) -- but he didn't want to fill out an official affidavit in September of 1964 because he felt he just couldn't lie one more time about the palmprint. He lied and lied and lied UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER--but he just wouldn't lie again.
Is that about the size of it, Garry?
A written report to a supervisor is not made under oath under penalty of perjury.
A written report to a supervisor is not made under oath under penalty of perjury.
Who even requested an affidavit? Where is that request? FBI agents are not authorized to take affidavits, so why would they send Drain for that?
Hardly relevant questions.
On September 1, 1964 the WC requested "certain investigation into the circumstances under which Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department processed the assassination rifle for latent fingerprints and palm prints........"
Day, however, refused to cooperate, by stating that he preferred to let the written (internal DPD) report speak for itself and "would rather elaborate orally on the lifting of the palm print <...> rather than to make a written signed statement".
Statements like that are normally made in a affidavit in front of a notary, but even if he wasn't asked to sign an affidavit, why would Day decline to make "a written signed statement"?
Why did Day refuse to sign an affidavit regarding the handling of the print when asked to do so by the WC
Dan, see CE 2637. Hoover’s letter gives no indication of how this was done, or by whom, or if they had even talked to Day about what specific location he had taken his lift from. Why would the WC not speak to the person who actually did the work?
He preferred to let his earlier written signed statement stand instead of repeating it.
How did a post about Landis finding an intact bullet get highjacked and turned into a discussion about Lt. Day and a palm print? Sounds like some just have to morph any interesting topic into their pet topic, and then beat their dead horse ad nauseum. I for one am interested in new evidence or testimony. As stated earlier, this Landis scenario has NEVER even been suggested in 60 years. It’s not as crazy as “Hickey fired the fatal shot”, so what can’t it be discussed intelligently like the ID of Mumford?
How did a post about Landis finding an intact bullet get highjacked and turned into a discussion about Lt. Day and a palm print? Sounds like some just have to morph any interesting topic into their pet topic, and then beat their dead horse ad nauseum. I for one am interested in new evidence or testimony. As stated earlier, this Landis scenario has NEVER even been suggested in 60 years. It’s not as crazy as “Hickey fired the fatal shot”, so what can’t it be discussed intelligently like the ID of Mumford?
Not only that, this letter in no way explains the contradiction between the testimonies of Day and Latona.
It appears to be an unofficial "explanation" but it doesn't deal with the issue under question - why did the visible print Day insisted was on the rifle disappear by the time it reached Latona a few hours later?
In the debate so far no-one has even attempted to offer a credible explanation as to how this could have happened.
The suggestion that Latona just missed it is untenable.
Another point that is constantly "misunderstood" is that Day had the lift of the palm print to compare to the prints taken from Oswald earlier that day. Saying that Day had to stop processing the rifle doesn't mean anything - he had the two prints for comparison. He didn't need the rifle.
On 8/28/64 Wesley Leibeler wrote a memo to Rankin in which he reveals very serious misgivings concerning Day's testimony regarding the palm print. It may have been this that spurred Rankin on to get some answers from Hoover. However, none of the issues raised in this memo are dealt with in the Hoover letter:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wx4RencS6t5BBFjK2F3ocXEwz3IHBsMJ/view
That Day's account of the palm print lift as viewed as 'suspect' is revealed in this memo:
"Mr Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent print..."
It is interesting that this aspect case raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission" but seems to be a non-issue in the minds of LNers.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/National%20Enquirer%20FBI%20Records%20From%201-8-78%20Releases/Item%2039.pdf
As I stated in the previous post, all of the questions were answered satisfactorily. What seems to have escaped the minds of the CT folks is that the WC was asking questions (they didn’t just accept the conclusions presented to them by the FBI, etc as the CT folks love to claim, instead they were potentially pursuing the possibility of a conspiracy, imagine that…).
all of the questions were answered satisfactorily.
Where was it answered how the print disappeared by the time it got to Latona?
Latons had the rifle dismantled and examined every part of it.
Where was it answered why Day didn't have enough time to compare the print he lifted with Oswald's print?
He had the print in his possession for days and, according to Rusty, the print was doing the rounds later that day.
Where was it answered why Day didn't protect the print with cellophane like he did with the trigger housing prints?
It is interesting that this aspect case raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission" but seems to be a non-issue in the minds of LNers.
all of the questions were answered satisfactorily.
Where was it answered how the print disappeared by the time it got to Latona?
Latons had the rifle dismantled and examined every part of it.
Where was it answered why Day didn't have enough time to compare the print he lifted with Oswald's print?
He had the print in his possession for days and, according to Rusty, the print was doing the rounds later that day.
Where was it answered why Day didn't protect the print with cellophane like he did with the trigger housing prints?
I believe that Day did nothing wrong except verbally relying on Drain to notify the FBI lab about the palm print
Why do you keep saying this? Drain knew nothing about it.
Day said otherwise and Rusty said he was right there with Day and Drain when the rifle was turned over and Rusty agrees with Day. Rusty says there was another FBI agent with Drain who was trying to make them all hurry up. And that Drain was only half listening to Day.
Why do you keep insisting Drain knew nothing about it?
From another discussion that took place in March 2013, I can offer up the following information regarding the palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day lifted off of Oswald's rifle....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
In an actual court proceeding, [Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day would have been impeached by Drain and LaTona [sic] to the point that he would [have] been laughable.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And just exactly HOW would Vince Drain and Sebastian Latona have "impeached" Lt. Carl Day of the DPD?
You actually think something Drain and Latona said means that Day couldn't possibly have lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle on November 22?
If you DO really believe that, you've taken a trip deeper into Rod Serling's T-Zone than even I had figured.
I'll also add this:
Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a liar 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.]
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0130b.htm
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 liar 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".
PAT SPEER SAID:
Latona did the comparison. Why was HIS report on this not entered into evidence, and why was he not asked to testify on this point, or, at the very least, sign a statement?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Good points, Pat. And I don't have the answers to those questions. But maybe Latona didn't prepare an official report or statement concerning this matter. How can we know whether he did or not? And I'm certainly not going to jump on the "everybody's lying" bandwagon (as many CTers seem to like to do). I'm not going to call Wesley Liebeler a liar when he says Latona came to the conclusions he came to about the Oswald palmprint.
As for Latona not testifying about the "rust spots" and other markings he found in the Oswald palmprint -- well, it was a September 1964 discovery by Latona, and the final WC report was coming out in 20 more days, so that might be the answer there. No "testimony" was taken at that eleventh hour.
However, we do have J. Edgar Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission, dated September 4, 1964. It's Commission Exhibit No. 2637, at 25 H 897:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0464a.htm
That letter from Hoover to J. Lee Rankin makes it very clear that a comparison of the print and rifle was made by "Laboratory examiners" (plural) at the FBI lab in Washington. The letter goes on to say:
"The Laboratory examiners were able to positively identify this lift as having come from the assassination rifle in the area near the foregrip."
That letter in CE2637 is certainly enough proof for me. I see no reason to disbelieve or doubt the contents and conclusions reached in that letter. Of course, the conspiracy theorists will always cast doubt on anything written by the FBI. So I'm not the least bit surprised to find out that CTers don't think the letter in CE2637 is reliable information. They always want more. Just like they want much more proof regarding the "CE399" topic and CE2011 too. The written words we find in that Commission exhibit aren't nearly enough to satisfy the conspiracy theorists either (re: Tomlinson and Wright both saying that CE399 "looked like" the bullet they each saw on Nov. 22 and the additional fact revealed in CE2011 about Elmer Todd physically marking CE399 with his own initials). So, the CTers distrust the FBI completely. But, what else is new?
EDIT -- But we now know, as of June 2022, that Elmer Todd definitely DID mark the CE399 bullet (see link below).
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html
-------------------------
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html
Where was it answered how the print disappeared by the time it got to Latona? Latons had the rifle dismantled and examined every part of it.
I should have said that all the questions were answered satisfactorily to the WC. People who try to make something out of nothing will never be satisfied. The answer is the irregularities on the rifle matching the marks on the palm print lift. This shows that the lift came from the rifle just as Day testified. It’s supposed “disappearance” is in your imagination. There are several possible explanations for how Latona could have missed it, but none of them will ever be able to be proven.
Where was it answered why Day didn't have enough time to compare the print he lifted with Oswald's print? He had the print in his possession for days and, according to Rusty, the print was doing the rounds later that day.
Ummm, that isn’t one of the WC’s questions.
Where was it answered why Day didn't protect the print with cellophane like he did with the trigger housing prints?
I believe Day said it was because it was protected by the wooden fore stock.
From another discussion that took place in March 2013, I can offer up the following information regarding the palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day lifted off of Oswald's rifle....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
In an actual court proceeding, [Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day would have been impeached by Drain and LaTona [sic] to the point that he would [have] been laughable.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And just exactly HOW would Vince Drain and Sebastian Latona have "impeached" Lt. Carl Day of the DPD?
You actually think something Drain and Latona said means that Day couldn't possibly have lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle on November 22?
If you DO really believe that, you've taken a trip deeper into Rod Serling's T-Zone than even I had figured.
I'll also add this:
Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a liar 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.]
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/html/HSCA_Vol11_0130b.htm
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 liar 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".
PAT SPEER SAID:
Latona did the comparison. Why was HIS report on this not entered into evidence, and why was he not asked to testify on this point, or, at the very least, sign a statement?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Good points, Pat. And I don't have the answers to those questions. But maybe Latona didn't prepare an official report or statement concerning this matter. How can we know whether he did or not? And I'm certainly not going to jump on the "everybody's lying" bandwagon (as many CTers seem to like to do). I'm not going to call Wesley Liebeler a liar when he says Latona came to the conclusions he came to about the Oswald palmprint.
As for Latona not testifying about the "rust spots" and other markings he found in the Oswald palmprint -- well, it was a September 1964 discovery by Latona, and the final WC report was coming out in 20 more days, so that might be the answer there. No "testimony" was taken at that eleventh hour.
However, we do have J. Edgar Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission, dated September 4, 1964. It's Commission Exhibit No. 2637, at 25 H 897:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0464a.htm
That letter from Hoover to J. Lee Rankin makes it very clear that a comparison of the print and rifle was made by "Laboratory examiners" (plural) at the FBI lab in Washington. The letter goes on to say:
"The Laboratory examiners were able to positively identify this lift as having come from the assassination rifle in the area near the foregrip."
That letter in CE2637 is certainly enough proof for me. I see no reason to disbelieve or doubt the contents and conclusions reached in that letter. Of course, the conspiracy theorists will always cast doubt on anything written by the FBI. So I'm not the least bit surprised to find out that CTers don't think the letter in CE2637 is reliable information. They always want more. Just like they want much more proof regarding the "CE399" topic and CE2011 too. The written words we find in that Commission exhibit aren't nearly enough to satisfy the conspiracy theorists either (re: Tomlinson and Wright both saying that CE399 "looked like" the bullet they each saw on Nov. 22 and the additional fact revealed in CE2011 about Elmer Todd physically marking CE399 with his own initials). So, the CTers distrust the FBI completely. But, what else is new?
People who try to make something out of nothing will never be satisfied.
Making something out of nothing??
Latona is the supervisor of the latent fingerprint section of the identification division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the FBI's main man for fingerprint identification with decades of experience.
He was examining the weapon that was supposed to have murdered the President, trying to ID the murderer. He had the weapon taken apart and examined every part of the rifle in full.
Not only did he find no palm print, he found no attempt had been made to lift such a print. There was no print on that rifle when it reached Latona a few hours after it had been released by Day.
So, perhaps the print was somehow completely wiped from the barrel in transit. That is the only feasible explanation if Day is being truthful.
That Day insists he had no time to examine the lift he had taken from the rifle with the print taken from Oswald is clearly nonsensical. It's got nothing to do with being asked to stop work on the rifle. Day had the palm print for days and had more than enough time to examine it. Remember, this was the piece of evidence that put the murder weapon in Oswald's hands. To imagine that this would not have been a top priority is delusional.
Something about this really stinks and for you to infer I'm making something out of nothing is unreasonable, to say the least.
Can you please give us a link to the full exchange, Mr. von Pein? Thank you! Thumb1:
Here it is (below). The stuff about Lt. Day and the palmprint appears on Pages 8 thru 10 of this EF Forum thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130423005722/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=105#entry269239
That letter in CE2637 is certainly enough proof for me.
People who try to make something out of nothing will never be satisfied.
Making something out of nothing??
Latona is the supervisor of the latent fingerprint section of the identification division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the FBI's main man for fingerprint identification with decades of experience.
He was examining the weapon that was supposed to have murdered the President, trying to ID the murderer. He had the weapon taken apart and examined every part of the rifle in full.
Not only did he find no palm print, he found no attempt had been made to lift such a print. There was no print on that rifle when it reached Latona a few hours after it had been released by Day.
So, perhaps the print was somehow completely wiped from the barrel in transit. That is the only feasible explanation if Day is being truthful.
That Day insists he had no time to examine the lift he had taken from the rifle with the print taken from Oswald is clearly nonsensical. It's got nothing to do with being asked to stop work on the rifle. Day had the palm print for days and had more than enough time to examine it. Remember, this was the piece of evidence that put the murder weapon in Oswald's hands. To imagine that this would not have been a top priority is delusional.
Something about this really stinks and for you to infer I'm making something out of nothing is unreasonable, to say the least.
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
Day said otherwise and Rusty said he was right there with Day and Drain when the rifle was turned over and Rusty agrees with Day. Rusty says there was another FBI agent with Drain who was trying to make them all hurry up. And that Drain was only half listening to Day.
Why do you keep insisting Drain knew nothing about it?
Closing ranks, as cops do. And a dumb excuse. This wasn’t important enough to turn over as evidence or to even bother getting Drain’s attention about?
Because Drain said he didn’t know anything about it.
The DPD had jurisdiction, the FBI did not. I think Day was correct in not turning anything over to the FBI that he wasn’t specifically instructed to turn over.
Day should have done more than get Drain’s attention regarding the palm print remnants under the fore stock. He should have indicated that it was there in some way that it should not have been overlooked. But he felt he could count on Drain to relay his message.
Drain could have simply forgotten that Day told him that.
Who are you going to believe? I will go with the one who was shown to have done what he said he did when the WC questioned it and the FBI provided solid physical evidence that he told the truth.
“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”
When did he ever say that?
Sure and Day could have simply never told him that.
I’m going to believe the one who isn’t trying to cover his ass with ever evolving stories to make up for mishandling evidence (at best), or falsifying evidence (at worst).
“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”
Those are the words of Vincent Drain. Not the words of Carl Day. If you are going to claim that Day was told to turn over the palm print you need better evidence than Vincent Drain’s words.
Edit: These are the words of Carl Day as transcribed in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 238:
Around 11:30 that night I received orders which merely said, “Release the rifle to the FBI.” Shortly thereafter I handed it over to Vince Drain of the FBI. I told him, “There’s a trace of a print here” and showed him where it was. It was just a verbal communication to him. I didn’t have time to make any written reports; I just gave it to him and he signed for it without saying anything. I don’t remember whether he wrapped it up with anything or not, but he took it on to Washington that night. It’s a funny thing about that. We had a few other items around such as some of his clothes and paper off the roll at the Book Depository that we didn’t do anything else with. I didn’t send the card lift either. They told me not to do anything else, so I didn’t even look at it again.
When did he ever say that?
I didn’t say that Carl Day said that. It is my own opinion. Day has said that he and Drain had already known each other for years before the assassination and got along well. Combine that with Day saying he verbally told Drain about the palm print and a logical conclusion could be made that Day trusted Drain to relay the message.
I’m going to believe the one who isn’t trying to cover his ass with ever evolving stories to make up for mishandling evidence (at best), or falsifying evidence (at worst).
It is amazing to me that you can believe those claims of wrongdoing by Day without any evidence. You always insist that any evidence that points towards LHO’s guilt isn’t good enough for you. It sure appears hypocritical to me.
Edit #2: Here is apparently what Vincent Drain meant by “all the evidence” in the report that your earlier post quotes:
These are Vincent Drains words as transcribed in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 247-248:
Earlier in the evening, about 8:00 o’clock, the division chief had talked to me on the telephone and informed me that the FBI in Washington demanded that we bring to them for examination the rifle, the revolver that was used to kill Tippit, as well as the different paraphernalia such as identification cards and other small items that Oswald had on him. I discussed it with the police chief and told him that we’d keep the chain of evidence intact and that I would pick them up there myself and wait for them until they were examined in Washington then bring them back. So it was turned over to us.
I’m going to believe the one who isn’t trying to cover his ass with ever evolving stories to make up for mishandling evidence (at best), or falsifying evidence (at worst).
It is amazing to me that you can believe those claims of wrongdoing by Day without any evidence. You always insist that any evidence that points towards LHO’s guilt isn’t good enough for you. It sure appears hypocritical to me.
Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.The evidence of Landis that he retrieved a bullet that he describes as being identical to CE399 (whole bullet with just a dent on one side on the butt end), explains how CE399 got into Parkland. How, or whether, it ended up on Connally's stretcher is still unknown but that is a minor detail. He does not say that there were two such bullets, so I don't see how that puts the SBT in jeopardy.
A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.
I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.
A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.
I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.
Why many of you wantta green light the recent 60 yr old recollection of Landis and then totally ignore the "Original Report" he filed immediately after the assassination is hard to understand. In that report, Landis recalled seeing a motorcycle cop at the Elm St curb as the Queen Mary was about to enter the Triple Underpass. This Landis timeline eliminates Motorcycle officer Haygood as being the motorcycle cop that he reported having seen. This means Landis saw a different cop that history has failed to ID. Skinny Holland, Lee Bowers and others detailed under oath having watched a motorcycle cop riding UP the knoll. This could be the same still unknown cop that Landis detailed in his report. If you're gonna buy into the 60 yr old bullet retrieval story that Landis is now offering, you also have to give his "Original Report" that same level of credibility.
“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”
Those are the words of Vincent Drain. Not the words of Carl Day. If you are going to claim that Day was told to turn over the palm print you need better evidence than Vincent Drain’s words.
Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth.
I don’t believe Day was told to turn over the palm print. Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.
But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?
Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?
Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.
From memory, I believe that Day said he told both Curry and Fritz about it on the night of 11/22/63 before Drain took the rifle to Washington DC.
No, I don’t believe Drain lied. I think your idea of “all of the evidence” in the context of Drain’s report is wrong. I think that Drain was referring to all of the evidence that the FBI had requested.
I don’t. In this case, Sneed allowed his interviewees to tell their stories in their own words. Drain’s elaboration of what evidence the FBI had requested essentially agrees with Day’s statements. I am pointing this out.
Day said a lot of things in his evolving stories. Fritz was still saying on Saturday that they had no prints.
That’s not what the report says though. It says, “all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. That would certainly include this lift, had it existed at that time.
But it also obscures all of the things Day said originally, as well as how they changed over time.
Day said a lot of things in his evolving stories. Fritz was still saying on Saturday that they had no prints.
And according to one of the memos or letters from the WC regarding their questions, Wade was saying on Sunday that they had a palm print. There was a lot of misinformation and confusion during that weekend.
That’s not what the report says though. It says, “all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. That would certainly include this lift, had it existed at that time.
Those are Drain’s words. And your interpretation of them. The evidence, testimonies, later recollections and elaborations all indicate that Drain’s words are not correct. All of this has already been explained. Go ahead and believe whatever you wish. I couldn’t care less. But you need something to corroborate your interpretation if you want to convince others.
But it also obscures all of the things Day said originally, as well as how they changed over time.
Inconsistencies are common in real life cases. I don’t know what you are referring to specifically.
Those are Drain’s words. And your interpretation of them. The evidence, testimonies, later recollections and elaborations all indicate that Drain’s words are not correct. All of this has already been explained. Go ahead and believe whatever you wish. I couldn’t care less. But you need something to corroborate your interpretation if you want to convince others.
Inconsistencies are common in real life cases. I don’t know what you are referring to specifically.
Despite what anybody tried to claim later, there is no other way to interpret "all the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD".
Read Pat Speer's chapter, already cited, on Day's morphing "memories". It seems that you are all over these when they suit your purposes.
Despite what anybody tried to claim later, there is no other way to interpret "all the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD".
The evidence, the testimonies, the later recollections, etc ALL indicate the following interpretation is correct:
"all the evidence collected [that the FBI requested] that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD".
Despite what anybody tried to claim later, there is no other way to interpret "all the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD".
The evidence, the testimonies, the later recollections, etc ALL indicate the following interpretation is correct:
"all the evidence collected [that the FBI requested] that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD".
Many of us don’t always use very precise language all the time. I have gotten better at it as a result of trying to communicate on forums like this one. Drain’s language in that report is not very precise. I think that it would have been wrong for Day to turn over evidence that he had not specifically been instructed to turn over to the FBI. Your charges of Day mishandling or falsifying evidence simply don’t have any credible evidence to support them.
From Jesse Curry’s testimony:
“We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"
But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.”
“…that the FBI requested” is your invention that was not said by Curry or Day (via Drain).
I’m suggesting that there is no good reason to believe Day’s story about doing a lift from the rifle on 11/22. He didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence. He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane. He claimed that there were still visible ridges left after doing his lift. Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all. He found no traces of ridges there. Then a week later, Latona receives (separately from all the other evidence) an index card with a partial print on it. When asked by the WC to sign an affidavit regarding his handling of the print, Day refused. Your attempts to “explain” these things away fall flat and reek of desperation to maintain the “cop said so, therefore it’s true” position.
Paul Stombaugh testified that latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun when he examined it on 11/23. So it’s particularly significant that Latona said that the area of the barrel under the foregrip looked like it had not been processed at all. Standard procedure was to photograph a print before attempting a lift. And in fact he did so with the trigger guard prints. If he had time to actually do this lift then he had time to photograph it first. If he had really told Drain about the print then Drain would have wanted to take it. The FBI wanted to examine the rifle for prints.
Jerry - Thanks for posting the Landis snippet from his "Original Report" along with the visual aids/still shots. I am not sure what your position is regarding Landis having seen a motorcycle at the Elm St. curb There is no way Landis was referencing the Hargis motorcycle. The motorcycle Landis saw/reported, along with the Black Male were both on the (N Elm Curb. The Hargis motorcycle was on the (S) Elm curb.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0241.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0251.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0254.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0260.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0268.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0271.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0278.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0281.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0284.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0290.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0293.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0298.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0302.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0305.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0309.jpg) |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image9~0.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_jfkMcIntire1_Motorcycles.jpg) The motorcycle of Officer B. J. Martin (southernmost lane of Elm) is followed by that of Officer James M. Chaney (in the northernmost lane of Elm) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_jfkMcIntire_Crop.jpg) |
Based on what Day said to Larry Sneed (in “No More Silence”, page 238) Day told him about the remains of the print on the barrel. Day did what he was instructed to do and turned the rifle over to the FBI.
Based on the above, Day appears to have verbally advised Drain of the palm print trace on the rifle. Day does not say that he told Drain about the lift he made of that print. So, where in all of this does your idea of mishandling or falsification of the evidence come from?
I think that Latona’s statement meant that there was no indicator (as in cellophane, etc) that the barrel under the fore grip had been processed. You appear to be jumping to the conclusion that Latona’s statement meant that there was no powder on that area. I don’t agree with that conclusion. Read Latona’s testimony and you will find he made that statement immediately after his statement regarding the cellophane that he did find on the trigger guard.
All you appear to be doing is pointing out inconsistencies (as usual).
You apparently are not suggesting that Drain took ALL of the evidence to Washington on 11/22/63.
Yet you continue to point to the words as if you are. It is difficult to know what you are arguing. We just go around and around in the same circles.
"As we passed under the overpass, I was looking back and
saw a motorcycle policeman stopping approximately where
I saw the negro running."
Well, I don't see in Agent Landis's statement the word "curb", much less the words "N Elm Curb".
According to the Mark Tyler animation "Motorcade 63" ( Link (https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html) ), other than the one driven by Officer Hargis, one of the remaining three motorcycle escorts that were just behind the limousine did stop for an extended time (the cycle driven by Officer Douglas Jackson). So you may be correct about a cycle stopped near the north curb but you are incorrect about "a different cop that history has failed to ID".
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/fig13.jpg)
The motorcycle escort of the Presidential limousine. Left-to-right: Officer Chaney, Officer Hargis and Officer Martin. Officer Jackson is out-of-frame, camera-left. Jackson was the escort rider nearest to the North Elm curb.
The Nix film documents most of Elm Street between the concrete wall and the Underpass just after the head shot. There is no mysterious motorcycle recorded in that sequence that could be the motorcycle seen by Landis other than one of the four known escorts (which we can narrow down to Jackson or Hargis).
The film shows all four escort motorcycles slowed or stopped, while the limousine traveled away from them. The three cycles that are suspected of having stopped are roughly opposite the pedestal used by Zapruder when they go out of frame. The one cycle seen still moving (though it soon goes out of frame) is that of B.J. Martin.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0241.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0251.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0254.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0260.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0268.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0271.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0278.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0281.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0284.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0290.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0293.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0298.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0302.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0305.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0309.jpg)
The limousine and followup car are then picked up by the Bell Film. The motorcycle seen in that clip is that of B.J. Martin, traveling on the southernmost lane of Elm.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image9~0.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_jfkMcIntire1_Motorcycles.jpg)
The motorcycle of Officer B. J. Martin
(southernmost lane of Elm) is followed
by that of Officer James M. Chaney
(in the northernmost lane of Elm)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_jfkMcIntire_Crop.jpg)
By then, Officer Jackson might be on the move since he said he left Dealey Plaza with Chaney. The Mark Tyler animation shows Jackson begin to move four seconds after Chaney resumed moving.
You're forgetting the 2 bullet fragments Landis said he saw, picked up, and put back between the bench seat and back rest. What happened to those 2 bullet fragments? Were these 2 bullet fragments garnered by the cleanup crew that used that bucket that was photo'd on the ground beside the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital?You are putting a lot of weight on the 60 year old recollections of an 88 year old man who, as far as we know, never documented finding any bullet fragments or a bullet in the car during those 60 years. I am not suggesting that he is deliberately lying but minds can play tricks after such a long time. His two statements in CE1024 are still the best evidence was to what he found in the car. In any event, if Landis did find two large bullet fragments and a whole bullet, there is no reason to believe that they are not the fragments found in the car: CE567 and CE569 and CE399 found on a stretcher.
You are putting a lot of weight on the 60 year old recollections of an 88 year old man who, as far as we know, never documented finding any bullet fragments or a bullet in the car during those 60 years. I am not suggesting that he is deliberately lying but minds can play tricks after such a long time. His two statements in CE1024 are still the best evidence was to what he found in the car. In any event, if Landis did find two large bullet fragments and a whole bullet, there is no reason to believe that they are not the fragments found in the car: CE567 and CE569 and CE399 found on a stretcher.
Yeah, I don’t believe him. I think it’s a CYA. He not only told Drain about the print, but he showed it to him? The ”Drain was distracted” excuse doesn’t work if he showed it to him. Drain understood that he was collecting evidence related to Oswald. Why would he not take this print that Day supposedly tentatively had already identified? And then completely forget the conversation ever happened.
It’s mishandling because he didn’t follow the standard procedure of photographing the print or documenting anything.
I can see how you could make that interpretation, but then the question becomes “why didn’t Day cover that area with cellophane?” Remember, he claimed there were still traces of ridges there. It can’t be because they were protected by the stock, because the whole reason he removed the stock (so he claimed) was because he saw a print extending out from where the stock was.
Inconsistencies matter. They are an indication that somebody isn’t being truthful. It’s why interrogators ask the same questions over and over again and compare responses.
all the evidence collected which related to Oswald. Its makes absolutely no sense that he would take everything else that had prints on it and leave behind a print supposedly lifted from the rifle that night. No sense whatsoever. It also makes no sense that this wasn’t included with the other evidence sent back to the FBI again on 11/26.
That’s because you’re doing your usual “nothing to see here” routine and ignoring all the things there are to see here.
Yeah, I don’t believe him. I think it’s a CYA. He not only told Drain about the print, but he showed it to him? The ”Drain was distracted” excuse doesn’t work if he showed it to him. Drain understood that he was collecting evidence related to Oswald. Why would he not take this print that Day supposedly tentatively had already identified? And then completely forget the conversation ever happened.
Day gave him the rifle as instructed. He said he told Drain verbally about the trace of a print under the foregrip. Day did not say that he told Drain about the lift that he made of the palm print on the rifle, so why do you think Drain knew anything about the lift? People forget some details of things other people say all the time. Especially when they have a lot of other things on their minds at the time.
It’s mishandling because he didn’t follow the standard procedure of photographing the print or documenting anything.
No, Day said he was in the process of setting up the photographing effort when he was told to stop and turn the rifle over to the FBI. Day apparently did document the lift by writing the description, date, and his initials on the card. What supposed other documentation are you talking about?
I can see how you could make that interpretation, but then the question becomes “why didn’t Day cover that area with cellophane?” Remember, he claimed there were still traces of ridges there. It can’t be because they were protected by the stock, because the whole reason he removed the stock (so he claimed) was because he saw a print extending out from where the stock was.
Day said he didn’t cover it with cellophane because the wooden foregrip protected it. I don’t know exactly how much of the print extended out (or even if it did). I think it is possible that he said he could see the edge of the print when the foregrip was still on it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it extended out such that it was unprotected. Often there is a small gap between the wood and the barrel that he could have seen the edge of the print through. I will agree that Day should have provided a written note or something like that to indicate there was a print underneath the foregrip. Relying on Drain to relay his verbal message was not the best way to handle it.
Inconsistencies matter. They are an indication that somebody isn’t being truthful. It’s why interrogators ask the same questions over and over again and compare responses.
Inconsistencies are not necessarily an indication of being untruthful. Yes, investigators often ask same or similar questions repeatedly to one suspect trying to trip him up to try to determine if they are telling the truth. However, in this instance we are dealing with more than one person. And we are dealing with human memories which are fallible. And the evidence indicates that Day did lift the print from where he said he did on the rifle.
all the evidence collected which related to Oswald. Its makes absolutely no sense that he would take everything else that had prints on it and leave behind a print supposedly lifted from the rifle that night. No sense whatsoever. It also makes no sense that this wasn’t included with the other evidence sent back to the FBI again on 11/26.
There was over 400 items collected that related to Oswald. Are you suggesting that Drain took all of that evidence to Washington, waited there for it to be processed, and brought it back to Dallas on 11/24/63? And that the lift of the palm print was the only thing that Drain didn’t take with him on 11/22/63? Drain was apparently not aware of the lift of the palm print on 11/22/63. Day states that the lift of the palm print was included with the other evidence sent to the FBI on 11/26. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?
That’s because you’re doing your usual “nothing to see here” routine and ignoring all the things there are to see here.
Actually I am trying to understand what it is that you are suggesting happened. Otherwise, I would have exited this conversation a long time ago.
No problem. So show Landis the fragments you mention and ask him if those are/could be the ones he handled on 11/22/63. A lot of the past and current confusion can easily be cleared up IF the JFK Assassination Research Community will get off its' duff and STOP putting ALL their effort into merely selling books. Clint Hill needs to be questioned regarding the ongoing Landis controversy. Did Clint Hill ever see Landis standing inside the back seat area of the JFK Limo after it arrived at Parkland Hospital as Landis claims? This is Not a tough question for Hill to answer.
Day gave him the rifle as instructed. He said he told Drain verbally about the trace of a print under the foregrip.
No, Day said he was in the process of setting up the photographing effort when he was told to stop and turn the rifle over to the FBI.
Day apparently did document the lift by writing the description, date, and his initials on the card. What supposed other documentation are you talking about?
Day said he didn’t cover it with cellophane because the wooden foregrip protected it.
I will agree that Day should have provided a written note or something like that to indicate there was a print underneath the foregrip.
Relying on Drain to relay his verbal message was not the best way to handle it.
Inconsistencies are not necessarily an indication of being untruthful.
Yes, investigators often ask same or similar questions repeatedly to one suspect trying to trip him up to try to determine if they are telling the truth. However, in this instance we are dealing with more than one person. And we are dealing with human memories which are fallible. And the evidence indicates that Day did lift the print from where he said he did on the rifle.
There was over 400 items collected that related to Oswald. Are you suggesting that Drain took all of that evidence to Washington, waited there for it to be processed, and brought it back to Dallas on 11/24/63? And that the lift of the palm print was the only thing that Drain didn’t take with him on 11/22/63?
Drain was apparently not aware of the lift of the palm print on 11/22/63. Day states that the lift of the palm print was included with the other evidence sent to the FBI on 11/26. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?
Actually I am trying to understand what it is that you are suggesting happened. Otherwise, I would have exited this conversation a long time ago.
"Get off its' duff".
What's stopping the JFKA Conspiracy Theorists--many of whom somehow are allowed to own rifles (and Carcanos in particular)--from testing whether a palm-print placed on a rifle barrel and allowed to dry for an appropriate amount of time so that a lift could then be made using the same method as Lt. Day. Then see how visible the remaining print is after a few hours. See if the rifle barrel has to be tilted in a certain light to see the print, or if it can be easily overlooked if one didn't know where to look.
It's been 60 years. They don't trust authorities, so-called "LNers" or experts like the Haags to do it.
Per Landis "Original Report"
, ".....I recall seeing clearly a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a SIDEWALK, TOWARDS some steps, and what appeared to be a low stone wall." ..... "I was looking Back, and saw a motorcycle policeman Stopping along the CURB approximately ADJACENT to where I saw the Negro running".
Clearly, this is happening on the North side of Elm and the cop is at the curb West of The Steps.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0241.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0251.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0254.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0260.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0268.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0271.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0278.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0281.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0284.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0290.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0293.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0298.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0302.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0305.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0309.jpg) |
No motorcycle cop is known to have been "Stopping along the curb" WEST of the Steps at this point in time.
The current Landis "Magic Bullet" stuff is getting all the attention, but his "Original Report" and his NOW claiming to have seen/handled 2 bullet fragments that were laying between the bench seat and the back rest should also be examined very closely. SA Clint Hill should also be called in to tell us whatever he can/will about ALL of this. These 2 central players are not going to be members of the cast forever.
That's even less believable. He told Drain about the "trace of a print under the foregrip" that didn't turn out to even be there, but didn't bother to mention that he already lifted it? Was he trying to sabotage the FBI's efforts?
So now you're saying that he didn't get around to trying to photograph it until after he had already lifted it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of doing the photograph in the first place? Why the different procedure than what he followed for the trigger guard?
Didn't tell Drain. Didn't tell anybody else. Didn't submit the evidence via a CSSS. Didn't secure the evidence. Didn't write any kind of report indicating that he had made this lift and what he did with it. The first documented evidence of its existence is after Oswald is dead.
"Lt. DAY stated he saw no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when fully assembled and that it was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints."
On this we agree. Especially since there is no evidence that there was actually a print underneath the foregrip when it got to Latona.
And there's no evidence that such a verbal message actually transpired. Day didn't start claiming he told Drain anything until years later in response to criticism about it.
Agreed. Otherwise, I would just be calling Day a liar rather than just saying that his story is unbelievable and makes no sense on multiple levels.
All this "evidence" is, is replacing "Day said so" with "Hoover said so". It's still an unverifiable, unconfirmable claim.
What I'm saying is that if Drain had really been told about the lift, or even the print, it would have been number one on his list to bring back to the FBI. He wouldn't have just ignored it. This is the only piece of evidence that could be physically connected back to Oswald. Drain wouldn't have just forgotten about it. It just conveniently turned up when there was nothing else that could be used.
Yes. Latona said that he got the other materials to be examined (boxes and so forth) on November 27th, and the index card lift on the 29th.
I'm suggesting that the partial palmprint lift known as CE 637 cannot be authenticated as having been lifted from the CE 139 rifle on 11/22/63 as claimed by Carl Day, and that there are too many inconsistencies and discrepancies to accept that as true beyond a reasonable doubt. And that even the Warren Commission had the same reservations until they (for some unfathomable reason) were sufficiently reassured by an equally unauthenticatable claim by Hoover in a letter not given under oath or with enough detail to assess it adequately.
You are quoting a statement by Landis dated November 30, 1963. I was quoting a statement he made on November 27, 1963. Both are here (the November 30th statement begins the page): Link (https://www.jfk-online.com/landis.html) .
The man Landis saw running would seem to be running "up the slope" that was "across a grassy section", "along a sidewalk" that led "towards some steps ... and a low stone wall".
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Moorman-2.gif)
According to Landis, the fellow was "running from my left to right". (GIF by Chris Davidson).
There is nothing "clear" about this happening West of the steps. Where is the motorcycle "West of the steps" in the Nix film sequence of that area?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0241.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0251.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0254.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0260.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0268.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0271.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0278.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0281.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0284.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0290.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0293.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0298.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0302.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0305.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0309.jpg)
The Altgens Photo shows no motorcycle immediately behind the four Presidential motorcycle escorts, which rules out that as a source for the "mystery" motorcycle.
If Mark Tyler's stopping of Officer Douglas Jackson's cycle is correct, then Jackson is likely the motorcycle Landis was describing. Could be Jackson came to a full stop further along Elm than Tyler depicts. In any event, Officer Jackson's is not a previously-unknown motorcycle.
Day was following his orders. Day said he told his superiors (Curry and Fritz) about the lift before the time that Drain took the rifle.
If Curry and Fritz had wanted to tell the FBI about the lift, it was up to them to do it.
Remember, the DPD had jurisdiction (not the FBI). The DPD leadership had decided to let the FBI temporarily take the evidence that the FBI had requested. The DPD was not even required to do that.
I believe that Day stated that he had no other reason than an urgent request to process the gun ASAP. I believe he said that Captain Fritz ordered him to resume processing the rifle after Day had already been stopped earlier. Another snip from "No More Silence", page 237: "Captain Fritz came back a little later and had run across the chief of police. He told me to go ahead and start again on what I had been doing with the gun, which I did. Before I got the picture made, another message came in: 'Drop everything! Don't do anything else!'" I don't believe that there was a requirement to photograph prints first, or even to photograph them at all.
Is the palm print the only item not "submitted via a CSSS? Is there a CSSS that he submitted for the partial prints on the trigger guard for example?
First documentation of the palm print by whom, the FBI?
"Lt. DAY stated he saw no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when fully assembled and that it was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints."
Isn't that essentially what I just said? Why are you repeating it?
I have already indicated a few possibilities that I think are possible earlier in this thread. We will most likely never have a definitive answer that will satisfy everyone as to why Latona didn't find a print.
The evidence that it was there includes the actual lift of the palm print, Day's testimony about that lift, and the irregularities the FBI found on the rifle that match the corresponding marks on the lift of the palm print that Day made. You can complain about the evidence all you wish, but it exists.
I could be mistaken, but I think I remember that Drain's report of September 1964 indicated that Day made the claim when Drain talked to him.
Day said he told Drain about the print on the rifle. Day didn't say he told Drain about the lift.
Day said he sent it on the 26th. Do you not think that a possible explanation for the difference is that it simply took Latona a few days to process some of the other 400+ items before he even knew that the palm print lift was included?
So, essentially you just don't like the evidence. What else is new? ::)
Speer puts it quite succinctly:
"It's as simple as this.... Consider: the President of a third world country is murdered and the crime scene investigator tasked with building a case against his suspected assassin fails to take pictures of not one but three important pieces of evidence (the box the assassin supposedly sat on, the bag supposedly used by the assassin to smuggle his weapon into the building from which the fatal shots were fired, and the palm print on the underside of the weapon supposedly used in the assassination), and instead gives tours of the crime scene to the media, and parades key evidence before the cameras. He then takes a few days off, during which he fails to perform any of the comparisons or tests he knows can shed further light on the case.
And not only that, in the investigation that follows, he tells numerous lies about the evidence, and pays no price for his dishonesty."
There was no print on the barrel of the rifle.
That's why there was no print when Latona received it.
That's why Day never mentioned it to Drain.
Day took a fresh palm print from Oswald and put it on the rifle.
He then lifted this print from the rifle.
That's why the forged print matches the rifle.
On a different note - I've been at this about three years now and it's not until this thread has it dawned on me that a lot of LNers have the same mentality as a lot of the more extreme, tinfoil CTers.
There is literally no room for debate.
This aspect of the case stinks to high heaven. The very kindest thing that can be said is that it represents staggering incompetence, yet it appears to the LNer mind that it is all above board and run-of-the-mill.
And it wouldn't be so bad if this was an isolated example of staggering incompetence as far the investigation into JFK's murder goes.
But it isn't.
Not by a long shot.
Does anyone know whose initials those are beside Day’s initials, when they were put there, etc?
Yes, I know he claimed that. It’s uncorroborated by Fritz and Curry, and wasn’t publicly mentioned by Fritz or Curry even though they discussed other evidence, including prints that they had.
This would be a “not my job” evasion. But Day is the one who handed the evidence over, not Curry and Fritz.
That’s not relevant. They agreed to turn the evidence over. How could the FBI request something they didn’t even know existed?
So which is it then? He didn’t think it was necessary, or he didn’t have time?
One thing Speer points out is that the FBI manual is very clear that prints should always be photographed first before trying to develop them, and Latona reiterates that. Yes, Day was not FBI, but he mentions in his testimony having gone through advanced latent-print school conducted by the FBI.
They were still on the rifle, and thus part of it. The rifle had a CSSS. It’s how they logged evidence in the possession of the police department.They were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department for (supposedly) safe keeping and control.
By anybody. Day didn’t get around to writing a report about this for two months.
Apologies. I misread what you wrote. I thought you were saying that Day didn’t say the foregrip was the reason he didn’t cover it with cellophane. I think the “maybe the part that was sticking out was still protected” speculation is just yet another case of trying to resolve a discrepancy by proposing a hypothetical for which there is no evidence.
Frankly, I think your suggestion that Day was just more skilled at locating prints than Latona is the most absurd possibility.
Hoover’s letter and indistinct smudge with no background details certainly does exist. That doesn’t make it reliable or conclusive evidence.
You are indeed mistaken. It wasn’t until the time of the HSCA (1977) that Day started claiming he told Drain about the print.
The question remains, why the hell not?
No. Latona said he received it on November 29th.
It has nothing to do with “liking it”. In light of the many discrepancies, contradictions, morphing memories, CYA, and hedging, “Day said so” just doesn’t cut it.
George M. Doughty
This would be a “not my job” evasion. But Day is the one who handed the evidence over, not Curry and Fritz.
Again, Day turned over the evidence that he said he was specifically instructed to turn over. The FBI had no jurisdiction. Why do you “feel” that it was incumbent upon Day to turn over (or even announce to the FBI) evidence that he was not instructed to turn over?
That’s not relevant. They agreed to turn the evidence over. How could the FBI request something they didn’t even know existed?
It is very relevant. The DPD was trying to cooperate with the FBI. The palm print had just been discovered and was still being processed. Apparently word about the palm print had not yet spread to the FBI. Day simply followed orders. Things were evolving while decisions were being made. The FBI was rushing things and subsequently there was confusion. You can suspect some “mysterious wrongdoings” all you wish. But there is no evidence of any of that.
They were still on the rifle, and thus part of it. The rifle had a CSSS. It’s how they logged evidence in the possession of the police department.They were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department for (supposedly) safe keeping and control.
It appears to me that most (if not all) of the evidence lacked your supposed CSSS reports. So, I think that your complaint that the palm print lacked one and therefore is somehow suspected of forgery is not relevant. Here’s a snip from “Assignment: Oswald” by James Hosty, pp 107-110:
Tuesday, November 26, 1963 TIME: 8:30 A.M. By the time DeBrueys and I arrived back at the police station to resume our work the next day, Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney, had convinced the police that they should release all the evidence to the FBI. Because the transport of all the evidence was going to take a lot of work, Ken Howe came over to Lieutenant Potts’s office to help us. The police mandated several conditions for the release of all the evidence. They wanted two of their property men to accompany us to our FBI office to assure the chain of custody. They also wanted us to catalog and photograph everything, then provide them copies. That’s mighty big of them, I thought, seeing they’d had the past four days to do that themselves. With practically no help from the police, DeBrueys, Howe, and I boxed up everything and began lugging the boxes downstairs to the police garage and my car. About 90 minutes later, we packed the last box into the backseat. With the trunk and backseat crammed full of evidence, Howe and DeBrueys climbed into the front seat, and I climbed in behind the wheel. The two property officers got into their car, and with them following, I drove out of the garage. I guess word traveled fast that the FBI was taking away the evidence from the assassination, because as my car reached the top of the garage exit ramp we were met by a dozen television cameramen and photographers. With bulbs flashing rapid-fire and television reporters solemnly announcing that the FBI was driving off with the evidence, I maneuvered our way out of there. TIME: 11:00 A.M. After unloading the evidence, we took the boxes up to the seventh floor, where we found a couple of long tables and set up shop. DeBrueys grabbed a Minox camera and propped it up on a kind of tripod so that it was about 12 inches above the table, its lens pointed straight down. While the two property officers looked on, I started feeding, one at a time, each of the items that had been seized. DeBrueys focused and snapped each item as they were fed through. When each item was photographed, we had to catalog and mark it. To say this process was time-consuming would be an understatement. It was particularly tiresome because of the sheer volume of personal papers belonging to Lee and Marina Oswald. With short breaks for lunch and dinner, DeBrueys and I worked long into the night. TIME: 12:45 A.M. DeBrueys and I were just about finished when Vince Drain, one of our liaisons to the Dallas police, came into the room. The two police property officers stirred just a little in their chairs, cocking their heads to listen. “Hey, the police still have some more evidence they forgot to give you,” Drain said. “Captain Fritz has in his desk Oswald’s wallet, one shell casing from the rifle on the sixth floor of the depository, and Oswald’s notebook. Fritz said to run over to his office and he’ll give this stuff to us. Hosty, Malley and Shanklin want you to go over there yourself and get it.” “Sure. I’ll head over there right now,” I said. DeBrueys continued to work, feeding the items in one at a time, photographing them, cataloging them. I put on my suit jacket and left. I had heard that Fritz was single and that he had an apartment just across the street from the police station. When I got down to the station about 1:00 A.M., Fritz was already there. He greeted me cordially, not the least upset that he had been roused from bed to hand over evidence. He walked me up to his office. It was quite a contrast to see his office and hallway at this hour: it was so empty and quiet compared to Friday afternoon’s chaotic scene. He unlocked his door, hit the light switch, and went over to his desk. He opened one of the drawers and pulled out the address book, wallet, and shell. I got out a piece of paper and wrote up a receipt of evidence:
By anybody. Day didn’t get around to writing a report about this for two months.
Day writing the description, date, initials, etc. on the lift card itself is documentation of the evidence by the authority who had jurisdiction. Your idea that a report or some CSSS report was necessary it just that, your idea.
Apologies. I misread what you wrote. I thought you were saying that Day didn’t say the foregrip was the reason he didn’t cover it with cellophane. I think the “maybe the part that was sticking out was still protected” speculation is just yet another case of trying to resolve a discrepancy by proposing a hypothetical for which there is no evidence.
The “discrepancy” is in your mind. I am just pointing out a possible solution to your “issue”.
Frankly, I think your suggestion that Day was just more skilled at locating prints than Latona is the most absurd possibility.
Now you are trying to attribute something to me that I didn’t say. I wrote about differences in colors of powder and perceptions. I didn’t say anything about who I thought was more skilled. >:(
Hoover’s letter and indistinct smudge with no background details certainly does exist. That doesn’t make it reliable or conclusive evidence.
Thank you for your opinion.
The question remains, why the hell not?
It wasn’t his place. That is how an organization like the DPD, military, etc works. It was up to Day’s superiors to share the information, if they decided to share it. I think that Day would have been out of line to share the existence of or turn over the palm print lift unless he had been instructed to do so.
No. Latona said he received it on November 29th.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that Day didn’t turn it over on the 26th.
It has nothing to do with “liking it”. In light of the many discrepancies, contradictions, morphing memories, CYA, and hedging, “Day said so” just doesn’t cut it.
You can suspect whatever you wish. Evidence of wrongdoing would be helpful if you want to convince others.
It is very relevant. The DPD was trying to cooperate with the FBI. The palm print had just been discovered and was still being processed.
It appears to me that most (if not all) of the evidence lacked your supposed CSSS reports.
Day writing the description, date, initials, etc. on the lift card itself is documentation of the evidence by the authority who had jurisdiction. Your idea that a report or some CSSS report was necessary it just that, your idea.
Hoover’s letter and indistinct smudge with no background details certainly does exist. That doesn’t make it reliable or conclusive evidence.
Thank you for your opinion.
The question remains, why the hell not?
It wasn’t his place. That is how an organization like the DPD, military, etc works. It was up to Date’s superiors to share the information, if they decided to share it.
No. Latona said he received it on November 29th.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that Day didn’t turn it over on the 26th.
You can suspect whatever you wish. Evidence of wrongdoing would be helpful if you want to convince others.
Thanks. Any idea when he put them there?
Nope.
So, George M. Doughty initialed the lift of the palm print that Day testified he found on the underside of the barrel of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Doughty was the head of the crime lab for the DPD during the time in question. So, I think that he must have initialed it before it was sent to the FBI.
It appears to me that Day must have turned the palm print lift over to Doughty (who then initialed it and turned it over to the FBI). This supports my earlier contention that it wasn’t Day’s place to inform the FBI of evidence (or to turn over any evidence that he wasn’t specifically instructed to turn over). Day was simply following orders from his superior and reporting to his superiors.
The naysayers omit this little tidbit (Doughty’s initials)
when they accuse Day of wrong doings. That is called distortion by omission. And it is very common among the CT folks. Also, they seem to think that they can conclude that there was wrongdoings without any evidence of wrongdoing. Yet, in this country the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Then why did he do no further processing for the following 3 days?
I’m not sure why it appears that way to you.There’s nothing in your Hosty snip that would suggest that. But I direct your attention to the fact that Hosty also states that they were supposed to release “all the evidence”.
Anybody can write “11/22/63” on an index card that nobody sees until 11/29.
Thank you for your opinion that a letter and an indistinct smudge prove anything.
You’re trying to have it both ways. If it “wasn’t his place” then why does he claim to have verbally informed Drain about the print?
It does necessarily mean that it was sent separately from the other evidence.
Evidence of authenticity would be helpful if you want to convince others.
You can think that, but there's no evidence of that. It would have been a good thing for a commission to actually ask about rather than just accepting a letter from the FBI director who wanted to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin as dispositive.
Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over. Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody. Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.
Why include it when it tells you nothing about when Day's lift was created or how? Day said he was alone when he did this, so Doughty's initials corroborate nothing.
I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven. And you're being hypocritical because you are presuming that Oswald is "guilty" of putting a palmprint on the rifle, unless proven innocent.
So, George M. Doughty initialed the lift of the palm print that Day testified he found on the underside of the barrel of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Doughty was the head of the crime lab for the DPD during the time in question. So, I think that he must have initialed it before it was sent to the FBI. It appears to me that Day must have turned the palm print lift over to Doughty (who then initialed it and turned it over to the FBI). This supports my earlier contention that it wasn’t Day’s place to inform the FBI of evidence (or to turn over any evidence that he wasn’t specifically instructed to turn over). Day was simply following orders from his superior and reporting to his superiors.
The naysayers omit this little tidbit (Doughty’s initials) when they accuse Day of wrong doings. That is called distortion by omission. And it is very common among the CT folks. Also, they seem to think that they can conclude that there was wrongdoings without any evidence of wrongdoing. Yet, in this country the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
You can think that, but there's no evidence of that. It would have been a good thing for a commission to actually ask about rather than just accepting a letter from the FBI director who wanted to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin as dispositive.
If this had been a trial, perhaps Doughty would have testified. Personally, I think you will never cease making lame excuses. ::)
Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over. Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody. Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.
What is your point? ???
Why include it when it tells you nothing about when Day's lift was created or how? Day said he was alone when he did this, so Doughty's initials corroborate nothing.
So, now you think Day should have had a witness with him while he was lifting the palm print? ::)
I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.
I am not arguing any such thing.
And you're being hypocritical because you are presuming that Oswald is "guilty" of putting a palmprint on the rifle, unless proven innocent.
Day testified he found Oswald's palm print on the rifle and lifted it. The lift has been shown to have been lifted from that rifle where Day said he found it. I have presumed nothing. It is fact.
Then why did he do no further processing for the following 3 days?
He was instructed to stop. I have said this before. Why do you keep asking the same question?
It appears that way to me because Hosty was complaining about having to do the work that he thought the DPD should have already done.
Innuendo and suspicions... ::)
Regardless of your opinion, this is evidence that satisfied the WC.
It is science that could be repeated with the same results. And the WC is who began the questioning.
You’re trying to have it both ways. If it “wasn’t his place” then why does he claim to have verbally informed Drain about the print?
Because it was on the rifle that he had been instructed to turn over to the FBI.
I disagree. But I don't see how the logistics of getting the evidence to Latona are meaningful to this conversation.
Evidence of authenticity would be helpful if you want to convince others.
Typically an officer who finds evidence identifies it and testifies where he found it, the circumstances, and so on.
If this had been a trial, perhaps Doughty would have testified.
Personally, I think you will never cease making lame excuses. ::)
Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over. Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody. Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.
What is your point? ???
I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.
I am not arguing any such thing.
Day testified he found Oswald's palm print on the rifle and lifted it.
The lift has been shown to have been lifted from that rifle where Day said he found it. I have presumed nothing. It is fact.
Not sure what difference it makes but it would have been just past 9:00pm in the evening when Day first had access to Oswald's prints.
There were two sets of prints taken [which seems odd]
Around 9:30 pm by Hicks and Barnes
Around 12:30am Saturday by Lt. Knight.
I can only find copies of the prints taken by Knight, does anyone have access to the prints taken by Hicks and Barnes?
Regarding Lt Day, how can anyone have any confidence in anything he does when the guy parades down public streets holding the Carcano dangling by the strap? They had a general/all purpose crime lab on wheels via their station wagon. Day shoulda had someone drive that crime lab on wheels to the front door of the TSBD and then exited the TSBD and straight into the station wagon with the Carcano. Day did nothing on 11/22/63 to warrant having confidence in anything he did or even said.
That's not all. When Wesley Buell Frazier was polygraphed on Friday evening, he was shown the paper pag that allegedly was found at the TSBD and he denied that it was the bag Oswald had carried to work that morning. Frazier described a completely different bag. Confronted with this apparent problem, it was Day who suggested the theory that Oswald had carried the TSBD bag (holding a rifle) in the much smaller old bag that Frazier had described. A completely bonkers theory of course, but it shows Day's frame of mind. Rather than accepting that the TSBD bag wasn't the bag Oswald had carried, Day desperately tried to come up with an explanation to keep the TSBD bag in play after all. A very strange way to deal with evidence indeed!
Oswald himself denied carrying any long bag. He said he just had his lunch. Frazier, however, indicates that he specifically asked Oswald that morning about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he hadn't brought it but that he had brought curtain rods in the long package that he was carrying. So Oswald was lying to someone about the contents of his long package. Why does he do that? He obviously wants to help himself. So what makes more sense to lie about. The curtain rods or a rifle? Even a contrarian might be able to figure that out. And a long bag was found with Oswald's prints on it. No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or otherwise accounted for. If Oswald had carried such a bag and it contained curtain rods, he had every incentive to acknowledge that and direct the DPD to that package to help himself. Instead he contradicts Frazier's testimony and denies carrying any long bag. Verdict = GUILTY.
Oswald himself denied carrying any long bag.
He said he just had his lunch. Frazier, however, indicates that he specifically asked Oswald that morning about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he hadn't brought it but that he had brought curtain rods in the long package that he was carrying. So Oswald was lying to someone about the contents of his long package. Why does he do that? He obviously wants to help himself. So what makes more sense to lie about. The curtain rods or a rifle? Even a contrarian might be able to figure that out. And a long bag was found with Oswald's prints on it. No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or otherwise accounted for. If Oswald had carried such a bag and it contained curtain rods, he had every incentive to acknowledge that and direct the DPD to that package to help himself. Instead he contradicts Frazier's testimony and denies carrying any long bag. Verdict = GUILTY.
I seem to remember Day testifying that it was standard procedure to obtain two sets of prints in case one had a smear or defect, hopefully the other one would be okay. If you look at Day’s testimony, I seem to remember him testifying about who took prints, perhaps there is an exhibit number associated with his testimony.
Edit: I found it:
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 629" I ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. That is the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know where this print was taken?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it was taken by Detective J. B. Hicks in Captain Fritz' office on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three. Two of them were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed taking myself in the identification bureau.
Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you took more than one?
Mr. DAY. In most cases, when making comparisons, we will take at least two to insure we have a good clear print of the entire palm.
Mr. BELIN. Now, based----
Mr. DAY. One might be smeared where the other would not.
Thanks Charles, should've spotted that myself.
I was trying to ascertain whether or not there was an extra set of hand prints in evidence, that is, more than had been testified to.
This extra set could have been used to forge the palm print Day claimed to have taken from the barrel.
This would'vecleared up some of the more troublesome issues regarding this aspect of the case [although I know you don't find it troublesome that the only print that can tie Oswald to the murder weapon apparently vanishes on its way to Latona or that Day Lied about not having enough time to identify the palm print]
As usual, it all ends up in a kind of limbo.
I'm aware of two sets of hand prints taken by Knight [four hand prints in total]
I'm aware of one set of hand prints taken by Hicks [two in total]
This would give us a grand total of THREE RIGHT PALM PRINTS.
And this is what Day apparently says in his testimony:
Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three.
It's a pity he didn't leave it at that. He then goes on:
Two of them were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed taking myself in the identification bureau.
Only one set of hand prints was taken in Fritz's office and two were taken by Knight in the ID bureau.
He might have just got these mixed up but it would be nice if he hadn't.
We also have this:
Mr. Belin: Sergeant, did you make any other tests or obtain any other evidence or information from Lee Harvey Oswald other than the paraffin that you made?
Mr. Barnes: I obtained palm prints from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. Belin: When did you do this?
Mr. Barnes: Immediately before we made---no, immediately after, I am sorry, immediately after we made the paraffin test.
Barnes seems to be testifying that he took Oswald's palm prints.
I'm assuming he is talking about the set of prints that have Hick's name on them but that would indicate it was Hicks who took the prints and not Barnes.
It's the usual muddy waters.
And that's without getting into the fact that Day appears to be talking about two different palm prints on the barrel, not one!
This extra set could have been used to forge the palm print Day claimed to have taken from the barrel.
Do you really think it was possible to do that? Has anyone actually tried to accomplish this on a actual rifle?
Do you really think it's impossible?
Do you really think the FBI's top fingerprint man overlooked a print on the rifle?
Do you really think Day didn't have enough time to compare the lift he'd taken with the prints taken from Oswald?
There was no palm print on the barrel by the time Latona received the rifle.
The arguments you've put forward to counter this have been a little silly.
Do you really think Latona just covered the rifle with powder before examining the rifle for fingerprints?
Do you really think Latona couldn't see very well?
I do not buy the things you buy regarding this aspect of the case.
Day had over two days to compare the [fake] lift he'd taken with Oswald's prints. He lied when he said he didn't have enough time. He lied when he said there was a perfectly good print left on the barrel when it was shipped off to Latona.
So I decided to check the record to see if there was a set of prints taken that weren't in the evidence.
Lo and behold, Barnes insists he, personally, took a set of prints using an inkless pad. And I can't find these prints in evidence.
This must be one of the two sets of prints taken in Fritz's office that Day refers to.
Perhaps - perhaps not.
The gross inconsistencies in this aspect of the case have painted me into a corner where I either have to accept staggering incompetence on behalf of Day of such magnitude that it's hard to contemplate. OR. Day tried to manipulate the evidence to nail their man
Can it be done?
Can a print be faked in such a way?
Surely you'd have to ask a fingerprint expert like Day. I imagine someone like that would have the expertise to do such a thing.
That’s quite a tirade that you generated; apparently to avoid answering one simple question. If you want to believe that it could have been done, go right ahead. I ask again though, has anyone shown that it could have been done by actually doing it on an actual rifle?
Pointing out the insurmountable problems with this aspect of the case and some of the weak counter-arguments supporting these incredibly unlikely events is hardly a tirade.
I was simply reiterating the issues that have informed my emerging view regarding Day's transparent BS:
I am unaware of anyone trying to replicate this type of forgery but I'm hardly alone in believing it could be done:
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.
Another indication the palm print was faked can be found in this devastating article about the staggering incompetence/corruption that occurred during the investigation of the assassination.:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/0/d/12LFwzP_tXUVE5tMM-qekgfYiL1PQK4L5H-aQ2Dmk0SE/htmlpresent?pli=1
[scroll down to "And what’s with the fiber trapped under the lift?"]
Here’s a quote of Drain from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 259-260:
Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said. As to Lieutenant Day, I’ve known him a long time, and I think that he’s an honest individual. If he thought that there was a print there, whether there was or not, he was sincere in what he had to say. I would not want to cast any reflection on Day.
And the “devastating article” you posted the link to is just a bunch of questions. I don’t see how a hair or fiber of some sort trapped under the lift is supposed to be an indication of fakery.
Here’s a quote of Drain from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 259-260:
Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said. As to Lieutenant Day, I’ve known him a long time, and I think that he’s an honest individual. If he thought that there was a print there, whether there was or not, he was sincere in what he had to say. I would not want to cast any reflection on Day.
And the “devastating article” you posted the link to is just a bunch of questions. I don’t see how a hair or fiber of some sort trapped under the lift is supposed to be an indication of fakery.
You should read your quotations more closely:
"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said. As to Lieutenant Day, I’ve known him a long time, and I think that he’s an honest individual. If he thought that there was a print there, whether there was or not, he was sincere in what he had to say. I would not want to cast any reflection on Day.
So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”
And the “devastating article” you posted the link to is just a bunch of questions. I don’t see how a hair or fiber of some sort trapped under the lift is supposed to be an indication of fakery.
Your analysis of this article is as weak as some of the counter-arguments you've put forward.
I would urge any reader interested in the investigation to have a look through some of the questions that really do need answering:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/0/d/12LFwzP_tXUVE5tMM-qekgfYiL1PQK4L5H-aQ2Dmk0SE/htmlpresent?pli=1
So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”
No, it was Drain’s comment. You are jumping to conclusions.
So, it wasn't actually Drain's opinion, it was the opinion of the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”
No, it was Drain’s comment. You are jumping to conclusions.
Really Charles?
A comment can't be an opinion?
Drain said the following:
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened."
That is an opinion.
He went on to qualify this opinion - that it wasn't based on his own personal experience, it was based on what he'd been told by the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau.”
Therefore, according to Drain, it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint specialists that the palm print was faked. That a print taken from Oswald was used to create this forgery. And Drain adopted the opinion of these experts when he made his "comment".
Let that sink in for a minute.
You are jumping to conclusions. You do that all the time.
:D
Is that an opinion or a comment?
Rather than weakly flap around with your baseless accusations, why not explain how I have jumped to a conclusion.
If you disagree with my interpretation of what Drain is saying then please enlighten us as to your own interpretation.
Is that an opinion or a comment?
Fact.
Listen Charles, let me tell you what's happened here.
You've tried to defend an indefensible position and ended up saying some silly things. You've jettisoned common sense in favour of blindly defending your "faith".
Now you're reduced to semantics and baseless accusations.
There could be no clearer sign that you've lost it.
Your assertion that Latona missed the palm print because he covered the rifle in gray powder before inspecting it visually, with a magnifying glass, is simply nonsense. The head of the FBI's fingerprint division, a man with decades of experience, would be more than capable of seeing a print that Day felt was just as good as the print he'd supposedly lifted for identification purposes.
You're suggestion that there was something wrong with Latona's eyesight is equally as desperate.
There was no print or remainder of a print or a remainder of an attempt to lift a print on the underside of the barrel when Latona received it, hours after Day had handled it.
This indicates Day was lying about the print being there in the first place. Just like he lied about not having enough time to compare the print he supposedly lifted with Oswald's actual prints.
Just like he lied to the Commission when he said he returned to the TSBD building to process the crime scene when, in fact, he was giving the press a tour of the crime scene before it was fully processed.
That the DPD may have manipulated the evidence in order to nail the man they were absolutely convinced killed both Tippit and JFK doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. As if the good 'ol boys of the DPD would never dream of such a thing.
You can believe whatever you wish. But that doesn’t mean it happened that way. There are some very knowledgeable people who frequent this forum. Not a one of them has uttered a peep about anyone demonstrating that your idea of fakery regarding the palm print was even possible. If you are going to accuse anyone of wrongdoings and hope to convince others that you are correct, then it would be helpful if you provided some actual evidence.
The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable. What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances? Oswald was dead. There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him. The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing. They had charged Oswald with the crimes. But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print. It is ludicrous. Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless. Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened. Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print. He was a "good ole boy." So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President. It's absurd. There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print. None.
The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing.
Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless. Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened.
LOL. They had no physical evidence placing that rifle in Oswald’s hands. Hence the need for the magic partial palmprint.
You mean like your baseless outlandish conclusion that Oswald could have gone down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor within 75 seconds without being seen or heard because “he did”?
The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable. What would have been the purpose behind such a highly risky and criminal conduct under the circumstances? Oswald was dead. There would never be a trial in which any evidence would be necessary to convict him. The authorities in charge of the investigation were satisfied of his guilt based upon the existing evidence which was convincing. They had charged Oswald with the crimes. But we are supposed to believe (based on no evidence whatsoever) that Day is going to fabricate this print. It is ludicrous. Some folks have the bizarre Inspector Clouseau-like ability to go through the evidence only to reach an outlandish conclusion that is baseless. Conflating what is "possible" for evidence that the event happened. Because there are some instances in the history of law enforcement where evidence was planted or fabricated, we are supposed to believe that somehow supports the claim that Day fabricated this print. He was a "good ole boy." So he must have framed Oswald thereby allowing the guilty party to escape justice for killing a fellow police officer and the President. It's absurd. There is no evidence that Day fabricated or had any cause to fabricate the print. None.
The notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle is baseless and laughable.
Baseless??
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Let's start with Day's lie that he never had enough time to work on the palm print in order to make a positive identification.
Latona ID'd the lifted palm print as Oswald's, no problem, so it's not the case that the print couldn't be identified. It was a fundamental part of Day's job, to identify fingerprints, so it's not like Day didn't have the skills to do it.
It is Day's assertion that he simply didn't have enough time to make the identification and that with a bit more time he could've done it.
If you, Richard, find this acceptable as a rational explanation then you need help.
Day had his supposed lift of the palm print and a copy of Oswald's palm print the night of the assassination. He did not need the rifle to compare these prints. The prints taken from the rifle were, by a country mile, the most important pieces of evidence gathered that day as they could place the murder weapon in Oswald's hands. The top priority must have been to make an identification of these prints. There could have been no higher priority.
But that's not what happened.
The palm print lift was not given top priority. A positive identification was not made by the DPD when it was perfectly possible to do so.
The "lift" and the prints from Oswald himself were with Day for more than three days before he handed the evidence over to Drain.
Day lies about not having enough time to make the identification.
While incredibly weak explanations have been put forward for why Latona saw no print on the barrel [which I'll come to in a second], no LNer has tried to come up with an excuse, no matter how lame, to account for this obvious lie.
Why did Day lie about not having enough time to make the identification?
Latona - "...primarily our recommendation in the FBI is simply every procedure to photograph and then lift. Then you choose the one which you feel gives you the best results in your final photograph."
It is a basic procedure to be followed every time - photograph the print THEN lift it.
And it's obvious why this is. A photo is perfectly acceptable for use in identifying a print and, according to Latona, is the usual way prints are identified - from a photo, not from the actual print itself. The point being, a photo is non-invasive, it does no harm to the print.
Lifting a print destroys the relationship between the print and the object it is being lifted from. Also, lifting a print is not a guaranteed success, things can go wrong and the lift might not be complete. This is why the print must be photographed BEFORE a lift is attempted.
Day, inexplicably, did the opposite of this.
When he discovered the print on the barrel he did not photograph it immediately, which is strange because he had already photoed the trigger housing prints, so was all set up to do exactly that. Instead, he went straight to lifting the print and, according to the account Day gives in his WC testimony, it was a disaster. Part of the print came off, part of it stayed on the rifle. This is the precise reason a print is photographed before an attempted lift.
Mind-blowingly, Day decides to photograph the barrel AFTER the disastrous attempted lift.
Let that sink in for a minute.
In his report of an interview dated 9/8/64, SA Drain notes:
Lt. DAY stated he had no reason for not photographing this palm print first before attempting to lift it other than in the interest of time."
This is the only possible, rational reason for Day not photographing the print before lifting it - in this scenario he knew time was running out and was desperate to have a lift he could try to identify before the evidence was handed over to the FBI. He was so desperate he was willing to chance destroying this most important piece of evidence without making a photographic record of it.
But this didn't happen. According to Day he found out he had to stop working on the rifle AFTER he had lifted the print:
"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 would appear Day was lying to Drain about why he didn't take a photograph of the print.
And that still leaves us with the question - Why didn't Day take a photo of the palm print before his disastrous attempt to lift it?
Did he forget his most basic training? Was he a completely incompetent buffoon?
He'd already taken photos of the trigger housing prints. He was readying himself to take pictures after he lifted the print. So, it's not like he wasn't prepared to take pictures or that it was in any way a difficulty. He simply decided not to do so. Which is completely inexplicable in any rational way.
Unless, of course, there was no print to take a photograph of.
This is the only rational explanation for this, otherwise inexplicable, lapse in the most basic protocol for dealing with fingerprints.
It also explains how the print Day insisted remained on the barrel 'disappeared' by the time the rifle reached Latona.
Day is insistent that, after his aborted attempt to lift the print, there remained enough of the print left on the barrel to make an identification. In fact, Day claims he felt the amount of print left on the barrel was a better option to make an identification than the faint print he had lifted:
"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."
In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
However, by the time the rifle reached Latona this print had disappeared.
Latona carried out a thorough examination of every piece of the rifle. He got in a photographic expert and a weapons expert to help him in the examination. Latona, who must be considered a leading fingerprint expert with decades of experience did not find the print that Day felt was the "best bet" for identification. Not only that, Latona never found any trace of evidence that a lift had even been attempted:
This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
There was no print and nothing to indicate "an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle."
The palm print had completely disappeared. How can this be?
Arguments that have been presented regarding Latona's capability as a fingerprint expert are nonsense for a very simple reason - if Latona missed the print then it would still be there!
How did the print disappear? It seems inconceivable that someone of Latona's expertise simply missed it.
But it's worse than that.
For those who may have missed it the first time, just read through this statement by Day again:
Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
Day isn't talking about one print on the rifle barrel - he's talking about two prints!
What happened to these two prints?
How did they completely disappear by the time they reached Latona?
There are two possible explanations - the barrel was wiped clean before Drain collected it or there was never a print on the barrel in the first place.
In his 1985 book, "Reasonable Doubt", Henry Hurt reports the following from SA Drain:
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
At first this appears to be an offhand opinion by someone who doesn't really know anything about fingerprinting. However, in Larry Sneed's book, "No More Silence", Drain goes on to qualify this opinion:
"In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
Through Drain we discover that it was the opinion of the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that the palm print was a forgery.
The only laughable thing is that you are using the word "baseless" regarding the "notion that Day would fabricate and lie about finding a print on the rifle..."
It is far from baseless.
It is unavoidable.
Your denial regarding these issues is also laughable.
By matching irregularities found on the rifle barrel to it, the FBI later verified that the palm print lift that was delivered was, in fact, genuine.
The Palm Print
The lift of the palm print from the rifle by Lieutenant Day has sparked controversy over the years due to what has been labeled an "interrupted chain of evidence." This misunderstanding developed from the FBI's intrusion into the Dallas police investigation on the night of the assassination. The rifle was taken away from Lieutenant Day by the FBI before he had completed his analysis of it. At that time, the FBI did not receive the palm print just developed by Lieutenant Day. The print evidence stayed in the Crime Lab Office, and only the rifle was taken by FBI Agent Drain.
Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.
He told Rusty and me that he could tell it wasn't put on there recently by the way it took the fingerprint powder. He said what makes a print of this sort is a lack of moisture, and this print had dried out. He said he took a small camel hair brush and dipped it in fingerprint powder and lightly brushed it. He then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card. He said he then compared the lift to Oswald's palm print card and was certain that it was Oswald's. He also said that after the lift, he could still see an impression of the palm print left on the barrel.
Next, Lieutenant Day had intended to photograph the area of the rifle barrel from which the palm print lift had been made, but was again interrupted by Captain Doughty at about 10:00 PM. He was told once again to stop working on the gun and release it to FBI Agent Drain, who would arrive about 11:30 PM. Lieutenant Day did not have time to write any reports about what he had found, but did have time to reassemble the rifle before Drain arrived.
Drain took the rifle from the Dallas police at midnight on the day of the assassination and flew it to the FBI laboratory in Washington, DC.(8) The palm print lift done earlier by Lieutenant Day had left too little powder residue on the rifle barrel to be readily identified a second time when the FBI received it in Washington. The FBI was not aware that the palm print had been lifted at the time of their initial examination of the rifle.
When the FBI received the rifle Saturday in Washington, a comparison of the faint latent fingerprints found by Lieutenant Day on the trigger housing of the rifle was attempted by Sebastian Latona, the Supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division.(9) In Washington, Latona also photographed the fingerprints on the trigger housing which had already been photographed by Lieutenant Day in Dallas prior to his placing cellophane tape over them.
Latona could not make a positive identification since the fingerprints were extremely faint following the removal of the protective tape. Lieutenant Day's trigger-housing photographs (which Rusty has first generation copies of), made in the Dallas Crime Lab Office, were the best quality photographs made of the fingerprints found on the side of the trigger housing. The Dallas Crime Lab received the rifle back from the FBI in a pasteboard box. It remained unopened in the evidence room along with other physical evidence in the case. After a few days passed, orders came to release all of the physical evidence to the FBI. That is when the palm print was released for the first time to the FBI.
Lieutenant Day said that a few days after all of the evidence was turned over, an FBI Agent came to his house. He wanted to know when Lieutenant Day had lifted the palm print included in the evidence they had received because they had positively identified it themselves as Oswald's palm print. Lieutenant Day got the impression from the Agent that they thought they had missed it and he could "envision J. Edgar Hoover going into orbit." He then informed the Agent that he had lifted the palm print before releasing the gun on the night of the assassination.
The FBI requested and received the remaining physical evidence from the Dallas police on the Tuesday following the assassination, not aware of the palm print's existence. To say the least, they were surprised upon discovering the palm print included with the evidence. By matching irregularities found on the rifle barrel to it, the FBI later verified that the palm print lift that was delivered was, in fact, genuine.
Lieutenant Day believed at the time that he had not completely obliterated the palm print on the barrel after his lift and later stated that he had pointed out the area of the palm print to FBI Agent Drain when turning the rifle over to him. Drain, on the other hand, did not recall being shown the palm print.
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 print at that time."
Firstly Jack, when lifting a passage from somewhere it's customary to cite where you're getting it from and maybe even provide a little context.
Secondly, the passage you've posted doesn't deal with a single issue raised in the post you are responding to. Not a single one.
Thirdly, where is the report outlining this "discovery" [a discovery made all the more interesting by the fact the FBI didn't have a clue where the print was supposed to have been taken from].
But there is something I find quite perplexing about the print Day is described as lifting in the passage above:
It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel.
Where, exactly, on the rifle was this print that was sticking out from the barrel?
It couldn't have been "sticking out" on the underside of the barrel at the muzzle end, because there is a metal fixing on the barrel that the stock fixes to [pointed out by red arrow in pic below].
https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p
Thoughts?
What is not to understand. The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel. The whole idea that you were presenting about the palm print being faked is just obviously wrong.
The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?
What is not to understand. The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel. The whole idea that you were presenting about the palm print being faked is just obviously wrong.
The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?
What is not to understand.
It's ironic you should write this, Jack, as it appears it is you who is having a hard time understanding what's being said here.
The barrel of the rifle has imperfections that were used like fingerprints to authenticate the palm print having been taken from the barrel.
And this is the thing you don't seem to understand - nobody is saying that the palm print didn't come from the barrel of the rifle!!
I hope that's not blown your mind.
Everyone agrees that the palm print Day finally handed over to the FBI came from the barrel of the rifle.
On the surface of it the letter from Hoover, with the alleged comparison between the forged palm print and the print taken from the barrel of the rifle, appears to confirm that the palm print Day handed over came from the barrel of the rifle. Nobody is disputing this.
How can I be "obviously wrong" when I agree with the point you're making - that the palm print came from the barrel of the rifle?
I get the impression you've kind of stumbled into this discussion without having bothered to read what's gone before.
Please have a quick read of at least the last few pages just for some context before wading in.
Also, you've still not cited where you lifted that passage from.
It's also customary, when responding to a post, to actually deal with the issues raised in that post. If you could have a go at that, that'd be great.
The palm print was on the barrel under the stock. He took the stock off to look for prints and found the palm print. Should he have not removed the stock to look?
It's also customary to actually read the post you are responding to.
I'll try again:
In the passage you posted Day refers to a print he sees "sticking out".
There are other times when Day mentions that he sees a print on the barrel sticking out from underneath the wooden stock.
Are you with me so far?
My question is this - where, on the barrel of the rifle, is this print sticking out from under the wooden stock?
I cannot put it any simpler than that.
Unfortunately for you, it was authenticated by means of the barrel irregularities which renders all this posting to idle conjecture and supposition and nothing more.
How could I have ever missed how sincere your belief that the palm print is authentic. Unfortunately for you, it was authenticated by means of the barrel irregularities which renders all this posting to idle conjecture and supposition and nothing more.
Buy a carcano rifle and take the stock off and it will become painfully obvious to you what Day is talking about. Anything short of that is you just stumbling around in the dark.
You really don't seem to be grasping this very simple concept Jack.
I am not saying that the palm print Day eventually handed over to the FBI didn't come from the Mannlicher Carcano.
I am saying that it did come from the MC. I can't put it in a way that is simpler for you to understand.
I am agreeing with you that the palm print came from the MC.
I can even go so far as to say the unsubstantiated and unofficial comparison between the palm print Day handed in and the print of the rifle barrel itself "authenticates" that the palm print Day handed in was from the barrel of the MC.
You really do not seem to grasp this simple concept.
Another simple concept that you don't seem to be grasping is that the comparison in the Hoover letter DOES NOT CONFIRM THERE WAS A PRINT ON THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE WHEN DAY FIRST EXAMINED IT.
Hoover's comparison letter CANNOT confirm this. It's impossible.
In my Reply#421 I laid out some serious issues regarding whether or not there was a palm print on the barrel of the MC. Through SA Drain we find out that it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged, that is to say, the palm print was not on the MC when Day first examined it and that he used one of the palm prints taken from Oswald and the MC to execute this forgery - "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” [SA Vince Drain]
Even though you were initially responding to Reply#421 you never dealt with a single issue raised in that post.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
You are in denial.
There's no need to buy a Carcano.
I posted a link to a picture of a dismantled Carcano and asked you [or any LNer for that matter] a very simple question.
You posted this passage from somewhere you have still refused to cite:
Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.
In this passage we learn that Day sees a print "sticking out from the barrel" and that this is the print he lifts from the barrel.
We know that the palm print lift Day took was from the underside of the barrel.
But when we look at a dismantled MC we see there is a piece of metal fixed to the underside of the barrel where the wooden stock attaches to the barrel at the muzzle end.
So, it is impossible for the print to be "sticking out" at this point because of the metal fixing on the underside of the barrel.
SO, WHERE ON THE BARREL IS THE PRINT THAT DAY SAYS IS "STICKING OUT"?
Here's the link to the picture in question so you can see exactly the problem Day has created for himself:
https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p
Answer the question Jack - where on the barrel of the MC is the print that is "sticking out"?
it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged
This is a figment of your imagination. You jumped to this conclusion all by yourself.
Take a look at Jerry Organ’s graphic in post #293 of this thread.
You've tried this piss-weak approach already, Charles, and it was dealt with then.
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.
This is Drain's opinion regarding the palm print Day handed in to the FBI, that it was faked using a pre-existing print of Oswald's and the MC.
But then Drain goes on to qualify this opinion in a piece that you posted trying to undermine Drain's opinion [talk about backfiring]:
"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said."
Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
His opinion was formed from "what they said" - the "they" in question being the FBI's specialists in fingerprints.
He got his opinion from the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts.
And that opinion was that the palm print had been faked.
Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.
I'm well aware of Jerry's graphic, just as I'm aware of Day's first FBI interview with Bardwell Odum taken the day after Latona received the fake palm print. From Pat Speer's website:
"[Day] also advised that even before he took the stock off, he saw what appeared to be traces of palm print coming out from under the wood near the back and of the metal portion of the gun. This print was partially covered by the wood."
It was Jack who posted some BS: piece he'd lifted from somewhere about the print that was "sticking out" being the print that was lifted and he was being called out on it.
But let's not forget the important thing here - it wasn't just the remainder of the print that Day supposedly lifted that went missing, it was this other print as well. Two prints that disappeared from the barrel of the rifle, not just one.
What are the chances Latona missed one print? - almost zero.
What are the chances Latona missed two prints?
And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?
Please explain how all of this is a figment of my imagination.
Please explain how I am jumping to a conclusion.
Drain states that he didn't form the opinion about the print being faked from his "own personal experience". He got this opinion from the "experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau...real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington."
That is not what Drain said. You are trying (lamely) to do what every freaking CT author tries to do. Take short phrases out of context and try to spin them to suit their purposes.
And just a bit of speculation - who were the "real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington" that Drain spoke to who informed his opinion that the palm print was faked?
Which fingerprint specialist was working on the rifle?
Could it be Latona who thought the palm print was faked?
Is there another set of FBI specialists that it could have been? Who were they?
And you're doing what you always do when you can't face the reality of the evidence. You fall back to childish semantics and point-scoring.
Bring it on. I am very patient and will not be deflected from where the evidence leads because there is a very big difference between the two of us - I really want to understand what actually happened in this case.
It's only dawned on me recently that many LNers have the same mentality as the real tinfoil merchants. They cannot be reasoned with and spend most of their time in denial.
The only difference between nearly all LNers and the tinfoilers is that they get to weave whatever fantastical story they wish out of the most meagre evidence whereas you are trapped in someone elses conclusion. You have been spoon fed your thoughts on this case. Someone has done all the thinking for you.
You accept that there is nothing suspicious about Day not photographing either of the prints on the barrel. That he broke the most basic protocol when dealing with fingerprints - photograph first, then lift. Even though he had previously photographed the prints on the trigger housing so was ready to go with the photography.
You accept there is nothing suspicious about Day's tale of destroying the palm print by lifting part of it and leaving part of it on the barrel AND THEN deciding to photograph it.
You accept Day's tale that he felt, even though he had more or less destroyed the print, the FBI would have enough to get an ID from the remainder of the print left on the barrel so he didn't need to hand in the print he'd lifted. You accept that nonsense.
Your desperate attempts to explain why both prints disappeared by the time the rifle reached Latona would be funny if they didn't reveal the intractable mentality that is the backbone of the LNer position. Latona, who must be considered one of the world's leading fingerprint experts at the time, examined every inch of the rifle. He brought in a specialist photographer and worked under all lighting conditions. He brought in a weapons expert to dismantle the rifle. He brought his decades of experience to bear on the most important object he had ever examined, in the most important case he had ever been involved with.
Your assertions - that he just covered the rifle in powder so he missed the two prints on the barrel or that he had something wrong with his eyesight - reveal the depths of your desperation not to deal with the reality of this case.
The prints Day claimed were on the rifle when he handed it over to Drain (and let's not forget, one of these prints was on so stubbornly it refused to be removed by lifting with tape) disappeared completely by the time they reached Latona. They were not missed by Latona during his examination of the rifle, that can be stated with immense confidence.
You also accept Day's lie that he didn't have enough time to make an identification from the lift using the prints taken from Oswald. This is a lie. He had days to make the identification. You don't even bother to try to come up with an excuse for why you accept this.
You accept there is nothing suspicious about Day never submitting an official report outlining his handling of this fundamentally important piece of evidence or that he refused to sign an official FBI report about the matter or that he never bothered to mention the palm print to the FBI.
But it's not that you try to brush away each individual piece of evidence, it's that you ignore the totality of this evidence that reveals the depths of your denial.
Which brings us to Drain's statements about the palm print:
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
This is a totally straight forward statement. There is nothing hidden.
"Something like that happened" - something like taking the print off Oswald's card and putting it on the rifle happened.
This is an unequivocal statement - the palm print was faked. There's no other way to interpret this
"Over the years allegations have been made about the way the FBI and the Dallas Police Department handled the affair. In one of the books, I was quoted in a footnote as saying that I doubted that a fingerprint had been found on the rifle as claimed by the Dallas Police Department. As I recall, I think my comment was based primarily on our experts in the Single Fingerprint Bureau. That’s the real specialists in fingerprints in the FBI in Washington. From the time they turned the rifle over to me along with other things, they were placed in a box and sealed. I then took it to the laboratory where it was taken apart and examined with different processes on every inch of that gun, assembled and disassembled. They said that they didn’t find any fingerprints. Now, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing from my own personal observation. My comment would have been made on what they said."
Again, there is nothing hidden here. Drain is specifically stating that he was told by the fingerprint specialists in the Single Fingerprint Bureau that the palm print was faked.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of this.
It is not a figment of my imagination.
It is not a conclusion I am jumping to.
Do you accept that Drain is saying he was told by the FBI fingerprint experts that the palm print was faked?
It is clear from Drain's quote above he is referring to whoever took the rifle apart and examined it.
It must surely be a reference to Latona.
You really don't seem to be grasping this very simple concept Jack.
I am not saying that the palm print Day eventually handed over to the FBI didn't come from the Mannlicher Carcano.
I am saying that it did come from the MC. I can't put it in a way that is simpler for you to understand.
I am agreeing with you that the palm print came from the MC.
I can even go so far as to say the unsubstantiated and unofficial comparison between the palm print Day handed in and the print of the rifle barrel itself "authenticates" that the palm print Day handed in was from the barrel of the MC.
You really do not seem to grasp this simple concept.
Another simple concept that you don't seem to be grasping is that the comparison in the Hoover letter DOES NOT CONFIRM THERE WAS A PRINT ON THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE WHEN DAY FIRST EXAMINED IT.
Hoover's comparison letter CANNOT confirm this. It's impossible.
In my Reply#421 I laid out some serious issues regarding whether or not there was a palm print on the barrel of the MC. Through SA Drain we find out that it was the opinion of the FBI's fingerprint experts that the palm print was forged, that is to say, the palm print was not on the MC when Day first examined it and that he used one of the palm prints taken from Oswald and the MC to execute this forgery - "You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” [SA Vince Drain]
Even though you were initially responding to Reply#421 you never dealt with a single issue raised in that post.
You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
You are in denial.
There's no need to buy a Carcano.
I posted a link to a picture of a dismantled Carcano and asked you [or any LNer for that matter] a very simple question.
You posted this passage from somewhere you have still refused to cite:
Lieutenant Day told us that, after he had photographed the trigger-housing prints and been stopped by Captain Doughty, he continued work on the rifle under the order of Captain Fritz. It was at that time that he noticed a print sticking out from the barrel. He said it was obvious that part of it was under the wooden stock, so he took the stock off and finished dusting the barrel. He said he could tell it was part of a palm print, and so he proceeded with a lift.
In this passage we learn that Day sees a print "sticking out from the barrel" and that this is the print he lifts from the barrel.
We know that the palm print lift Day took was from the underside of the barrel.
But when we look at a dismantled MC we see there is a piece of metal fixed to the underside of the barrel where the wooden stock attaches to the barrel at the muzzle end.
So, it is impossible for the print to be "sticking out" at this point because of the metal fixing on the underside of the barrel.
SO, WHERE ON THE BARREL IS THE PRINT THAT DAY SAYS IS "STICKING OUT"?
Here's the link to the picture in question so you can see exactly the problem Day has created for himself:
https://ibb.co/ZdHhK7p
Answer the question Jack - where on the barrel of the MC is the print that is "sticking out"?
HUH. What. I guess somehow this makes sense at least to you. The print is an authentic Oswald palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle, except it is not, it is really a forgery? This is definitely new. You came up with this all on your own?
------------------------------------------------
You have presented a picture of a disassembled Carcano as proof of what? This explanation by Lt. Day of discovering the print makes perfect sense if you know how the rifle stock is removed. He discovered it while removing the stock to see if there were any prints on the metal. The same thought as to why the scope was removed.
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. 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 wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Can you really not understand this?
-------------------------------
The Foregrip is also referred to as the hand guard on top of the rifle. Not the bottom stock like what you are representing. The print was located on the barrel below the end of the top handguard not by the bayonet lug.
“A foregrip is an accessory that is attached to the front of a firearm’s stock to provide additional support and control over the weapon. It is typically used on rifles and shotguns, and can be made from a variety of materials such as polymer, aluminum, or steel. The foregrip is also known as the fore-end or handguard 1.”
You have presented a picture of a disassembled Carcano as proof of what? This explanation by Lt. Day of discovering the print makes perfect sense if you know how the rifle stock is removed. He discovered it while removing the stock to see if there were any prints on the metal. The same thought as to why the scope was removed.
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. 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 wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Can you really not understand this?
HUH. What. I guess somehow this makes sense at least to you. The print is an authentic Oswald palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle, except it is not, it is really a forgery? This is definitely new. You came up with this all on your own?
There were no prints on the barrel of the Mannlicher Carcano when Day first examined the rifle.
Do you understand this statement.
Day used a fresh print taken from Oswald and placed it on the barrel of the rifle.
Day then dusted this fresh print and lifted it from the rifle. This lifted print is Oswald's palm print taken from the barrel of the rifle.
Day used a fresh print from Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano to create a print that had been lifted from the barrel of the rifle.
The print Day lifted really did come from the barrel of the MC.
The print Day lifted really did belong to Oswald.
That is why the palm print is an "authentic" Oswald print taken from the barrel of the MC but is also a fake.
It really cannot be explained in any simpler terms.
Was this my idea?
No, it wasn't.
SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
SA Vince Drain, the man who collected the evidence from the DPD on the night of the assassination, was the first person I am aware of who came up with this idea:
"You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.”
I think you need to think this through a little more.
Not only was SA Drain the first to think of this, he was also the last and should have been the only one. It absolutely defies common sense on so many levels.
SA Drain was not a fingerprint expert. He was an FBI toadstool and juice box boy who had been stationed in Dallas for many years and was just used to expedite the evidence to DC, nothing more.
There are a number of serious logic issues associated with this whole thought train. Including the barrel anomalies, tape, powder, ink to mention a few. Maybe it would be best to just let you work them out.
Typical Jack Nessan. He doesn’t like what somebody says, so he says demeaning things about them and hopes that somehow impeaches their remarks.
There are a number of serious logic issues associated with this whole thought train. Including the barrel anomalies, tape, powder, ink to mention a few. Maybe it would be best to just let you work them out.
As with nearly all your posts, you don't really make any sense.
It seems clear that you understand what you mean but not so clear to everyone else.
In that light I would like to hear, in full glorious detail, all these "serious logic issues" you mention.
I'd like to hear about each one in the order you've outlined:
Barrel anomalies
Tape
Powder
Ink
And, as you say that you've only mentioned a few of the serious logic issues, let's have about three more on top so you've covered this area thoroughly.
Or are you just talking sh%t as usual.
Let's hear about these serious logic issues Jack.
======================================
This is all so new. It is hard to take it all in.
This is your theory: it requires your explanation. If you miss something I will be glad to help and aid your thinking. There must be more to this theory than bippety boppety boop and there is a faked palmprint lift. Did SA Drain not explain it in better detail? Did he not take into account any of the items I listed? Maybe they do not even matter. All things are possible when it comes to faking things.
Modify message
There are a number of serious logic issues associated with this whole thought train. Including the barrel anomalies, tape, powder, ink to mention a few. Maybe it would be best to just let you work them out.
As with nearly all your posts, you don't really make any sense.
It seems clear that you understand what you mean but not so clear to everyone else.
In that light I would like to hear, in full glorious detail, all these "serious logic issues" you mention.
I'd like to hear about each one in the order you've outlined:
Barrel anomalies
Tape
Powder
Ink
And, as you say that you've only mentioned a few of the serious logic issues, let's have about three more on top so you've covered this area thoroughly.
Or are you just talking sh%t as usual.
Let's hear about these serious logic issues Jack.
This is all so new. It is hard to take it all in.
This is your theory: it requires your explanation. If you miss something I will be glad to help and aid your thinking. There must be more to this theory than bippety boppety boop and there is a faked palmprint lift. Did SA Drain not explain it in better detail? Did he not take into account any of the items I listed? Maybe they do not even matter. All things are possible when it comes to faking things.
This is all so new. It is hard to take it all in.
This is your theory: it requires your explanation. If you miss something I will be glad to help and aid your thinking. There must be more to this theory than bippety boppety boop and there is a faked palmprint lift. Did SA Drain not explain it in better detail? Did he not take into account any of the items I listed? Maybe they do not even matter. All things are possible when it comes to faking things.
Modify message
:D :D :D :D
I think you should definitely "modify message".
How is this modification. Come up with a theory that upon scrutiny does not crumble like a cookie. Then you won’t have to work so hard trying to evade explaining it. It is so telling that all responses that are given are to distance yourself from the theory.
There were only two shots actually fired Dan, not three. Try working from that point to better understand the assassination. Then the rest of this nonsense shrinks to insignificance.