JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on November 07, 2019, 03:20:40 PM
-
The words of DPD Crime Lab Detective R.W. (Rusty) Livingston:
"JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, pages 77-78
"... 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. They had the actual print there in the office that night [11/22/63]. 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." ... "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."
Additional words by Gary Savage (pages 79-80):
...Today some assassination researchers do not believe that Lieutenant Day actually did lift the palm print of Oswald frim the rifle. He 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.
Does anyone here know of any words (quotations or otherwise) by any of the Dallas Police Crime Lab officers that would either confirm or contradict this?
-
If they had Ozzie's print on the murder weapon on the 22nd why is JEH telling the POTUS on the 23rd that the case against LHO isn't strong enough to get a conviction?
11/23/63
J. Edgar Hoover: I just wanted to let you know of a development which I think is very important in connection with this case -
this man in Dallas (Lee Harvey Oswald). We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they
have at the present time is not very, very strong. We have just discovered the place where the gun was purchased and the shipment
of the gun from Chicago to Dallas, to a post office box in Dallas, to a man - no, to a woman by the name of "A. Hidell."... We
had it flown up last night, and our laboratory here is making an examination of it.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes, I told the Secret Service to see that that got taken care of.
J. Edgar Hoover: That's right. We have the gun and we have the bullet. There was only one full bullet that was found. That was on
the stretcher that the President was on. It apparently had fallen out when they massaged his heart, and we have that one. We have
what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification. As soon as we finish the testing of the gun for fingerprints
... we will then be able to test the one bullet we have with the gun. But the important thing is that this gun was bought in Chicago
on a money order. Cost twenty-one dollars, and it seems almost impossible to think that for twenty-one dollars you could kill the
President of the United States.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Now, who is A. Hidell?
J. Edgar Hoover: A. Hidell is an alias that this man has used on other occasions, and according to the information we have from the
house in which he was living - his mother - he kept a rifle like this wrapped up in a blanket which he kept in the house. On the
morning that this incident occurred down there - yesterday - the man who drove him to the building where they work, the building from
where the shots came, said that he had a package wrapped up in paper... But the important thing at the time is that the location of
the purchase of the gun by a money order apparently to the Klein Gun Company in Chicago - we were able to establish that last night.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
J. Edgar Hoover: No, that's one angle that's very confusing, for this reason - we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man
who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his
appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there. We do have a copy of a
letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington, inquiring as well as complaining about the harassment of
his wife and the questioning of his wife by the FBI. Now, of course, that letter information - we process all mail that goes to the
Soviet embassy. It's a very secret operation. No mail is delivered to the embassy without being examined and opened by us, so that we
know what they receive... The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction... Now if we can identify this
man who was at the... Soviet embassy in Mexico City... This man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn't know anything about anything,
but the gun thing, of course, is a definite trend.
And on the 29th he's telling LBJ they may be able to get Marina to cooperate if they promise to let her stay in the country.
11/29/63
Lyndon B. Johnson: That there is no connection between he and Ruby that you can detect now. And whether he was connected with the
Cuban operation with money, you're trying to...
J. Edgar Hoover: That's what we're trying to nail down now, because he was strongly pro-Castro, he was strongly anti-American, and
he had been in correspondence, which we have, with the Soviet embassy here in Washington and with the American Civil Liberties Union
and with this Committee for Fair Play to Cuba... None of those letters, however, dealt with any indication of violence or contemplated
assassination. They were dealing with the matter of a visa for his wife to go back to Russia. Now there is one angle to this thing that
I'm hopeful to get some word on today This woman, his wife, had been very hostile. She would not cooperate, speaks... Russian only. She
did say to us yesterday down there that if we could give her assurance that she would be allowed to remain in this country, she might
cooperate. I told our agents down there to give her that assurance... and I sent a Russian-speaking agent into Dallas last night to
interview her.... Whether she knows anything or talks anything, I, of course, don't know and won't know till -
-
If they had Ozzie's print on the murder weapon on the 22nd why is JEH telling the POTUS on the 23rd that the case against LHO isn't strong enough to get a conviction?
Because Day "forgot" to tell the FBI about the magic partial palmprint.
-
If they had Ozzie's print on the murder weapon on the 22nd why is JEH telling the POTUS on the 23rd that the case against LHO isn't strong enough to get a conviction?
11/23/63
J. Edgar Hoover: I just wanted to let you know of a development which I think is very important in connection with this case -
this man in Dallas (Lee Harvey Oswald). We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they
have at the present time is not very, very strong. We have just discovered the place where the gun was purchased and the shipment
of the gun from Chicago to Dallas, to a post office box in Dallas, to a man - no, to a woman by the name of "A. Hidell."... We
had it flown up last night, and our laboratory here is making an examination of it.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes, I told the Secret Service to see that that got taken care of.
J. Edgar Hoover: That's right. We have the gun and we have the bullet. There was only one full bullet that was found. That was on
the stretcher that the President was on. It apparently had fallen out when they massaged his heart, and we have that one. We have
what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification. As soon as we finish the testing of the gun for fingerprints
... we will then be able to test the one bullet we have with the gun. But the important thing is that this gun was bought in Chicago
on a money order. Cost twenty-one dollars, and it seems almost impossible to think that for twenty-one dollars you could kill the
President of the United States.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Now, who is A. Hidell?
J. Edgar Hoover: A. Hidell is an alias that this man has used on other occasions, and according to the information we have from the
house in which he was living - his mother - he kept a rifle like this wrapped up in a blanket which he kept in the house. On the
morning that this incident occurred down there - yesterday - the man who drove him to the building where they work, the building from
where the shots came, said that he had a package wrapped up in paper... But the important thing at the time is that the location of
the purchase of the gun by a money order apparently to the Klein Gun Company in Chicago - we were able to establish that last night.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
J. Edgar Hoover: No, that's one angle that's very confusing, for this reason - we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man
who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his
appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there. We do have a copy of a
letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington, inquiring as well as complaining about the harassment of
his wife and the questioning of his wife by the FBI. Now, of course, that letter information - we process all mail that goes to the
Soviet embassy. It's a very secret operation. No mail is delivered to the embassy without being examined and opened by us, so that we
know what they receive... The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction... Now if we can identify this
man who was at the... Soviet embassy in Mexico City... This man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn't know anything about anything,
but the gun thing, of course, is a definite trend.
And on the 29th he's telling LBJ they may be able to get Marina to cooperate if they promise to let her stay in the country.
11/29/63
Lyndon B. Johnson: That there is no connection between he and Ruby that you can detect now. And whether he was connected with the
Cuban operation with money, you're trying to...
J. Edgar Hoover: That's what we're trying to nail down now, because he was strongly pro-Castro, he was strongly anti-American, and
he had been in correspondence, which we have, with the Soviet embassy here in Washington and with the American Civil Liberties Union
and with this Committee for Fair Play to Cuba... None of those letters, however, dealt with any indication of violence or contemplated
assassination. They were dealing with the matter of a visa for his wife to go back to Russia. Now there is one angle to this thing that
I'm hopeful to get some word on today This woman, his wife, had been very hostile. She would not cooperate, speaks... Russian only. She
did say to us yesterday down there that if we could give her assurance that she would be allowed to remain in this country, she might
cooperate. I told our agents down there to give her that assurance... and I sent a Russian-speaking agent into Dallas last night to
interview her.... Whether she knows anything or talks anything, I, of course, don't know and won't know till -
Gary, you're one of the best!..... I have never seen you post BS.... You post factual information.
J. Edgar Hoover:[/b] That's right. We have the gun and we have the bullet. There was only one full bullet that was found. That was on
the stretcher that the President was on. It apparently had fallen out when they massaged his heart, and we have that one. We have
what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification.
We have what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification.
There are LNer's who actually believe that the "slivers" ( fragments) that were found in the car are useful in determining if they were fired from a specific gun. Those Lner's are often called simpletons .....
-
The words of DPD Crime Lab Detective R.W. (Rusty) Livingston:
"JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, pages 77-78
"... 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. They had the actual print there in the office that night [11/22/63]. 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." ... "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."
Additional words by Gary Savage (pages 79-80):
...Today some assassination researchers do not believe that Lieutenant Day actually did lift the palm print of Oswald frim the rifle. He 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.
Does anyone here know of any words (quotations or otherwise) by any of the Dallas Police Crime Lab officers that would either confirm or contradict this?
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. They had the actual print there in the office that night [11/22/63]. 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."
Yes, Lt Day did dust the rifle for prints. We have the Tom Alye's video of Lt Day dusting the rifle by the sunlit window in the NW corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD..... And we know that Day found some prints ( or what he thought was a print) because Alyea saw him lift the print with cellophane tape. ( Alyea said he filmed Day as he lifted the print and placed it on a small white card)
Savage says ...."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."
Really??!!.... A palm print allegedly lifted from a 5/8 inch diameter barrel ( the size of a AA penlight battery) .... A print on a metal tube of 5/8 " would not be identifiable by an amateur or for that matter probably not even a trained finger print man. However I don't doubt that Savage really believes that he saw the print that Day said he found on that small diameter barrel.... But IMO what Savage saw (and what we've all seen ) is Lee Oswald's print that was lifted from a FLAT SURFACE and placed on that small white card. The print on the card shows no sign of distortion that would be apparent if the print had been lifted from a small round surface. We know that the print covers about 3/4 of an inch of the 1 inch wide cellophane tape ....3/4 of an inch would be nearly half way around the barrel of the carcano. How could any person deposit a palm print on the small round tube without distorting the print ???
-
Because Day "forgot" to tell the FBI about the magic partial palmprint.
Or maybe the so called print was non existent at the time that FBI agent Drain received the card on 11/22/63.... Day had lifted what he imagined to be a palm print on the wooden foregrip of the rifle just after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet that was 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall. Tom Alyea said that he filmed Day as he lifted the print with cellophane tape. But when Day got back to the lab he realized that what he imagined to be a print was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge. But the FBI wanted all of the evidence, so he included the 3 X 5 card and sent it along with the other evidence.
-
Considering how incompetent the DPD were, Fritz had the case "cinched" in record time.
The DPD also forwarded all that "cinched" investigatory info to Hoover in less than 24 hours, so he could spitball with Johnson over how, "The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction."
Hoover and Johnson sure knew a lot about Oswald, based on less than 24 hrs of sleuthing. That must be some kinda record, especially for the Keystone Cops DPD. Fritz even staged the crime scene to speed things up.
-
Or maybe the so called print was non existent at the time that FBI agent Drain received the card on 11/22/63.... Day had lifted what he imagined to be a palm print on the wooden foregrip of the rifle just after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet that was 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall. Tom Alyea said that he filmed Day as he lifted the print with cellophane tape. But when Day got back to the lab he realized that what he imagined to be a print was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge. But the FBI wanted all of the evidence, so he included the 3 X 5 card and sent it along with the other evidence.
Cool fabrication, bro.
-
Cool fabrication, bro.
Fabricated (constructed) from FACTS.....
-
Considering how incompetent the DPD were, Fritz had the case "cinched" in record time.
The DPD also forwarded all that "cinched" investigatory info to Hoover in less than 24 hours, so he could spitball with Johnson over how, "The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction."
Hoover and Johnson sure knew a lot about Oswald, based on less than 24 hrs of sleuthing. That must be some kinda record, especially for the Keystone Cops DPD. Fritz even staged the crime scene to speed things up.
Fritz told the reporters that Lee got on a bus then left the bus and caught a cab home ( the roominghouse) where he changed his clothes and then went to the movies, where he was encountered by Officer Tippit and Oswald shot him.
This was a live report from "probably the most astute detective in the entire Southwest"... LOL!
-
If they had Ozzie's print on the murder weapon on the 22nd why is JEH telling the POTUS on the 23rd that the case against LHO isn't strong enough to get a conviction?
"JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, page 110:
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."
The above is a quote by Rusty Livingston (who was right there at the time the rifle was turned over to the FBI). 8)
-
Because Day "forgot" to tell the FBI about the magic partial palmprint.
"JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, page 110:
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."
The above is a quote by Rusty Livingston (who was right there at the time the rifle was turned over to the FBI). 8)
-
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. They had the actual print there in the office that night [11/22/63]. 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."
Yes, Lt Day did dust the rifle for prints. We have the Tom Alye's video of Lt Day dusting the rifle by the sunlit window in the NW corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD..... And we know that Day found some prints ( or what he thought was a print) because Alyea saw him lift the print with cellophane tape. ( Alyea said he filmed Day as he lifted the print and placed it on a small white card)
Savage says ...."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."
Really??!!.... A palm print allegedly lifted from a 5/8 inch diameter barrel ( the size of a AA penlight battery) .... A print on a metal tube of 5/8 " would not be identifiable by an amateur or for that matter probably not even a trained finger print man. However I don't doubt that Savage really believes that he saw the print that Day said he found on that small diameter barrel.... But IMO what Savage saw (and what we've all seen ) is Lee Oswald's print that was lifted from a FLAT SURFACE and placed on that small white card. The print on the card shows no sign of distortion that would be apparent if the print had been lifted from a small round surface. We know that the print covers about 3/4 of an inch of the 1 inch wide cellophane tape ....3/4 of an inch would be nearly half way around the barrel of the carcano. How could any person deposit a palm print on the small round tube without distorting the print ???
Savage says ...."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."
Wake up there Walt! Go back and read it again. Savage didn't say that, Rusty Livingston (DPD Crime Lab Detective) said that.
-
The words of DPD Crime Lab Detective R.W. (Rusty) Livingston:
"JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, pages 77-78
"... 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. They had the actual print there in the office that night [11/22/63]. 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." ... "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."
Additional words by Gary Savage (pages 79-80):
...Today some assassination researchers do not believe that Lieutenant Day actually did lift the palm print of Oswald frim the rifle. He 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.
Does anyone here know of any words (quotations or otherwise) by any of the Dallas Police Crime Lab officers that would either confirm or contradict this?
Thanks Charles, the rifle had to touch Oswald's palm to leave a print and considering that Oswald wasn't accessible after a few days, the stupid conspiracy theory that the palmprint "magically" turned up a week later is only endorsed by the extremely desperate.
The FBI confirmed that Day's print had to have come from the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTKymFHY/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
This high res image of Day's print shows the random points that were used in matching the rifle prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGjXF1G/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
JohnM
-
Savage says ...."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."
Wake up there Walt! Go back and read it again. Savage didn't say that, Rusty Livingston (DPD Crime Lab Detective) said that.
I made the mistake of replying to Walt and discovered just how dishonest he really is, it's best to keep away.
JohnM
-
I made the mistake of replying to Walt and discovered just how dishonest he really is, it's best to keep away.
JohnM
Great!.... I have no desire to have any contact with you Mytton....
PS I can't possibly unseat you as the forums most dishonest cretin......
-
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."
Well, Livingston was loyal — I’ll give him that. Unfortunately it’s revisionist history from 30 years later.
CE 3145, p. 7:
“Lt. DAY related on that night he told only two people that he had made the tentative identification of the palm print obtained off the underside of the rifle barrel with that of the known palm print of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Lt. DAY stated these two individuals were Chief of Police JESSE E. CURRY of the Dallas Police Department and Homicide Captain WILL FR1TZ of the Dallas Police Department.”
By the way, both Curry and Fritz were stating publicly on 11/23 and 11/24 that they had no prints on the rifle. Day also refused to sign a statement about his alleged lifting of the print from the rifle.
-
The FBI confirmed that Day's print had to have come from the rifle.
“Had to have”. LOL.
Let’s see the analysis.
This high res image of Day's print shows the random points that were used in matching the rifle prints.
What “rifle prints”?
-
“Had to have”. LOL.
Let’s see the analysis.
What “rifle prints”?
“Had to have”. LOL.
Wow, "LOL" is such a witty response, I'm absolutely shattered.
Let’s see the analysis.
No worries.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjcsHZvq/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
JohnM
-
Well, Livingston was loyal — I’ll give him that. Unfortunately it’s revisionist history from 30 years later.
CE 3145, p. 7:
“Lt. DAY related on that night he told only two people that he had made the tentative identification of the palm print obtained off the underside of the rifle barrel with that of the known palm print of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Lt. DAY stated these two individuals were Chief of Police JESSE E. CURRY of the Dallas Police Department and Homicide Captain WILL FR1TZ of the Dallas Police Department.”
You're trying to hard Iacoletti, all of the above can be true, Day was still releasing evidence to Drain at 11:45 PM and it's possible that Day gathered the rifle and gave C2766 to Drain a little after midnight which means that Day was not lying when he said that he only told Fritz and Curry about the palm print on that night and then on the next day he told Drain about the rifle, and Livingston obviously heard what was being said to Drain, so everyone is clean, job done!
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with Commission Exhibit 677?
Mr. DAY. I released this, I released 677 to Vince Drain of the FBI, 11:45 p.m., November 22, 1963.
Day also refused to sign a statement about his alleged lifting of the print from the rifle.
Cite?
JohnM
-
Well, Livingston was loyal — I’ll give him that. Unfortunately it’s revisionist history from 30 years later.
CE 3145, p. 7:
“Lt. DAY related on that night he told only two people that he had made the tentative identification of the palm print obtained off the underside of the rifle barrel with that of the known palm print of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Lt. DAY stated these two individuals were Chief of Police JESSE E. CURRY of the Dallas Police Department and Homicide Captain WILL FR1TZ of the Dallas Police Department.”
By the way, both Curry and Fritz were stating publicly on 11/23 and 11/24 that they had no prints on the rifle. Day also refused to sign a statement about his alleged lifting of the print from the rifle.
Well, Livingston was loyal — I’ll give him that. Unfortunately it’s revisionist history from 30 years later.
Savage writes that not only Rusty, but Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown also saw and compared the palm print that weekend. And it was front page news on 11/24/63.
(https://i.vgy.me/Jhu1ap.png)
History? Yes! Revisionist? I don't think so!
“Lt. DAY related on that night he told only two people that he had made the tentative identification of the palm print obtained off the underside of the rifle barrel with that of the known palm print of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Lt. DAY stated these two individuals were Chief of Police JESSE E. CURRY of the Dallas Police Department and Homicide Captain WILL FR1TZ of the Dallas Police Department.”
The key words are: "that he had made the tentative identification." Nothing in that statement precludes Day telling Drain about a palm print on the rifle (and Livingston overhearing the conversation).
-
Thanks Charles, the rifle had to touch Oswald's palm to leave a print and considering that Oswald wasn't accessible after a few days, the stupid conspiracy theory that the palmprint "magically" turned up a week later is only endorsed by the extremely desperate.
The FBI confirmed that Day's print had to have come from the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTKymFHY/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
This high res image of Day's print shows the random points that were used in matching the rifle prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxGjXF1G/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)
JohnM
Thanks John, yes the FBI had to have been satisfied with that evidence which indicates that the palm print came from the rifle. Otherwise, it seems to me that they would have been questioning the other officers who worked in the Crime Lab to see if they had seen the palm print.
-
I made the mistake of replying to Walt and discovered just how dishonest he really is, it's best to keep away.
JohnM
I usually do. Thumb1:
-
I usually do. Thumb1:
It's not unusual for a person who is attempting to propagate a tale to avoid those who can easily expose the lies.
-
Wow, "LOL" is such a witty response, I'm absolutely shattered.
Who cares if you’re shattered? LOL is the only response your baseless claims deserve.
No worries.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjcsHZvq/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
Your morph of two photos of the same lift proves exactly nothing about the rifle. Try again.
-
Your morph of two photos of the same lift proves exactly nothing about the rifle. Try again.
Wrong, the Day print is being directly compared to the FBI print, check it yourself, you lose. But i am happy that you thought its the same print. Thumb1:
Btw you are really getting your ass kicked in this thread, but keep trying! LOL.
JohnM
-
You're trying to hard Iacoletti, all of the above can be true, Day was still releasing evidence to Drain at 11:45 PM and it's possible that Day gathered the rifle and gave C2766 to Drain a little after midnight which means that Day was not lying when he said that he only told Fritz and Curry about the palm print on that night and then on the next day he told Drain about the rifle, and Livingston obviously heard what was being said to Drain, so everyone is clean, job done!
Now who’s being desperate?
Cite?
Also in CE3145:
"Lt. Day stated he made a written report on January 8, 1964, to Mr. G. L. Lumpkin. Deputy of Police, Service Division of the Dallas Police Department. This report is set forth as requested of Lt. Day, and a copy of such report was furnished for transmittal to the President's Commission investigating the assassination pf President Kennedy. Lt. Day stated he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally on the lifting of the palm print from the underside of the rifle, which palm print was found when he examined the rifle on November 22, 1963, rather than to make a written signed statement."
-
Also in CE3145:
"Lt. Day stated he made a written report on January 8, 1964, to Mr. G. L. Lumpkin. Deputy of Police, Service Division of the Dallas Police Department. This report is set forth as requested of Lt. Day, and a copy of such report was furnished for transmittal to the President's Commission investigating the assassination pf President Kennedy. Lt. Day stated he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally on the lifting of the palm print from the underside of the rifle, which palm print was found when he examined the rifle on November 22, 1963, rather than to make a written signed statement."
So what, Day wasnt trying to hide anything, its just another worthless accusation.
JohnM
-
Now who’s being desperate?
Also in CE3145:
"Lt. Day stated he made a written report on January 8, 1964, to Mr. G. L. Lumpkin. Deputy of Police, Service Division of the Dallas Police Department. This report is set forth as requested of Lt. Day, and a copy of such report was furnished for transmittal to the President's Commission investigating the assassination pf President Kennedy. Lt. Day stated he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally on the lifting of the palm print from the underside of the rifle, which palm print was found when he examined the rifle on November 22, 1963, rather than to make a written signed statement."
You are trying to make what the document actually said into something that is obviously untrue. When did "he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally" become "he refused to sign a statement"?
-
Savage writes that not only Rusty, but Pete Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown also saw and compared the palm print that weekend. And it was front page news on 11/24/63.
Not only does that article say nothing about a print in a rifle, but even if it did it would tell you nothing about who saw what on 11/22.
And how did Livingston, Barnes, Williams, and Brown see something that Day didn’t tell anybody about?
The key words are: "that he had made the tentative identification." Nothing in that statement precludes Day telling Drain about a palm print on the rifle (and Livingston overhearing the conversation).
So we’re to believe that Day tentatively identified the only print evidence they had that connected Oswald to the rifle on the 22nd and didn’t bother to mention that detail to the “distracted” Drain (distracted by what, a heart attack?) or to anybody else, but that somehow 4 other guys in the office came to the same conclusion without Day telling them?
And then somehow when the rifle was in transit, it lost any evidence that it had been processed with fingerprint powder, as well as losing the traces of print that Day claimed were still there.
Seems legit.
-
Thanks John, yes the FBI had to have been satisfied with that evidence which indicates that the palm print came from the rifle.
All we know is that Hoover was satisfied. You know, the guy whose stated objective was to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin?
-
All we know is that Hoover was satisfied. You know, they guy whose stated objective was to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin?
Wrong again, Hoover was satisfied because he had the evidence of the two prints showing a perfect match. Hahaha!
JohnM
-
Wrong, the Day print is being directly compared to the FBI print, check it yourself, you lose. But i am happy that you thought its the same print. Thumb1:
Sorry, is this supposed to prove that Day’s lift “had to have come from the rifle“?
How do we even know your smudge with arrows came from the rifle?
I said let’s see the analysis, not another one of your contrived morphs. Or did Hoover do this himself?
-
You are trying to make what the document actually said into something that is obviously untrue. When did "he preferred to let the written report speak for itself and would rather elaborate orally" become "he refused to sign a statement"?
“rather than to make a written signed statement.”
-
Wrong again, Hoover was satisfied because he had the evidence of the two prints showing a perfect match. Hahaha!
“Perfect match”. That’s another LOL.
-
Sorry, is this supposed to prove that Day’s lift “had to have come from the rifle“?
How do we even know your smudge with arrows came from the rifle?
I said let’s see the analysis, not another one of your contrived morphs. Or did Hoover do this himself?
Run Iacoletti run, the two images show precisely the same flaws in the exact same places.
Btw the analysis is the perfect match of the random imperfections, my "morph" only reinforces the FBI, try to keep up, k?
JohnM
-
Run Iacoletti run, the two images show precisely the same flaws in the exact same places.
How do we know that your cherry-picked 5 dots are “flaws” and not for example dust on the camera lens? What about the other dots on the photo of the Day lift that don’t correspond?
Where on the rifle was the test lift made, and how did the FBI even know the exact spot where Day did his alleged lift?
Like I said, let’s see the actual FBI analysis, not Hoover’s claim.
Your morphs, as usual, prove nothing.
-
How do we know that your cherry-picked 5 dots are “flaws” and not for example dust on the camera lens?
Where on the rifle was the test lift made, and how did the FBI even know the exact spot where Day did his alleged lift?
Like I said, let’s see the FBI actual analysis, not Hoover’s claim.
Your morphs, as usual, prove nothing.
So both cameras had random dust dots that matched perfectly? Keep digging this is hilarious? LOLOLOL!
Btw my alternating gifs aren't morphs but whatever floats your boat.
JohnM
-
Sorry, is your alternating gif supposed to prove that Day’s lift “had to have come from the rifle“?
-
Sorry, is your alternating gif supposed to prove that Day’s lift “had to have come from the rifle“?
No need to be sorry, the evidence shows the two prints came from the same rifle and if for whatever reason you think you see something different then good for you.
JohnM
-
No need to be sorry, the evidence shows the two prints came from the same rifle and if for whatever reason you think you see something different then good for you.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hoover actually did a lift from the same spot that Day allegedly did (even though there’s no evidence of it), and these cherry-picked 5 spots are “flaws” (even though there’s no evidence of it).
How many points of identification are required (for example in fingerprints) for something to be considered a match (much less a “perfect” match)?
-
Not only does that article say nothing about a print in a rifle, but even if it did it would tell you nothing about who saw what on 11/22.
And how did Livingston, Barnes, Williams, and Brown see something that Day didn’t tell anybody about?
So we’re to believe that Day tentatively identified the only print evidence they had that connected Oswald to the rifle on the 22nd and didn’t bother to mention that detail to the “distracted” Drain (distracted by what, a heart attack?) or to anybody else, but that somehow 4 other guys in the office came to the same conclusion without Day telling them?
And then somehow when the rifle was in transit, it lost any evidence that it had been processed with fingerprint powder, as well as losing the traces of print that Day claimed were still there.
Seems legit.
Not only does that article say nothing about a print in a rifle, but even if it did it would tell you nothing about who saw what on 11/22.
Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24-year old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the Triple Underpass. "We've got a print that matches Oswald's," one investigator said.
The article is typical in that it protects the sources by not naming them. You can make your ad hoch assumptions (about what you believe "the evidence" was) to support whatever you believe in. However, a logical assumption (based on the actual evidence) is that the evidence referred to in the article is the palm print found on the rifle.
or to anybody else
He stated that he told Curry and Fritz. These are the ones who were asking. The others could have made the comparison without Day telling them that he had tentatively matched them. After all, Livingston says that he overheard that there was a palmprint found on the rifle.
-
The article is typical in that it protects the sources by not naming them. You can make your ad hoch assumptions (about what you believe "the evidence" was) to support whatever you believe in. However, a logical assumption (based on the actual evidence) is that the evidence referred to in the article is the palm print found on the rifle.
What’s “logical” about it? The article doesn’t say “rifle” or “palmprint”.
-
What’s “logical” about it? The article doesn’t say “rifle” or “palmprint”.
Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24-year old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the Triple Underpass. "We've got a print that matches Oswald's," one investigator said
A print that matches Oswald's found on the rifle would leave little doubt that he held the rifle. At the time the article was written (11/23/63, appeared in 11/24/63 morning paper) the evidence indicates that the only print that was tentatively matched (by Carl Day) to Oswald's was the palm print.
-
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hoover actually did a lift from the same spot that Day allegedly did (even though there’s no evidence of it), and these cherry-picked 5 spots are “flaws” (even though there’s no evidence of it).
How many points of identification are required (for example in fingerprints) for something to be considered a match (much less a “perfect” match)?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Hoover actually did a lift from the same spot that Day allegedly did (even though there’s no evidence of it), and these cherry-picked 5 spots are “flaws” (even though there’s no evidence of it).
You already said in your first reply to me that my "morph" was the same lift, so why are you inventing doubt? This is explosive evidence and I should have looked closer at the FBI print a long time ago.
How many points of identification are required (for example in fingerprints) for something to be considered a match (much less a “perfect” match)?
When we have 1 dot we can't really say that the dot is unique, now when we have 2 dots in 2 random locations we have a stronger connection and the chances that 2 random flaws are in the same place becomes a lot less probable, then as you go up the number of connections between these random points increases, for example point 1's position is directly proportional to points 2, 3 4 and 5 and point 2 is directly proportional to 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so on. And another match is the relative sizes of each of the imperfections which independently dramatically increases the odds.
So getting back to your question as soon as you're matching three or more random points the chances of a coincidence happening becomes astronomical.
Btw I only used the FBI points, if you look closely there is more matching points, it's a slam dunk.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjcsHZvq/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTKymFHY/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
JohnM
-
You already said in your first reply to me that my "morph" was the same lift, so why are you inventing doubt? This is explosive evidence and I should have looked closer at the FBI print a long time ago.
When we have 1 dot we can't really say that the dot is unique, now when we have 2 dots in 2 random locations we have a stronger connection and the chances that 2 random flaws are in the same place becomes a lot less probable, then as you go up the number of connections between these random points dramatically increases, for example point 1's position is directly proportional to points 2, 3 4 and 5 and point 2 is directly proportional to 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so on.
So getting back to your question as soon as you're matching three or more random points the chances of a coincidence happening becomes astronomical.
Btw I only used the FBI points, if you look closely there is more matching points, it's a slam dunk.
JohnM
Thank you for not making another stupid morph. How about making another animated GIF showing how the print itself matches up relative to the 5 points for both lifts? Otherwise, all your GIF shows is that the 2 lifts "could" have been taken from the same surface. But we have to take everything from Day and the FBI with a grain of salt because the provenance for this evidence is shot due to the obvious rush to judgement and the dearth of Oswald's prints.
Make another blinking GIF matching up at least 12 points between the lift and Oswald's palm print. Apparently, a match was so blatantly obvious that several investigators could "eye-ball" a match. Keep in mind that the FBI discounted a 14+ point match to Malcolm Wallace's print found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, conducted by expert Nathan Darby. The FBI just came back with 3 words, "not a match". Darby went back and made a 34 point match, which would get anyone convicted except for a known killer.
We need to see the forensic fingerprint analysis on the palm print with the 12+ points identified as matching minus the amateur eye-baller opinions.
I don't doubt there is a match, but Oswald the patsy did NOT leave 1 partial palm print on the disassembled rifle barrel and nowhere else on the rifle. The odds of that are astronomical unless Oswald wore gloves or wiped the rifle down before fleeing the scene. However, there is no evidence that either is true.
Conclusion: Oswald never touched the rifle Nov 22, while he was still alive so he couldn't have taken any shots. It's more likely the FBI/DPD wiped off his prints before planting it in the TSBD because they had to wipe off everyone else's prints including the guy that took some shots into a swimming pool to create CE399. D'oh!
A military marksman is only as good as his level of practice and Oswald never practiced with the rifle, otherwise, he would have sighted-in the scope. Every military marksman knows not to rely on assassinating the POTUS with a misaligned scope, so why would Oswald have kept a useless scope on the rifle if he never intended to use it? Ans: he wouldn't have and didn't. Patsy.
-
How about making another animated GIF showing how the print itself matches up relative to the 5 points for both lifts? Otherwise, all your GIF shows is that the 2 lifts "could" have been taken from the same surface.
Here you go, the FBI lift and the high res Oswald Palm Print that Day lifted are both easily available for comparison, check for yourself and you'll see a lot more than just "5" matches, it's a touchdown, yay team!
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjcsHZvq/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTKymFHY/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
JohnM
-
Here you go, the FBI lift and the high res Oswald Palm Print that Day lifted are both easily available for comparison, check for yourself and you'll see a lot more than just "5" matches, it's a touchdown, yay team!
Good thing you modified your last unhinged post. I was beginning to think you were a dufus. ??? As usual, you just don't have a clue what I or anyone else is saying. I know you think that matching up the 5 marks proves something but what? That Day and the FBI lifted a smudge from the same surface? So fricken what? Their credibility was shot long ago, what about the "prints"?
Make yourself useful for a change and create a definitive blinking GIF showing a match between the alleged print on the rifle and Oswald's hand print. Regurgitating anything created by Day and the FBI is a fool's errand. That's like claiming the WC report is true because Warren himself said so.
JTrojan
-
You already said in your first reply to me that my "morph" was the same lift,
That’s because you previously posted an “alternating gif” of two versions of the alleged Day lift, and I didn’t notice that this was a new one.
So getting back to your question as soon as you're matching three or more random points the chances of a coincidence happening becomes astronomical.
Making up statistics doesn’t really help your argument. Nor does claiming that dots are “matching flaws” just because you lined up two photographs and stuck arrows on them.
-
That’s because you previously posted an “alternating gif” of two versions of the alleged Day lift, and I didn’t notice that this was a new one.
Making up statistics doesn’t really help your argument. Nor does claiming that dots are “matching flaws” just because you lined up two photographs and stuck arrows on them.
That’s because you previously posted an “alternating gif” of two versions of the alleged Day lift, and I didn’t notice that this was a new one.
There's a lot of things you don't notice but thankfully I'm aware of what's going on, just stick with me and you'll go far.
Making up statistics doesn’t really help your argument.
I don't need to make up anything, the rifle imperfections are out of my control, anyway it's all just random points and the coincidental likeliness of consecutive events. It's similar to the chances that 5 random people win the lottery twice in a row, it simply doesn't happen.
Nor does claiming that dots are “matching flaws” just because you lined up two photographs and stuck arrows on them.
Once again you want to focus all your rage at me but all I'm doing is illustrating and pointing out what the FBI already determined over 50 years ago.
JohnM
-
Make yourself useful for a change and create a definitive blinking GIF showing a match between the alleged print on the rifle and Oswald's hand print. Regurgitating anything created by Day and the FBI is a fool's errand. That's like claiming the WC report is true because Warren himself said so.
JTrojan
I'm always useful and I'm not going to make a GIF because a multitude of people have confirmed that the palm print was Oswald's.
It might be better to take the prints to a neutral expert and see what they say?
But even then you go on to dispute Day so what's the point?
JohnM
-
I'm always useful and I'm not going to make a GIF because a multitude of people have confirmed that the palm print was Oswald's.
It might be better to take the prints to a neutral expert and see what they say?
But even then you go on to dispute Day so what's the point?
JohnM
you go on to dispute Day so what's the point?
And you think that Detective Day is beyond criticism ...... His word is the gospel.... Is that what you think Mytton?
-
you go on to dispute Day so what's the point?
And you think that Detective Day is beyond criticism ...... His word is the gospel.... Is that what you think Mytton?
You promised you weren't going to reply to me and I respect a man who keeps his promises.
JohnM
-
I don't need to make up anything, the rifle imperfections are out of my control, anyway it's all just random points and the coincidental likeliness of consecutive events. It's similar to the chances that 5 random people win the lottery twice in a row, it simply doesn't happen.
In fact it’s not similar to that in any way.
Once again you want to focus all your rage at me but all I'm doing is illustrating and pointing out what the FBI already determined over 50 years ago.
What makes you think I’m rageful? What we have from 50 years ago is a claim from Hoover — nothing more. I know you have trouble differentiating claims from evidence.
-
I'm always useful
You misspelled “useless”.
and I'm not going to make a GIF because a multitude of people have confirmed that the palm print was Oswald's.
“A multitude of people”. LOL.
It might be better to take the prints to a neutral expert and see what they say?
But even then you go on to dispute Day so what's the point?
Agreed. Even if you could demonstrate that the print on the index card is Oswald’s (by whatever criteria), that tells you nothing about who shot Kennedy.
-
Agreed. Even if you could demonstrate that the print on the index card is Oswald’s (by whatever criteria), that tells you nothing about who shot Kennedy.
What would be useful is to see which of the "multitude" of people are FOS and part of the cover up. If the palm print matches Oswald's it doesn't tell us anything, but if it doesn't match or can't be resolved, especially by non-experts eye-balling the print and claiming a match, then the multitude has some splainin' to do. More rush to judgement grist for the CT mill.
It's no wonder Mytton doesn't want to go there.
-
You promised you weren't going to reply to me and I respect a man who keeps his promises.
JohnM
You're confused....I made no such promise... I did say that I had no desire to engage in a debate with you because you're totally dishonest. ( you're not even honest with yourself)