Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[Rob Caprio]

The HSCA was a neutral investigation who erroneously discovered and presented evidence of a conspiracy, had their firearms panel examine the same fragments as Frazier and they all agreed that the same fragments were fired from Oswald's rifle. The evidence still exists and these experts would be aware that there reputation was on the line because at any time in the future anyone good or evil could examine this evidence, so what could all these men from across two decades be possibly hiding and why?

JohnM

A neutral investigation? LOL. It may have started out that way, but it sure didn't stay that way for long. Expert witness testimony is nothing but OPINION when it isn't supported by corroborating evidence. The WC had NONE and the HSCA had NONE.

LHO was entitled to have his own expert witnesses, but that never happened.

[Rob Caprio]

There are dozens of photos that clearly show the rifle is a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano.

So you can't cite a report, huh?

[Walt Cakebread]

So you can't cite a report, huh?

Pssst Robbie... Have you ever heard the old axiom.....  "A single picture is worth a thousand words."  ?

Well if one picture is worth a thousand words.... and there are dozens of photos that show the rifle and PROVE that it was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano, why would you want a written report??    Clearly you are irrational.

[Jerry Organ]

The only part of the palm that has useful prints is the heel of the palm...and the heel would not contact a rifle barrel that is the diameter of a AA pen light battery.   

There's a case where a palmprint partial was obtained from a .38 Special cartridge, which is considerably smaller than the Carcano rifle barrel (roughly 3/8" vs. 5/8").


The print in the study came from the "interdigital region" of the palm, not the area of the palm circled in CE 638.

"Detection and Identification of a Latent Palmprint on a Cartridge" by Michelle E. Waldron and Adrianne Walls, Published 2017 ( Link )

And further more Lt Day wrote ....Off undersidee of gun barrell"   

That means he was referring to no more than 1/4  of the circumference of the barrel (2.045") ... which means that the bottom of the barrel that Day referred to was about 1/2 inch wide. ( 1/4 of 2 inches.)  Anyway you slice it a man could not deposit an identifiable palm print on a 1/2 inch strip of that round gun barrel.

Day could have meant the bulk of the print was on the "underside." What's he going to do? Write "underside of the barrel, with about 30% more on the right side of the barrel and about 20% more on the left side of the barrel"?

[Jerry Organ]

LHO was entitled to have his own expert witnesses, but that never happened.

Well, with people like you (and Wecht, Fetzer, Cinque, Prudhomme, Groden, Waldon and Marsh) as "expert witnesses", we see how that turned out.

[Howard Gee]

which means that the bottom of the barrel that Day referred to was about 1/2 inch wide. ( 1/4 of 2 inches.)

Nope. If the barrel is two inches wide, the top and bottom sides are both two inches wide. What makes you think the underside of the barrel is narrower than the top side ?

Were the bottom sides of the Red Rings narrower than the top sides ?   

More 'bottom of the barrel' nonsense from Walt. Get your head out !

[Jerry Freeman]

Have you ever heard the old axiom.....  "A single picture is worth a thousand words."  ?

This is from the Gil Jesus blog page....[Note the red circles]

Photo in the HSCA Report. Where is the sling/mounts? [On the other side?]
 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95#relPageId=449&tab=page
 

ATTEMPTED MURDER OF GENERAL WALKER
The WC tried to link Oswald and Mannlicher Carcano C2766 to the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker on April 10th 1963. In 1978 the HSCA commissioned Neutron activation tests on the remnants of the bullet CE 573 fired at Walker. The tests were conducted by Dr Vincent P. Guinn who testified that CE573 was "rather characteristic of WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullet ." This language was typical of that used throughout the WC and HSCA investigations and tends to mislead rather than inform. There was no such thing as a "Mannlicher Carcano bullet". What Dr Guinn should have said was "a 6.5MM WCC bullet that was suitable for a range of weapons including a Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM."

 
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mauser_reports.htm
 So much for the 'experts'.
 

[Walt Cakebread]

There's a case where a palmprint partial was obtained from a .38 Special cartridge, which is considerably smaller than the Carcano rifle barrel (roughly 3/8" vs. 5/8").


The print in the study came from the "interdigital region" of the palm, not the area of the palm circled in CE 638.

"Detection and Identification of a Latent Palmprint on a Cartridge" by Michelle E. Waldron and Adrianne Walls, Published 2017 ( Link )

Day could have meant the bulk of the print was on the "underside." What's he going to do? Write "underside of the barrel, with about 30% more on the right side of the barrel and about 20% more on the left side of the barrel"?

First things first.... Thank you, for replying with and an intelligent debate......   I sincerely appreciate your engaging the discussion with your views.   Now if only you could admit that the photo of the so called "palm print" clearly shows that the photo is NOT of the bottom of the steel rifle barrel.    The slot at the right hand side clearly reveals that the so called palm prinr was lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano.   

And... as you have acknowledged in saying....Day could have meant the bulk of the print was on the "underside." What's he going to do? Write "underside of the barrel, with about 30% more on the right side of the barrel and about 20% more on the left side of the barrel"?

There is a right SIDE, a left SIDE, a TOP . and a BOTTOM of the barrel ...and each constitutes 1/4 of the circumference, and in the case of the carcano barrel that BOTTOM quarter that Day wrote about is about 1/2 inch across .... if Day was referring to the metal barrel....(But he wasn't referring to the METAL barrel at the time he inscribed the 3 X 5 card, he was referring to the WOODEN forgrip) 

If a man grabbed that barrel why would only a 1/2 inch of his palm  come in contact with the metal barrel?